Re: More censorship discussion...

[brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

deadman@garnet.berkeley.EDU (Ben Haller) writes:

>  Well, once again we've got a thread going that isn't really appropriate
>to the group, and it's looking like it won't die for a while.  At
>least it's not on the "personal attack" level (yet...).  I'm going
>to continue despite Vickie's suggestion of moving the discussion,
>partly because I don't read the group she suggested, partly because
>there are multiple threads, partly because censorship and the PMRC
>is actually somewhat related to gaffa...partially because I don't
>want to :->

     I'll address your reasons one at a time:

 1) Maybe you should read the group if you can talk this long on the subject.
 2) Multiple threads are permissable in other newsgroups, not just gaffa.
 3) Censorship and the PMRC have absolutely nothing specifically related to
      gaffa, besides the fact that we're talking about music, which is one of
      the major targets of censorship.  There's pornography and video ahead
      of it.
 4) There are those of us who, while paging through their mail box, skipping
      your lengthy letter, were longing for their Little League bat back at
      home, with evil and punishable-by-law thoughts running through their
      heads.

     I can't say that this discussion isn't constructive, but what I can say
is that it neither belongs here at this level of verbosity, nor does the
subject matter fit in the albeit wide purposes that gaffa/love-hounds serves.
     Talking about varying musical artists is fine, as it has a great chance
of being devoured by at least part of the gaffa audience.  Unless I'm just
some bozo with an odd perspective on logic (not,) I figure the string should
be moved.  It'll get a lot more constructive input, and you can type away
without fear of a Louisville Slugger emblem implanted backwards in your
forehead.  ;-)

>  Y'll who aren't interested are, as always, free to hit the 'n' key.
>Let's try to keep the word "censorship" in the titles of these
>threads, folks, so people can block us out if they want to.

     It goes to love-hounds as well, and the digest isn't as kind to blocking
out.  Being a list subscriber, I'd like to ask you to take that into very
careful consideration.

>  BTW, if you think I don't regret this thread as much as others do,
>you're mistaken.  I've spent several hours so far composing these
>posts.  But I really hate to see confused people persist in their
>confusion (note I'm talking about myself here as much as others).

     No mistakes here.  If you felt as sour as I do, you'd be too busy taking
a long jump off a short pier.  :-)/2  I'll decide on my own, in relation to my
own beliefs, whether or not I'm confused.  Sorry.

>Larry writes, in various messages:
>(much stuff refuted by Gene, thank you)

     *snort*  Refuted?  To what degree?

>learn something.  Or go back and re-read my posts, you'll learn less,
>but you might learn something! ;->

     Oh, I've learned something.

>  Yow!  That was long, I wonder if anybody is paying any attention.

     *snort* Hmm, what?

>Well, I'm quite willing to continue to argue about this, so feel
>free to refute me, folks.  Just remember the word "censorship" in
>the header and maybe we won't get flamed by the others too badly.

     Just remember the words "love-hounds mailing list" and "long fly ball
over the left field fence" and we'll all be happy.     

>-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)
--
							Ken.
						 brownfld@uiuc.edu