X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:00:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: On limiting posts ...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I think this has gone on long enough, so please refrain from any long
replies to this post, since it must be getting tiring to others here.

In article <tfilt421079@drew.edu>, jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.
   EDU> writes:

[recent editing fiascos deleted]

>
> O.k., so your position is that all 'suppression of speech' is censorship,
> and that some censorship is o.k., since there are other concerns (such
> as keeping the peace and keeping private homes private).
>
> My point is that it makes more sense to reserve the phrase 'censorship'
> for just those cases of unjustified suppression of speech.  Otherwise,
> what word would we use for those cases?

I just used a dictionary definition of the word -- that is where I got
"suppression of speech" from.  I really don't think unjustified
suppression of speech is what censorship means because you are still
censoring it.  Take for instance yesterday's Marvin comic strip (don't
know if you saw it or not).  The joke was that they censored his nude
butt.  Even if the family audiences of the comic makes this justified,
it's still "censored", isn't it?  When kids can't see R rated movies,
this is censoring their speech, isn't it?  At least that is how the
word often is used. [i.e. t.v. network censors censor both stuff they
should and shouldn't; you feel they only are semi-censors since when
they supress stuff that is "justified", they aren't censoring it]

>>> *ahhhh* Well, I didn't mean the proposal in any serious way.  But
>>
>>ahhhh, well when we finally get to the nitty gritty you try to beg off
>>:-)
>
> ?

The main point of my original message was that limiting posts to this
newsgroup was a bad idea (this was the "nitty gritty" or core part
message; did the slang throw you?).  After critizing my editing, you
said that you didn't seriously support limits (you said you did, so you
are "begging off" from your comment; again a bit of slang, which seems
common enough), and you agreed with me that limiting posts in _this_
newsgroup was a bad idea.  So you basically agreed with my main
argument, even though you differed on definitions of censorship.


>>> I can give you the precise details of how I would make those
>>> decisions, if you really want to hear about it.
>>>
>>> --Jimbo
>>
>>go ahead
>>
>>  -Joe
>
> O.k.  I think that there are a couple of routes this kind of thing
> could take.
>
[deleted but admits they are "tricky" thus strengthening my point that
limiting posts is a bad idea, at least to have the openest debate as
possible]

> What kind of posts should the moderator NOT publish?  Well, for starters,
> and I hate to be too rude, but your original post in this little conversation
> was really bad.  You shouldn't have written it and sent it, and a moderator
> should not have published it.
>
> --Jimbo

flame on
you are being rude.  My bad editing aside (and my bad attempt at humor
at the end), the post was on the flaws of censorship.  You made my
point very well.  Even though you understood what I had to say (and it
is a rather ordinary libertarian viewpoint), you think it is worthy of
suppression (censorship).  Why?  I presume your lessons in editing
are more important than my original message?  Woe is those who need
improvement in proper phrasing, since their message is less important
than a slew of posts calling Robert an idiot.  Flame off.

      -Joe

P.S. the length this "little conversation" has taken and the personal
nature it ends on shows it to be an example of a type of post that
people should refrain from including here.  It is a waste of space and
starts petty arguments to start having personal spiffs on the group on
one's idiot nature or how one should introduce different words
starting with the letter "h".  It surely is as bad as those people who
suffer through my various bad editing.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU