From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject:  Final Reponse to Jim Spew (Was: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights)
Followup-To: rec.games.mud.tiny
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:23:05 GMT

jgm@ais.org (jim miller) writes:
>rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) writes:

>>2) I believe that apartheid is wrong.  I believe that apartheid is morally
>>unethical.  I do not believe that blacks have rights under apartheid, because
>>that's what apartheid's all about -- denying privileges to the other guys.
>>Rights are what the oppressed in South Africa *are trying to get*.
>
>I think we almost got ya there, Felix.  Ignore the word "rights" for a
>minute.  Based on your paragraph 2 above, it seems like you believe
>that there is some basic human privilege, or entitlement, or need,
>that the blacks in South Africa deserve, but are not getting.  They
>don't have the *power* to get it right now, but they deserve it
>nonetheless.

You tedious, twitching jackal, it doesn't "seem like" anything of the sort.
Believing that apartheid is wrong has nothing to do with believing in a
mystical set of "basic" (objective) human privileges, and certainly doesn't
entail anything about "entitlements."

>1.  Explain the substantive difference between the elusive "it"
>    the blacks in South Africa don't have, and the lofty, muddle-
>    headed "rights" that Ken and I go on about but in which there's
>    no point because it's just a silly abstraction unless there's
>    someone with a sharp stick present to dole them out. 

The blacks in South Africa don't have (subjective) rights because those
in power are not willing to give them any.

The idiots in North America are babbling about (objective) rights because
they rather pathetically believe that if you call a duck a fish long enough,
it'll grow fins and swim away.

> In
>    particular, what is your basis for your belief that apartheid
>    is "morally unethical", and what is the difference between
>    that basis and the brand of pointless abstraction that Ken
>    'n' Friends are apt to bandy about in this forum with such
>    distressing singlemindedness?

I believe apartheid is morally unethical because, like you, I've grown
fond of the decadent pleasures of Western Civilization and think it's
kinda nifty.

Unlike you (I mean really, Ken has *other* friends?), I don't foster the
utterly stupid notion that the goodness of Western Civilization means
that it universally applies.  For instance, I don't believe that a sheep's
rights are being violated by a pack of wolves in the wild.  I believe,
instead, that anyone who would say such crap needs to stop taking acid,
apply for a local community college, and buy a cheap dictionary.

>2.  You now say that you are not against ethics on muds.  Why
>    is the project of trying to improve ethics on muds a target
>    of your ridicule? 

The project, as espoused by yourself, calls for 'forceful documents'
to impose restrictions upon mud administrators' behavior.  The project,
as espoused by Ken, is based on the fact that objective rights exist,
and that they must only be better applied to the situation.  One of
you morons stated that muds are very much like amusement parks in civilized
Western nations -- neglecting for the moment the fact that one pays to
get into amusement parks, amongst other things.  Is it any wonder that 
such pathetically illogical and insulting effluvium is laughed at?

> In particular, you cite that mud players
>    do not have "rights" guaranteed to them.  Compare this situation
>    to that of the blacks in South Africa.  They do not have
>    "rights", in your sense, and they, just like mud players, often
>    suffer mistreatment within their respective domains.  But
>    apparently it *is* desirable to improve the situation for
>    South African blacks.  Would you balk at doing so because,
>    at some relief conference, it was consistently asserted that
>    these blacks have *rights*?  But they don't.  Or do they?

And if you're not comparing muds to hotels in western countries, you're
comparing mud players to the oppressed blacks in South Africa.  I don't
know what it is with you jarheads.  Don't you fall over laughing at your
keyboard when you type "they, just like mud players, often suffer
mistreatment within their respective domains."?  If getting shot in
the head and dragged through the streets or refused medical treatment
or whipped to death in front of one's family is on the same wavelength
to you as getting @toaded or having your non-private communications in
a public room intruded upon, then you need to seek immediate, professional
medical help.

But let's disregard the nausea caused by your insulting comparison and
falter further into the insanity of auzzieism.  It's suggested that I'd
balk at improving the situation in South Africa because Ken would be
sitting in the front row, misusing the word "rights."  

Let me point out that improving the situation in South Africa means granting
control of a homeland to the indigenous peoples of the land and expulsing 
a subsociety of racist maniacs.

Let me go on to note that "improving the situation" in muddom has not even
shown need by a distinguishable minority of the population.  Further, 
muddom is not western civilization, nor will it ever be.  Further, I have
provided a workable solution that guarantees that no player will ever be
compromised again by anyone for any reason, and that the yammering 
rabble-of-two has only weakly ignored it.  I'm not sure what else it takes,
and for that reason, this is my final post on the subject.

To reiterate the complete solution, a player may use public key cryptography
to ensure that any text he or she generates on a mud is unreadable except
by the reader(s) to whom it is intended.  This solves immediately the quasi-
problem of privacy (which, as it turns out, the administrator cannot
guarantee), the spoofing problem, and the tinysex-log problem.  The only
problems remaining have to do with whether or not a person has a right to
use someone else's service without interruption or permanent removal, and
even in Western Civilization -- which muddom is not -- that person loses.

The solution is hereby placed in the public domain, and is extremely easy
to implement even modest subsets of using standard client software.  Would-
be authors of public key cryptoclients are invited to communicate with me
about any problems they might have.

>Papers are due in by Saturday at noon.  As always, neatness counts.

Seek therapy, jimmy.

>-- 
>"Consider a lion, sneaking up to rip an innocent gazelle into shreds.  Is
>this morally wrong, should the gazelle get a fighting chance, should we
>step in and declare that gazelles have rights too?  Of course not."
>                      - Felix Gallo, on why mud users don't have rights
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------