From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: canceller's address again
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:31:47 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Jul20.220102.669@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>>Sorry, but I have no time for philosophical discussion on real issues.  
>
>This is exactly why your particular understanding of the issues causes
>you to react (as opposed to act or not-act) in a way that is counterproductive
>to your own goals. 
>
>>...when you try to use it to ignore what's out there I have no patience 
>
>Child abuse is not out there on the net (as you would have me believe).

1) Child abuse was not the "real issue" under discussion -- it was 
   copyright violation.  Which you also claim to not believe in.
   The "child abuse" business was drawing a parallel because it is
   a real issue (in the real world) that many people would like
   to ignore.

2) if it comes to that, whether "child abuse" exists on the net
   is another question for another group (talk.something I 
   suppose), but pedophiles have and do make use of computer
   bulletin boards for makeing "dates"......


>>"In an ideal society we would not need a death penalty" goes the  
>>refrain of those that oppose it.  
>
>Thank you for putting those words in my mouth (for I do oppose any
>death penalty). The crime is murder. Who commits that crime (society
>or an individual) makes no difference. Murder that is done "for the 
>common good" is no better than murder that isn't. 

Wasn't suggesting that you were saying this.  Again, it was a
parallel.  The *attitude* is the same.  If I don't acknowledge it,
it doesn't exist.

Just to keep things straight, the discussion here was focussing on
copyright violation as a valid reason for cancels to exist, it was
Jay Maynard who made the initial argument. an you replied (in msg 
<1992Jul15.191308.2249@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>):
	>I don't believe in copyright infringment on USENET.

I then compared this attitude to the people who want to ignore
child abuse (and other issues), saying effectively:
	"Since I don't believe in it, it doesn't exist".

That sort of attitude about anything tends to push my buttons,
I'll admit that.  However you are the one accusing me of not
being able to hold a conversation (excuse me, "handle symbols").

You have gone off on a tangent, taking comparisons of attitude
used to illustrate a point as the point itself.  The *point* is,
and has been, copyright violation.  Not child abuse.  Not the
death penalty.  If you cannot grasp the idea that the one attitude
resembles the other, don't blame me.  You obviously, however, do
*not* want to discuss the real, original, issue.  Your point
of view is there is no reason for cancels to exist, and when
given a reason your reply was a "I don't believe that copyright
infringement on USENET."  Keep your head in the sand.  This is
the last reply I'm giving to this sidetrack.  If you want to
get back to the real issue, I'd welcome a reasoned reply as to
why copyright violation doesn't exist on USENET.  "Reasoned"
meaning, give some *reasons* why you don't believe in it.
I still say "It exists.  It is against the law.  Whether you
believe in it or not."


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I am just a figment of your imagination...
			...what does that say about *your* mental health?