From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Confessions of a Net.censor (was Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.))
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep20.233109.14438@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <dk=zzgk@rpi.edu> james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu> writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>-> I'd also be interested in you explaining, if you believe me to be a
>>-> net.censor, what precisely I have done that leads you to believe that,
>>-> and what precisely are the defining characteristics of a net.censor.
>>
>>i think one of the characteristics of a net.censor is
>>to attempt to question the appropriateness of others'
>>posts. don't you agree?
>
>No, I'm not sure I do.
>
>Perhaps you could come up with a set of definitive characteristics
>which you can support in that fashion.
>Two features would be good here:
>1) definitiveness. I.e. the characteristics are both necessary and
>sufficient.
>2) Support.
>
>So far, you have met neither.

Here's an even better question. Do the following quotes contain any
examples of "attempting to question the appropriateness of others' posts"?

Is the definer perhaps a "net.censor", by his own (perhaps inadequate)
definition?

---

Date: 14 Dec 91 23:44:39 GMT

one wonders why you elect not to post to the alt.child-support 
group when you are writing on child support issues. alt.child-support 
was, after all, formed just for you.

it almost seems like you'd prefer not to discuss issues in those
groups where regular readers would know what you are talking about.
hmmmmm.

---

Date: 15 Dec 91 00:09:17 GMT

why don't you discuss your child support opinions in 
alt.child-support? is there some special reason why you 
don't do that?

---

Date: 15 Dec 91 00:17:56 GMT

kebbin's child support ravings, mostly all posted to alt.flame 
last year, is one of the reasons so many people turned against him 
and voted him into the council of net.idiots. i've always wondered
why he didn't discuss these issues in alt.child-support. i suspect
it is because he can't sope with the issue on the level of
those who are interested in it and who post to that group.

---

Date: 21 Dec 91 16:56:18 GMT

you have since read in
several posts by alt.child-support people that your child support
posts belong in alt.child-support ... exactly as i've been saying
and exactly as you've been denying.

...

i think you're loosing it. if ta people want to read about child
support, they can read alt.child-support. even you should
understand that. your other statement about what acs people like
and don't like has already been disproven.

...

...my position is that child support posts belong in alt.child-support. 

---

Date: 21 Dec 91 20:56:16 GMT

how many child support posts did you knowing post to talk.abortion when
you knew alt.child-support existed specifically for child support
matters?

...

what do you want to do, kill alt.child-support. what could your motive
be for taking a newsgroup from people who enjoy discussing child support.
of course, you claim to have an interest in child support. but you don't
post child support issues to alt.child-support, do you? i wonder why?

---

Date: 22 Dec 91 20:14:27 GMT

whine some more kebbie. you posted and posted and posted child
support articles to talk.abortion. now you want to blame
others. 

---

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Date: 23 Dec 91 03:06:20 GMT

i am sympathetic to your wish not to have kevin posting his
tripe to a.c-s. however, since the subject of his posts which
caused all of the cross-posting is child support, i think a.c-s
is the group to which these posts should be made.

i mention this only because you intimidated him so much the last
time that he took his child support posts elsewhere; namely
talk abortion. and if you think his child support posts caused
disruption in a.c-s, just imagine what they do in talk.abortion.

---

Date: 24 Dec 91 13:54:14 GMT

...alt.child support was formed so you'd have
a place other than alt.flame to post your child support
blather. 

---

Date: 26 Dec 91 02:18:32 GMT

because you are claiming in other newsgroups that you were instrumental
in the formation of alt.child.support. in those same newsgroups you
claim that you agreed to stop making child support posts to alt.flame.

this indicates that you are quite familiar with the problems you
create when you mis-post material. which raises even more questions
about your credibility and intentions.

after all, if you were instrumental in forming a.c-s, why would
you post a.c-s material to talk.abortion and not crossppost if
you felt the subjects overlapped. 

...

... everyone knows i've bitched at`
you for posting child support material to talk.abortion, just as i bitched
at you a year ago for posting child suppport stuff to alt.flame.

---

Date: 28 Dec 91 15:55:44 GMT

kevin, do you think a single net.reader believes that a.c-s does
not exits to discuss child support issues? 

---

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42511 alt.abortion.inequity:4418 talk.politics.misc:51549