Censorship, etc., the thread goes on...

[usenet%agate.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (USENET Administrator)]

Path: garnet.berkeley.edu!deadman
From: deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Censorship, etc., the thread goes on...
Date: 22 Nov 91 12:59:02 GMT
Organization: Stick Software
Lines: 181
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <kipvomINNkqj@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu
Originator: deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu

  Well, posting at five in the morning doesn't bode well for my lucidity,
but then I wasn't planning on saying that much anyways...I considered
doing another really long post just to annoy Ken, but frankly I'm too
tired right now to waste my time.  Thanks for dealing with him in such
an abusive manner, Cynthia...

Vickie spake:
>I'm very confused. I had assumed in the first quote that you were a
>supporter of the NEA, and disagreed with them cutting off grants to
>controversial artists. Now it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you
>don't think there should be an NEA at all?
Yes, I don't think there should be an NEA at all.  I see no reason
whatsoever why my money should be taken by force and given to
artists I've never even heard of (and I don't even get any art in
exchange, what a gyp!)  I buy art that I like.  If there are artists
out there who wouldn't get enough money to continue without NEA
grants, I gently suggest that perhaps they aren't very good artists
(defining art as "what people find beautiful" or some such thing,
clearly if nobody buys their art nobody but the artist considers it
to be worth much), and perhaps they should consider a change of career.
Personally if I were an artist I wouldn't ask for a grant from the NEA
just because I wouldn't want to live a parasitic lifestyle, mooching
money and producing nothing of any value to others.  Bleech.

>>> People who don't vote have no right to complain about their
>>> government.
>> ...I spit in your face.  Take this back if you want me to ever speak
>> to you nicely again.
>You forgot the "your mother was a hamster" part, and well, actually, why
>should I care if you ever speak nicely to me again? I don't recall you
>ever doing it before this post. I stand by what I said, it's **MHO**.
>If you choose not to vote, that's **YHO** and your right.
  Your father smelt of elderberries!  The "never speak to you nicely again"
part was an idle threat, I'll admit, I speak nicely to almost anyone.
As for the part about never speaking to you nicely *before*, c'mon, this
thread is (I think - almost, anyway) the first time I've posted to gaffa!
You've got to give me time to warm up, sweetheart.
  I support your right to have your opinion, I just think it's a damn
stupid opinion that nobody has a right to complain unless they're also
willing to brownnose the resident dictator in a hopeless and immoral attempt
to effect change within the system.  By "no right to complain" - I just find
it impossible to believe you mean that literally.  Do you really mean
you would be justified in keeping me from complaining by using force?
Do you really mean that the first amendment doesn't apply to people who
don't vote?  Or are you using the word "right" in a more sloppy manner?

>> Please, how about if I told you you had no right to complain because
>> you *do* vote?  This is more true, IMHO, given the bastards you and
>> your comrades have voted into office over my protest!
>You have no idea who I voted for and if they are actually in office now
>because of my vote. Maybe the people who are in office now are there over
>*my* protest too.
  I don't really care if you voted for George or not.  The point is that
because of people like you, who believe that the system is just, who
believe that majority rule is the best form of "government", etc.,
I have to deal with those buggers day in and day out.  You voted, thus
you believe in majority rule's morality, thus in my eyes you are part of
the problem, albeit a comparatively pleasant part.  Voting at all is
voting for both the morality and the continuation of that system.  It
hardly matters who actually wins, it's the thought that counts, as they say.

> Ho ho ho, apoligise while wiping the spit off my face? Highly unlikely.
>I will only apoligise for not adding the (IMHO) beside the "no right to
>complain" remark, because, as Cynthia would say "it's how I feeeel" but
>beyond that, there's nothing to apoligise for.
Oh, I hate those "IMHO"'s even though I use them sometimes, they're like
record labelling.  Please, nothing anyone types can ever be anything but
a product of their own minds.  Even "facts" are regurgitated, and cannot
be trusted without crosschecks (and even then they're suspect). Note the
perfect right margin on this paragraph, please.  But as I said above, if
what you really meant was that I didn't have the right, taken literally,
to complain, I do feel extremely put-upon and insulted, and I do feel an
apology is warranted.  This is how I initially interpreted your remarks.

> Just curious, what system of government would you prefer?
> ...What would a country be like without any kind of government at all?
> ...You won't convert me, but I don't have a closed mind about it either...
Oh, please, what is a closed mind if not an outright denial of the
possibility that your mind could possibly be changed by an idea?  Being
willing to listen, but not to actually consider, is not an open mind, just
a curious mind or some such thing.  If you will state that there is a
chance that I will change your mind, I'll be more than happy to talk to
you about all my beliefs at any length whatsoever.  But I'm not really into
spending all that time just to satisfy your curiosity, I'm in this world
to make a difference.  This falls into the category of "people hearing
without listening".  (Hey, a song about pseudo-censorship!  There are
wheels within wheels...)  If you actually do have an open mind, e-mail
me, let's talk.  I don't need to convert you.  I just need to know that
I might.  Until then, I'll stay on r.m.g. where maybe there are others
who *do* have open minds.

Cyn sez:
>Well, I know voting seems pretty futile, but I'd never advise
>anyone to give it up altogether.  What's the Libertarian Party
>stand for? And against? Email please.
  Mm, I never pass up an offer like that.  Unfortunately, Cynthia, all
my attempts to mail you seem to bounce (I guess your account has a
high coefficient of restitution, eh?) so if you could mail me, which
will probably get through, perhaps the return address on that piece
of mail will work.  I've also just replied to a letter from Richard,
asking him to send me an address that works.  Perhaps that will get
results (then again perhaps that will bounce too...)
  I don't advise people to work outside the system really, I leave that
up to them, which is why I listed several "options" that involved co-
operation with the system.  It's a personal decision, unlike most things
which are entirely rationally deductible.  It basically depends on 
whether you consider personal integrity or global change more important,
things like that.  I opt for personal integrity, a lot of people find
that self-centered and egotistical, oh well, guess that's me...

>> Condemn the press black-out during the Gulf war...
> It seems to me that some things...would have been a real security breach...
Oh, I disagree.  I think it was entirely for preventing bad news, anti-
war sentiment, etc. from getting out.  They wanted to make it fast,
efficient and painless.  They wanted the American public to remember only
that we won, and not have any lingering images in their nightmares like
so many people do from Viet Nam.  In that war the press was quite free,
and they were very good about not publishing things that would be
security breaches.  I've never heard of that being a problem.  Then
again, I wasn't really conscious at the time...National security is
a crock.  We had them so outgunned there wouldn't have been much they
could have done if we had notified them of everything we planned on doing
six months in advance.
  This is one of the worst kinds of censorship.  I mean, if I can't buy
a particular album in Florida because of some fascist law, that's terrible,
but realistically the direct consequence on my life is that, at worst, I
cannot listen to that album.  But *this* - *this* is killing huge numbers
of people, destroying the infrastructure of an entire country, and trying
to hide it from the public, cleanse it, prettify it!  Whether or not the
war was justified (I won't get into that, it's not relevant), *this* is
utterly repugnant.  Many, many people died in that war, many more will die
from the economic and political aftereffects of that war, and maybe if
people really absorbed that fact we wouldn't have so many damn wars.

> I sort of believe in working within the system to make life a living
> hell for those who really buy into it.
A charming attitude, pleased to meet you.  And you're a Kate fan too!  :->
I visited St. John's College in Santa Fe recently (a friend of mine goes
there), and they have an expression "ruining <person>'s reality".  It's
basically when you discover that someone believes something totally inane,
and you have the options of either letting them live in their dreamworld,
or ruining their reality by showing them how they're wrong, thus forcing
them to either shut you out hypocritically or re-evaluate their entire
belief system (a substantial project...)  Many of the people there take
a certain cruel/kind pleasure in ruining the reality of everyone they can.
It's a wild place, hypocrites don't stand a chance there.  Quite off the
topic, but...
  If we want to get even more off the topic, here's a fun new thread
concept: "Describe the most complete ruining of your reality you ever
underwent, what the subject was, how you felt, how you reacted initially,
etc."  Well, *I* think it's an interesting question.

  As for the various postings by other people, I think I stated my opinions
(including refutations of their arguments) in my prior posts, so I won't
waste bandwidth repeating myself.  I'll concentrate on new topics, they're
more fun.
  Well, I *thought* I was going to be brief.  Poor Ken, bet he's foaming
at the mouth with his baseball bat again!  Really, Ken, get one of those
digest processors there's been a thread on, take two aspirin with a glass
of warm milk, you'll feel much better in the morning.  This is a
discussion between several Kate fans about their interests, their politics,
and everything else that comes to mind.  If what you want is cut-and-dried
Kate news with no human element, nothing not directly traceable to Kate,
nothing except new singles, tour plans, etc., why the hell are you reading
this group?  Subscribe to a Kate mag and be done with it!  Really!  The
purpose of this group is for Kate fans to talk to each other, and I damn
well intend to use it for that purpose over your protests.  If something
is of limited interest, it should be conducted by e-mail.  But I've seen
maybe ten people post to this thread, which makes it one of the highest-
interest threads I've seen on this group, if number of posters correlates
at all to the level of interest.  And you're the only person who has posted
a message intended primarily as a flame, not as a discussion - which is a
*much* bigger breach than anything anyone else on this thread has done.
(BTW, I should say your original article never reached my site, I only
got Cyn's quoted version, so perhaps you did say something intelligent
or substantial, if so I retract my accusation retroactively).
  Jelly donut, eh?

-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)
"The gang and the government are no different
 It makes me one percent..."                   - Jane's Addiction