From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Proposal: alt.herbalism
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:55:06 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: a68e7997d404efa4801de8db2aa7d382

georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>>georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>>>news@wolves.uucp I wrote:
>>>
>>>I strongly object to the formation of alt.herbalism. My concern is that
>>>it will become a haven for medical quackery. Participants will be
>>
>>	Fortunately, we are not necessarly bound what *you* think of the
>>groups purpose.  You are welcome to your opinions, but kindly allow
>>others the freedom to discuss what they wish.
>
>Hey, take it easy, "Wolfe of the Den." The purpose of this thread is for
>people to cast votes, not to start a flame. You make it sound as if people
>aren't entitled to an opinion on the proposal, unless their opinion is
>consistent with yours. That makes you the oppressor, not me.

	You seem to have problems reading Georgie.  I acknowledged your
own opinions right there.  You, in the rest of this message, make it
abundantly clear that you are not in favor of allowing others the
freedom of talking about something of which you don't approve.

	Second. This is an alt group.  There is no real voting, this is
asking the alt.net folks if there are any "technical" reasons for not
creating the group (e.g.  is this topic already covered elsewhere, is
the name out of bounds, etc.)   not for imposing restrictions on the
discussion because someone thinks that the topics are dangerous or
personally distasteful.

>>	Medical Science is not, despite your wishful thinking, an
>>"absolute truth".  Neither is any other kind of science or discipline an
>
>Now your motivation and perspective is clear. You hate medical doctors,
>and given your immature, rebellious attitude, I'd say you are about
>18 years old.

	Wrong on both counts.  You seem to have a serious
misunderstanding about just what "science" is and isn't.  There is no
guarantee of absolute truth in science, there are facts (observations)
and hypotheses and theories based on those observations.  If more facts
become available that don't fit the theories, the theories change.
	The way you seem to be viewing it, is more like a "revealed
truth" that you can't deal with the mutable nature of science.

>>	And the FBI and NSA would dearly love for consumer available secure
>>encryption to be non-existent.
>
>The FBI and NSA have nothing to do with criteria for creating alt.herbalism.
>Why do you dislike the FBI and the NSA, and what does this have to do with
>anything?

	Gee, you seem dense.  Your desire to limit the availability of
information in folk medicine and herbalism is no different from the
governmental attempts to  limit the availablity of secure personal
communications by limiting access to secure encryptions.

>>	Individuals are still allowed to make their own choices, despite
>>the AMA and the governments' attempts to limit their freedom.
>
>Yes, but this will change within a year, with respect to availability
>of herbs for medicinal purposes, when enforcement of new F.D.A. regulations
>begin.

	Which you are in direct favor of, right?
	You are in favor of limiting their rights to free speech and
their rights to determine for themselves what they want to read or talk
about?

>>	So show that individuals discussing the use of herbal
>>preparations is an absolute precursor to the separation of a fool and
>>the fool's money.
>
>Easy. Your own irresponsible, cynical attitude, Mr. Wolfe of the Den, is
>reason enough to conclude the proposed newsgroup will be a haven for
>quackery and irresponsible, uninformed opinions.

	So show that individuals discussing the use of herbal
preparations is an absolute precursor to the separation of a fool and
the fool's money.
	
>You're a real sucker. You're the kind of consumer the health food stores
>and other perpetrators of herbal-medicine quackery love. You spend
>your money on their over-priced products, and you get no results in
>return. If you would look at it from this point of view, you would be angry
>at these people. It is a very sleazy, but profitable business, and
>that is precisely the reason it is going to be eradicated by the
>FDA because consumers like you aren't wise enough to realize it is
>a scam.

	It sounds more and more like *you* were burned by some sort of
"you head was up and locked and you believed what they said" situation.
As a result, you want to tell folks that they are not even allowed to
think about or talk about the use of herbs in their own lives.

	You will note, however, that I am not engaging in a discussion
of the benefits (or lack thereof) of the use of herbals.  I have no
particular axe to grind either in favor of or against the herbalists.
The reason *I* am involved is that some folks who are interested in
discussions of this topic approached me as a technically knowledgeable
person about the ins and outs of Usenet, asking me to do the necessary
legwork to get alt.herbalism into existence.

	Blinded by your own strong emotions on the subject, and your
desire to control others, you have attacked me as if I were an herbalist
or some such myself.  You failed to notice that my arguments are from
the base of access to information and "the rights of conscience" for
self-determination.

>Don't feel angry because I called you a sucker. It only means you are
>normal. None of us can be informed about all things, and we all are
>scam victims at some point in our lives.

	Yep. It sure seems more likely that you've been burned, and
therefore want to control everyone else's access to information that
*you* think is "dangerous."  This, being the "alt" net, is not bound by
the limitations of the "control freaks" and "information hoarders" or
those who would censor the speech and thought of others.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"