Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 476 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] censorship ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:10:54 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_68.2f2dea1c.2bc4326e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 9:57:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > Hello: I am glad you recognize that you, Howard and Larry do not have powers > to > censor. As you heard the Haubens and particularly Ronda, netizens is a > vehicle for > communications and a vehicle for democracy, for freedom of expression. To > move to > something else as you suggest, because you do not want to read about > opinions > contrary to the war,or because such postings are perceived or > misinterpreted as > not a mission of netizens is acquiescing to censorship, its saying don't > write > about this any more because its bothering me or goes against my opinion. > You also > have the right not to read, or simply ignore what's been written and you > have the > right to reply in another posting.To write or post about the war in Iraq is > very > much a netizens mission and concern. Ronda, Jay and I and any other netizen > will > write about the war as long as we want to. You Howard, Larry and Dan can > also > write what you want to about it pro-or con, that is democracy, you have the > undisputable right to post whatever you want since our forum is democratic. > The > only thing I beg of you and Howard and any other netizen is to stop the > insults, > like co-dependent, "Jay demeaning himself because he posts against the war" > etc. > But in a democracy you can also post insults, but I must warn that they do > not > create healthy debate and they inevitably provoke angry and irrational > reactions, > which does our list and netizens no good, that is also a way of destroying > the > list. I did not misunderstand you when you angrily replied to Jay and > Ronda's > postings accusing them of destroying the list. Not to talk about events, > hinders > communications and is what actually destroys the list. > Luis de Quesada > Dear Luis: I probably answered this in another post or so; I am getting to these posts at a slower rate than they are being created. This past day, there have been probably 20 posts -- higher than average. I know what the problem is. At which point this list attracts more than 20 or 30 different entries per day, and no one knows what this list is really about, the focus will degenerate into noise. There will be debate over truly non-germane issues. I really don't think even you will appreciate having to mine through posts and arguments that really don't contribute to the enhancement of the quality of life of the Netizen. The only reason why I am here is to understand how the Internet is developing so that I can eventually help influence policy. I want to understand and help develop 'digital law.' I am here to make change. If I am introducing something to complain about, it is only to illustrate a problem that I am looking forward to solving. And perhaps I would be looking to enlist the support of those who post here to help me in that pursuit. Luis, our freedom or rather luxury to discuss anything that we want will practically vary with contributor load. The fewer people that post, the more divergent we can be. The more people that post, the less divergent we can be. You have to assume that we are being read by potentially hundreds of people on any given day. We all have to provide some kind of leadership or else we will lose the list. We all have to self-censor so that the list can represent a legitimate scholarly resource and so that it may truly honor the memory of Michael Hauben. I feel obligated to help continue his work. Honestly, it would be interesting to consider a year's worth of this list -- to watch as a problem is introduced and defined and refined. It would be entertaining to see how distributed minds can address that problem and provide solutions. It would be gratifying to see how these solutions that we discussed over a year's time are implemented worldwide. You could even publish that archival material. It would have practical value at least in terms of providing a real example of how distributed processing can work. I want to contribute to something that has marketable value. Why do you think the level of language here is above colloquial? There is a reason for that. I am not a foppish 'tart.' We have an obligation to be precise so as to be useful. Lastly, regarding my expectations here, I am 'results-oriented.' If I am going to spend time here writing, I ultimately want to see some results. Otherwise it is all just masturbation. I am not for that. I am for fecundity. And Luis, we are all friends here. Otherwise, it is truly edifying to read from you. Please, please, don't be so cross. When I saw the mound of words, without the necessary formation of readily digestible paragraphs, I knew immediately that we were in for a 'thrashing.' Larry - --part1_68.2f2dea1c.2bc4326e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 9:57:40 AM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

Hello: I am glad you recognize=20= that you, Howard and Larry do not have powers to
censor. As you heard the Haubens and particularly Ronda, netizens is a vehic= le for
communications and a vehicle for democracy, for freedom of expression. To mo= ve to
something else as you suggest, because you do not want to read about opinion= s
contrary to the war,or because such postings are perceived or misinterpreted= as
not a mission of netizens is acquiescing to censorship, its saying don't wri= te
about this any more because its bothering me or goes against my opinion.&nbs= p; You also
have the right not to read, or simply ignore what's been written and you hav= e the
right to reply in another posting.To write or post about the war in Iraq is=20= very
much a netizens mission and concern. Ronda, Jay and I and any other netizen=20= will
write about the war as long as we want to. You  Howard, Larry and Dan c= an also
write what you want to about it pro-or con, that is democracy, you have the<= BR> undisputable right to post whatever you want since our forum is democratic.=20= The
only thing I beg of you and Howard and any other netizen is to stop the insu= lts,
like co-dependent, "Jay demeaning himself because he posts against the war"=20= etc.
But in a democracy you can also post insults, but I must warn that they do n= ot
create healthy debate and they inevitably provoke angry and irrational react= ions,
which does our list and netizens no good, that is also a way of destroying t= he
list. I did not misunderstand you when you angrily replied to Jay and Ronda'= s
postings accusing them of destroying the list. Not to talk about events, hin= ders
communications and is what  actually destroys the list.
Luis de Quesada


Dear Luis:

I probably answered this in another post or so; I am getting to these posts=20= at a slower rate than they are being created.  This past day, there hav= e been probably 20 posts -- higher than average. 

I know what the problem is.  At which point this list attracts more tha= n 20 or 30 different entries per day, and no one knows what this list is rea= lly about, the focus will degenerate into noise.  There will be debate=20= over truly non-germane issues.  I really don't think even you will appr= eciate having to mine through posts and arguments that really don't contribu= te to the enhancement of the quality of life of the Netizen. 

The only reason why I am here is to understand how the Internet is developin= g so that I can eventually help influence policy.  I want to understand= and help develop 'digital law.'  I am here to make change.  If I=20= am introducing something to complain about, it is only to illustrate a probl= em that I am looking forward to solving.  And perhaps I would be lookin= g to enlist the support of those who post here to help me in that pursuit.
Luis, our freedom or rather luxury to discuss anything that we want will pra= ctically vary with contributor load.  The fewer people that post, the m= ore divergent we can be.  The more people that post, the less divergent= we can be.

You have to assume that we are being read by potentially hundreds of people=20= on any given day.  We all have to provide some kind of leadership or el= se we will lose the list. 

We all have to self-censor so that the list can represent a legitimate schol= arly resource and so that it may truly honor the memory of Michael Hauben.&n= bsp; I feel obligated to help continue his work.

Honestly, it would be interesting to consider a year's worth of this list --= to watch as a problem is introduced and defined and refined.  It would= be entertaining to see how distributed minds can address that problem and p= rovide solutions.  It would be gratifying to see how these solutions th= at we discussed over a year's time are implemented worldwide.  You coul= d even publish that archival material.  It would have practical value a= t least in terms of providing a real example of how distributed processing c= an work. 

I want to contribute to something that has marketable value.  Why do yo= u think the level of language here is above colloquial?  There is a rea= son for that.  I am not a foppish 'tart.'  We have an obligation t= o be precise so as to be useful. 

Lastly, regarding my expectations here, I am 'results-oriented.'  If I=20= am going to spend time here writing, I ultimately want to see some results.&= nbsp; Otherwise it is all just masturbation.  I am not for that. =20= I am for fecundity.

And Luis, we are all friends here.  Otherwise, it is truly edifying to=20= read from you. 

Please, please, don't be so cross.  When I saw the mound of words, with= out the necessary formation of readily digestible paragraphs, I knew immedia= tely that we were in for a 'thrashing.'

Larry
 - --part1_68.2f2dea1c.2bc4326e_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:24:48 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] censorship - --part1_20.e80d27b.2bc435b0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 9:59:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > Quoting lindeman@bard.edu: > > >No, there isn't, and there cannot be: I have no power to censor you in any > >meaningful sense of the word. > > Whoops, that was slight hyperbole on my part. But here are the dictionary > definitions I find for "censor" as a verb: > > "To examine and expurgate." (American Heritage) > > "1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn: > ban] 2: > subject to political, religious, or moral censorship*; 'This magazine is > censored by the government' " (WordNet) > > * censorship: "1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any > information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: > deleting > parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: > censoring]" > > I'm sure some other meaningful sense of the word can be construed. But > rather > than redefine this word, it might be better to find other language. > > Mark > I am dying, laughing here. Please not that. Mark, please don't send the word 'censor' to the cornfield. We seem to be losing a lot of dear vocabulary nowadays. Remember the word 'actress?' Seriously, what is happening to precision -- at least in the case of American English? Larry - --part1_20.e80d27b.2bc435b0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 9:59:00 AM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

Quoting lindeman@bard.edu:

>No, there isn't, and there cannot be: I have no power to censor you in a= ny
>meaningful sense of the word.

