Re: Flame Wars

Davey, re:

<<An interesting feature of the emerging flame-war debate is the paranoia on
 the part of some individuals who apparently believe that a mysterious and
 sinister group of people (governmental, etc.) are going to forcibly censor
 internet newsgroup discussions. I think it is safe to say that EACH of us on
 this list would be fundamentally opposed to any single individual or group
 of individuals having the power to forcibly censor any newsgroup they desire
>>

Gee, I haven't read that in anyone's posts. Perhaps you have an "interesting
feature" that adds stuff from other news groups into this one...

>>virtually every periodical, newspaper and magazine are, for example,
moderated...).

And unlike them, people here get there subscriptions for FREE and nobody here
is being PAID to supply written information.

>>But someone on a newsgroup pleading for less public bickering, flaming,
etc.
on the part of other newsgroup members hardly qualifies as 'censorship' or
even 'attempted censorship'. It is simply the verbalizing of tacit community
standards. 

CENSOR: One authorized to examine films and printed materials and suppress
what is objectionable. 

The act of asking is not in itself "censorship", however, the idea or concept
of "suppressing what is objectionable" is as you'd say, "attempted
censorship". Because we cannot agree as to what is "objectionable", can we?

>>For example, theoretically, I could enter a diner... ...It's analogous to
young college kids making public spectacles of themselves by burning a flag.
...I could, for example, decide to walk out to my front lawn with a picture
of Christ, and begin burning it in front of my Christian neighbors.

Unfortunately, all your analogies (or examples) are those of physical things
which people may have a hard time avoiding. Especially, if they are "stuck"
in open view. 

The only "out" you left in your poor examples was the "flag burning" one. If
someone was waiting for a bus in that location, they may be "stuck" viewing
something they didn't want to see. However, if they were simply passing
through, they could continue to do that and keep going, avoiding most of the
"spectacle"...

The main weakness in your argument is the ease of "post avoidance". To simply
page down, next, scroll or whatever takes much less time than your time
consuming inability to convince anyone of anything. While you advocate to
others "self control" in their postings, you cannot seem to follow your own
advice when it comes to reading. Why should people have to change their style
to suit your personal needs?

>>Finding something (under First Amendment protection) to say or do simply to
piss somebody off doesn't make you a martyr, it makes you an <Bev Crusher>. 

You mean like... your post???
 
While you are working hard on a not-so-clever reply, can you please quote ANY
lister here in regards to your statement of "mysterious and  sinister group
of people (governmental, etc.) are going to forcibly censor  internet
newsgroup discussions." I haven't read anything close to that and since you
seem to feel strong about this whole thing, lets see you now make a more
cogent argument by citing examples, starting with this one...

Hope this helps...

- -wf