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

[Doug Tooley]

> >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.

It's not a map - it's the ticket to the territory - with transportation
provided at the speed of light (or rather the speed of fiber).

> Certainly, if advertising is permitted on school campuses, whether
> or not there is any sexual content is moot, IMO.  The damage is already done.
> 
Okay - so we have school age children here on SCN and you feel that it is
inappropriate to advertise to them.  So is my argument moot or is yours???

> >                                                                 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!).

You misuse the word rhetorical - it refers to a greek school of arriving
at the truth through the debate of two advocates, advocates acting from a
perspective, but rational nonetheless.  This entire thread
is 'rhetorical' and by your very response you are commiting the crime you
appear to be condemning (bang!) though I'll have to say I'm not exactly
sure what your point is?  Are you in favor of Spam, porn or otherwise on
SCN? 
> 
> 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.

As you wish.

> >[...]
> >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".
> 

The overly general statement 'authority over' has led to many wars.  This
would be a area to very precise and narrow as you describe your 'powers'.

> Have you considered running for election [ -blanch- ] ?

No, but I certainly have my hand in building the playing field for them.
Campaigns in general are filled with royal assholes - it's time to bow out
of the fray generally by the primary for this boy.

> >[...]
> >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. 
> 

Ditto.

> >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)
> 
Levels:

 (The level of Spam(the level of distributing porn(the level of what is
appropriate on the net(the level of what we can do with the resources of
SCN) in this democracy the priviliges and comprehensiveness we claim to
further)to recipients who 'choose' not to receive it) delivered into SCN
users mailbox)

 > > 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).
> 

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

I was into raisins myself.

  You could have quoted less and supplied some reasonable
> and coherent argument and substance instead of your "2 cents worth and the
> puffed rice". 

Sure, send it to P.O.Box 85084 Seattle WA 98145 pending establishment of
micropayment - assuming of course that you are making an offer - not just
violating your own definition of the word 'rhetorical'.

 You could have summarised the context for the benefit of the
> list you posted to. 

The subject has been a general one on this list and this particular
example provided a perspective that had not been considered before.
Summarizing context perhaps is a good idea - generally though I find that
the quality of list submittals is a relative thing and that standards tend
to be set by the list itself.

 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.
> >[...]

Ditto.

-DT


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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