Whoops, that was slight hyperbole on my part.  But here are the diction= ary
definitions I find for "censor" as a verb:

"To examine and expurgate."  (American Heritage)

"1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn: ban]= 2:
subject to political, religious, or moral censorship*; 'This magazine is censored by the government' " (WordNet) 

* censorship: "1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: delet= ing
parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]"

I'm sure some other meaningful sense of the word can be construed.  But= rather
than redefine this word, it might be better to find other language. 
Mark


I am dying, laughing here.  Please not that.  Mark, please don't s= end the word 'censor' to the cornfield.  We seem to be losing a lot of=20= dear vocabulary nowadays.  Remember the word 'actress?' 

Seriously, what is happening to precision -- at least in the case of America= n English?  

Larry
 - --part1_20.e80d27b.2bc435b0_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:37:41 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_1e2.64a1f49.2bc438b5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 11:42:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > As to asking yourself "so what" I do not know what you mean by that. But I > still > must point out to you, again, that any attempt on your part or any one > else's to > persuade or prevent me or any netizen to stop posting about the war or > anything > they want to post will be met with a reply. I am not Jay, who kept quiet > when you > and your confederates chose to insult him and shut him up by telling him he > was > "demaning himself". With me you don't get away with it. Understand? > Luis de Quesada > > lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > > >Luis, > > > >I respectfully disagree with just about everything in your message, > especially > >your assertions of not having misunderstood me. > > > >So now I must put the question back to myself: So what? > > > >Mark > Am I one of Mark's confederates? I am afraid I know the answer to that one. ... just being facetious. But really Luis; C'mon. I cannot really speak for anyone else but I think we all fervently want to do something great here. Otherwise we should all just pack up and join a chat room at AOL. Larry - --part1_1e2.64a1f49.2bc438b5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 11:42:16 AM Eastern Daylight= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

As to asking yourself "so what"= I do not know what you mean by that. But I still
must point out to you, again, that any attempt on your part or any one else'= s to
persuade or prevent me or any netizen to stop posting about the war or anyth= ing
they want to post will be met with a reply. I am not Jay, who kept quiet whe= n you
and your confederates chose to insult him and shut him up by telling him he=20= was
"demaning himself". With me you don't get away with it. Understand?
Luis de Quesada

lindeman@bard.edu wrote:

>Luis,
>
>I respectfully disagree with just about everything in your message, espe= cially
>your assertions of not having misunderstood me.
>
>So now I must put the question back to myself: So what?
>
>Mark


Am I one of Mark's confederates?  I am afraid I know the answer to that= one.

... just being facetious.  But really Luis; C'mon.  I cannot reall= y speak for anyone else but I think we all fervently want to do something gr= eat here.  Otherwise we should all just pack up and join a chat room at= AOL.

Larry - --part1_1e2.64a1f49.2bc438b5_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:52:59 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] censorship - --part1_141.eb5fa68.2bc43c4b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 11:47:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > Luis, > > You think my posts are inappropriate, and say so; I think your posts are > inappropriate, and say so. Since neither of us is in a position to abuse > state > power to ruin the other's life through egregious accusations of disloyalty, > for > the apparent purpose of personal aggrandizement, I don't think either of us > > bears any resemblance to McCarthy. > > You are at liberty to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, > without > being fettered by technical or dictionary meanings. But why do you expect > anyone to make the effort to understand your personal language? > > Mark > No more fisticuffs gentlemen. The next thing that happens is that we start to placate each other. At which point that happens, then we will not communicate effectively between each other anymore. Passion is good but let us channel it constructively; this application is not germane. You might want to IM each other; sometimes a little pugilism can be a little healthy, but not here. Take it outside, Dear Sirs. Then after you have bloodied each other's noses, you can return to the sanctity of this list. Larry - --part1_141.eb5fa68.2bc43c4b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 11:47:04 AM Eastern Daylight= Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

Luis,

You think my posts are inappropriate, and say so; I think your posts are inappropriate, and say so.  Since neither of us is in a position to abu= se state
power to ruin the other's life through egregious accusations of disloyalty,=20= for
the apparent purpose of personal aggrandizement, I don't think either of us=20=
bears any resemblance to McCarthy.

You are at liberty to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, with= out
being fettered by technical or dictionary meanings.  But why do you exp= ect
anyone to make the effort to understand your personal language?

Mark


No more fisticuffs gentlemen.  The next thing that happens is that we s= tart to placate each other.  At which point that happens, then we will=20= not communicate effectively between each other anymore. 

Passion is good but let us channel it constructively; this application is no= t germane.

You might want to IM each other; sometimes a little pugilism can be a little= healthy, but not here.  Take it outside, Dear Sirs.  Then after y= ou have bloodied each other's noses, you can return to the sanctity of this=20= list.

Larry - --part1_141.eb5fa68.2bc43c4b_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #476 ******************************