From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:33:12 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.200123.6569@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>     1.  Those folks have felt the shock and hurt of the metaphorical
>>>         murder of the "kill" file after attempting to join what they
>>>         thought was a dialogue (in this connection, Lyotard defines
>>>         terrorism, in The Postmodern Condition, as dialogue termina-
>>>         tion.)
>>
>>Oh no ... oh no, I can't resist ... bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
>
>Did you soil yourself, just now?
>
>>
>>Metaphorical murder??? The things that are being "killed" are
>>*messages*! Computer people use lots of animistic metaphors in the
>>course of their trades - that doesn't mean they think that computers
>>are living things. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to use
>>metaphors, Ed. You crack me up.
>
>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).

>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...".

>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.

>The true silliness is in denying
>this fact.
>
>>
>>"Metaphorical murder"? What a clown!
>
>You mean there's no such thing as metaphorical murder, no play acting,
>no "cutting people off at the knees" in business, no killing bugs in
>testing software?  I feel sorry for your apparent lack of imagination.

Ed, you really need to learn the difference between murder and killing.
The two are not the same. Murder is wrongfully arranging the death of a
person (whatever is considered a person), whereas killing is ending of
a life. Someone who kills an animal (assuming you believe said animal
is not a person) is not a murderer, but someone who hires another to
kill an innocent person is indeed a murderer.

I never said that there is no such thing as "metaphorical murder". Stop
putting words in my mouth, or at least tighten up how you draw
implications from what I say. Kill-files as metaphorical murder does
not make sense, was my point. See difference between murder and killing.

The greatest silliness of all is your confusing metaphrier and
metaphrand. "Killing" (not murder) in the kill-file metaphor is the
METAPHRIER - you know, the thing that enables the metaphor, not the
thing it portrays. Funny thing for a self-professed expert on
metaphors to do.

Go back to school (kindergarten, I mean - higher education doesn't seem
to be doing you any good).

>
>>
>>>
>>>     2.  Those folks know that free speech is neither the free discourse
>>>         of power (that's French for "shut up the boss is talkin")
>>>         nor the random speech which is ineffectual because it is
>>>         it is equated with all other forms of random speech, but
>>>         instead free speech has much to do with free EXCHANGE of
>>>         views.  Which of course kill files prevent.
>>
>>Free exchange of views does not mean forced listening. You do not own
>>another's time or his life, despite your attempts to lay claim on same.
>
>Oh?  Now if I speak at all, I lay claim on "owning" another's time.

No, if you say someone has to listen, then you lay claim on another's
time.

>Sounds like an excellent way to deprive people of free speech while
>granting formal, absolute free speech; for I have this wonderful free
>speech yet I cannot "force" (your word, nota bene) you to listen to me.

Actually, when the choice both to speak and to listen remain with the
individual, everyone's freedom is preserved.

>I was not forcing Starr to listen, only pointing out that his use of a
>kill file was an act of microcensorship.

Ignoring someone else is not censorship, forcing someone to shut up is.
The two are not the same.  Keep your definitions straight.

>I did not disapprove of
>Starr's microcensorship, for I myself did the same to Henry Schaffer
>because Henry Schaffer lies.  I only pointed out that it CONTRADICTS
>Starr's professed dedication to free speech.

See above difference between ignoring and muzzling for why there is NO
contradiction (except for *your* statements, Ed).

>
>New York's Penn Station is full of homeless people with "free speech",
>for these people hold conversations (some quite animated) with
>themselves.  Nobody listens.  I suggest that part of a vigorous support
>for freedom of speech is the willingness to listen and (although I
>confess that my own willingness stops when I am lied-to) this is what
>Starr did not display.

If someone has to listen when you say so, Ed, he doesn't control his
time, *you* do. He's not free when he has to answer to you.

>>
>>
>>Maybe those people you "distrust" see no difference between banning
>>the speech of "pornographers and punks" and having their own speech
>>controlled (same principles involved in each - just the details are
>>different)? Just a thought. :-)
>
>No, the same principles are NOT involved.  How dare you compare Martin
>Luther King to Viktora?

I never have. Other posts of mine have *contrasted* them. MLK never
lifted a finger against anyone (to my knowledge) while Viktora, in
burning a cross on that black family's lawn, was guilty of assault,
criminal trespass, and I don't know what else. He was acting like a
thug, and should have been slammed for acting like a thug.

>How dare you compare Bob Guccione to Thomas
>Jefferson?

So you say that TJ would never touch a copy of Penthouse. No, the only
difference between the two, from a freedom-of-speech perspective, is
that you don't like what Bob Guccione has to "say".

>Some of the entities enjoying "free speech" are only persons
>in the legal sense of the word, where legal personhood was introduced in
>19th century American law after the founders; it was not part of their
>intent.
>
>This is just nihilism in Constitutional robes.  I can make distinctions,
>I can see to it that the speech of pornographers and punks is allocated
>its due.

*I* can ignore them, if I wish - oh, I forgot, that's not an option, you
told me so.

>The value of money can be destroyed by running the printing
>presses at top speed, giving everybody the "freedom" of a million dollar
>income.  I suggest you nihilistically inflate the first amendment in the
>same way.

The only reason printing presses destroy the value of fiat currency is
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.

>
>Indeed, your posts are a reflection of your attitude.  You want the net
>to equate your childish "bwa ha ha ha" with what remains a serious
>questioning of the direction of the Supreme Court.

No, I wanted the net to know that I found your post funny, and I pointed
out what was so funny about it.

Where is your sarcasm, those cutting remarks I see so often in other
posts of yours? Are you trying to appear as the calm, collected,
rational party who never resorts to such callous, underhanded
tactics? Or do you think you would lose such a war if you joined in?
You do seem upset over being served as you have served other netters in
the past.

>You know you are at
>the level, with your silly post, of a Viktora and you want therefore to
>ensure that everyone else is at your low level, by law if necessary.

What a childish attempt to put thoughts in my head!

>
>>
>>>So I think
>>>good faith is on display when anyone who's been selected for
>>>metaphorical murder fights for her own free speech.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You got me again ... bwa ha ha ha ha!!!
>
>You need a towel?

.sig