From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>All or most of language is metaphorical but there's a reason for
>>metaphor.
>
>Yes, it's to give us the ability to express *new* concepts, not to
>express old ones (at least, not outside of art).

Oh?  Are you going to enforce the perimeter of "art?"  

Among other things, unix is literature...art.  Its use of "kill" files
is therefore open to psychoanalysis.  Among other things, programming is
writing.  I know that certain parties would have us believe that
programming is something else, perhaps the language of the gods.  But
nope, programming is writing.  Written by human beings who sometimes
have the urge to kill.  Indeed, much code for the network originated in
war-making "defense" applications and is doubly freighted with a
murderous purpose.

>
>>It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
>>real-life,
>
>Go into a little more detail than that or I (and others, I hope) will
>publicly assume (rightfully) that you mean that CPU time can feed,
>clothe and shelter humans by itself. You're making yourself look silly
>again, this time by making blatant assertions that depend on such
>phantom authorities as "...it's well-known that...".

No, I mean that for Weizenbaum's "subculture of the compulsive
programmer", developing code can be an outlet for all sorts of impulses,
including destructive impulses.  

>
>>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>>showed him, he's in my kill file.)
>
>The term "destructive behavior", the way you used it, is too wide a term
>to mean much of anything. You imply that said "destructive behavior" is
>somehow bad, but no one can make an actual value judgment about it until
>we know what is being "destroyed". So, you have said nothing about the
>"destructive" nature of kill files.

Bzzt.  I did not "imply that said" (sic.)  You read that into the post.
I don't condemn all destructive behavior as bad, anymore than I condemn
all censorship.  I metaphorically "killed" Henry Schaffer in retaliation
for his terroristic lie.  

What I am saying (once more: this is like pulling teeth) is that the
defenders of "freedom" pose as nondestructive friends of free speech who
would not harm speakers, and that this is a false posture that is belied
by their use of kill files and other gambits that display intense
hostility towards open dialog.

>because it is fiat currency - it has no intrinsic value. Growing more
>food does not diminish the nutritional value of the food that I already
>have.

Unfortunately, speech is much closer to money than it is to food, for
(considerations of factory farms and "junk" food aside), food almost
always has SOME value, whereas much speech is of zero or negative value.
Surely, in your mind, MY speech does not have value; the fact that I
believe it does does not entail that YOU believe it does.



Newsgroups: misc.legal