...Kurt's a Net.dinosaur/administrator.nut, neener, neener...etc.

[Kurt Cockrum]

Reference: <199703081929.LAA21878 at grogatch.seaslug.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.970309192914.111A-100000 at eve.speakeasy.org>

You (Doug) said:
>[...]
>Excuse, me, its spam 'for porn'.  The distinction though is
>meaningless.

Anybody with enough brains to keep their ears from touching knows
the difference.  The map is not the territory.

>              Would you think it any different to give out free Penthouse
>Copies at a school or to give out offers to subscribe for free?

I'm having difficulty parsing this.  Are you asking me if "giving out free
Penthouse Copies at a school" is equivalent to "give out offers to subscribe
for free"?  Certainly it could be argued that school is an inappropriate
venue for such activity, but the sexually titillating aspects of the
publication are insignificant compared to the act of hawking one's wares
on a school campus.  That's the real obscenity.  It would appear that the
Seattle School board chose to back down at the last minute over the same
issue.  Certainly, if advertising is permitted on school campuses, whether
or not there is any sexual content is moot, IMO.  The damage is already done.

>                                                                 The
>rhetorical, albeit moderately inflamatory exageration, was a conscious
>choice.

Yes, and I called you on it.
Rhetoric is the tool of politicians, demagogues and lawyers.  It deserves
no respect and has no place in rational discourse.  It tends to inflame
emotions and makes it impossible to reason productively about the subject
at hand.  Much injustice is perpetrated using the tool of rhetoric,
especially in the political and legal arenas.
Rhetoric amounts to a verbal firearm (bang!).

>The rhetorical question asked in this post was whether there should be
>stronger mechanisms than the SOP you ably documented.

Sir, you invoked the name of the most egregious legislation of the
century, comparable to the Smith Act (which made it illegal to be a
Communist).  Shame on you!  That's comparable to "dirty fighting" IMO.

>[...]
>Adminstrators never have 'authority over' any user.  They do have some
>methods of recourse, but never 'authority over'.  Got it?

IMO the ability to "86" somebody certainly qualifies as "authority".

>[...]
>Sir the post was a short one, a total of two text lines.  For the benefit
>of anyone who has bothered to page through your totally meaningless rant
>it should be painfully obvious that the only thing you've got a proble
>with Mr. Cockrum is yourself.  My sincere apologies for not attempting to
>page past the apparent end of the message.

You added 2 lines to a posting that already mostly consisted of blank
lines and a URL.  That's not more than 2 cents of added value to something
that was nearly worthless in the first place.  Even puffed rice is more
nutritious than that.  Have you considered running for election [ -blanch- ] ?

>[...]
>SCN needs to be proactive here on the net, and frankly the negative,
>know-it-all attitude Mr.  Cockrum displays in this post is all too often
>the norm on SCN. 

No, we *don't* need to be "proactive here on the net", at least in the areas
you are getting all heated up about.  If this is what you consider to be
"professionalism" then I'm all for amateurism.  As far as negative,
know-it-all attitudes, well, good!  I'm glad it's the norm, and it's nice to
be in good company.  As it happens, I know more than you do, and I don't even
have a degree in science :) !

>I happen to think that getting spam reffering to porn is obectionable,
>actionable, and important to act upon.  'Pushing' porn ain't no different,
>at many important levels,

"many important levels"?  Say what? (more rhetoric)

>                          than pushing drugs, including alcohol,
>especially when there are minors present.

Well, that's an opinion.  But opinions don't automatically deserve
respect, unless they are backed up by facts or reasoning.  Rhetoric
doesn't cut it (except for dittoheads).

The best way to get adolescents interested in drugs or pornography is for
adults to buy into all the hooplah about them, and to run around in
circles, anguishing over the innocence of their children.  The kids, seeing
that something so apparently innocuous can get the adults all riled up,
sense the cognitive dissonance and conclude correctly that the adults are
just being silly.  Loss of respect quickly follows.  Not only that, but
the kids learn how to push the adult's buttons, and pretty quick the tail's
wagging the dog.  Hark back to the days when you were a teen.  Didn't you
ever see this pattern?  Didn't you ever do it yourself? (be honest).

If adults really cared about their kids, instead of just wanting to feel
good about themselves, they'd conduct themselves in such a way as to win the
respect and admiration of the kids.  The kids then would attempt to emulate
them, achieving the desired result.  Does anybody seriously think drugs or
pornography would be an issue between parents and kids that had genuine
respect for each other?

The best way to get a kid to shove a bean up their nose is to forbid them
to do it.

>Most importantly it was something that the discussion of I felt clearly to
>be worth 'bandwidth', in part through continuing a thread seen on the list
>previously.

This is irrelevant.  If you chose to post to this list, apparently out
of context, you have to expect replies based on the content of the posting.
To expect otherwise is unfair and unreasonable.  If you can't deal with that,
don't post at all.  You could have quoted less and supplied some reasonable
and coherent argument and substance instead of your "2 cents worth and the
puffed rice".  You could have summarised the context for the benefit of the
list you posted to.  Instead, you took the easy way out and did the equivalent
of tossing a tear-gas grenade into a meeting, and now you're complaining
because somebody lobbed it back, beaning you.

>Your reply, Mr. Cockrum, is the rambling rant of an incoherent loser -
>truly a waste of 'bandwidth', as often is SCN.
>[...]

Ipse dixit.
--kurt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END