Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 478 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Question about the list Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] censorship ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:02:10 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list >Hello: And everyone agrees with you, unfortunately even a former >brownshirt can >be a netizens. What I do not put up with is that brownshirt trying to enforce >his coercion and censorship tactics in trying to prevent me from posting my >opinions in netizens, or else he will leave or whatever, he will not get away >with that. As far as being a netizen he can remain as long as he >likes and post >what he likes, but bearing in mind that I will not be silent to his bullyism, >lack of respect and coercion tactics. He will be challenged, understand? A >Cappito? >Luis As to a brownshirt being a netizen, I'm glad we agree. But, frankly, your attitude about criticism seems extreme. One of the reasons that I want that brownshirt in the open is so I can criticize him in the open, and help give the broader people the information to let them make decisions. But you have an interesting concept of being bullied. It comes across as that you will take any criticism whatsoever of your statements as bullying. Yet, I assume that criticism of the brownshirt is exactly what makes the Net useful in dealing with the brownshirt. For me, one of the fundamental freedoms is the freedom to be criticized in public -- and to defend my position in public. An effective defense gains credibility for my positions. In other words, let the totalitarian post, let the totalitarian be criticized. But the general netizen has to support freedom of speech even when it hurts -- or there is no freedom of speech. That means enduring some criticism, perhaps ignoring it, but giving the appearance you are willing to participate in an exchange of intellectual content, not raw emotion. I have absolutely no desire to censor you, Luis. But IF _I_ did, there would be many ways to do so that are more efficient that complaining to you on the net. This is in no means a threat or the suggestion of one --- I'd merely ask you to consider, for example, that if a hacktivist wanted to censor you, they would attack your Internet access. Are you sure it's secure against a knowledgeable and determined attackers? Others might attack you through law or through workplace pressures. I don't see anyone doing that. I do see an insistence on doing whatever you want to do without any responsibilities for it. And, while you aren't going to like this, saying that your opinions won't change, you won't justify them, and the Haubens will speak for you hardly sounds like someone that wants meaningful participation in a group process--dare I even say participatory democracy? That you won't consider any of the costs or the realities of what you ask, transferring the responsibility for justifying those services to the Haubens? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:07:37 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy >Howard: For the love of Jesus! (forgive me I do not wish to offend >you with the >remark but I happen to be a christian). No one is saying to you that >if you are >pro-war, anti-war, pro-Mother Theresa or whatever you would like to be is >against being a netizen. I believe every single netizen cherishes and welcome >your contributions. But you must also accept everyone elses without constantly >interjecting "you're off topic, I don't want to read this, etc. And I have _not_ been constantly saying that about individual contributions. I have made comments about topicality about discussion threads. There _is_ a difference. I invite you to post any such example where I criticized an individual for a post without referring to the context of the subject matter and related it to other posts. >If you keep >posting about "the man in the moon" I'll leave, etc. I intend to do exactly that WITH RESPECT TO MY PARTICIPATION. I remember being part of an organization where anyone could say anything they wanted whenever they wanted, without any attempt to organize their thoughts or to make progress on a soliution. That organization, however, wasn't attempting to call itself a forum where ideas are presented with the purpose of affecting the society, or where ideas can be debated. It was called a rather permissive kindergarten. >Netizens is a democratic forum, it welcomes all sort of ideas. I was pleading >yesterday though that in replies to postings, no name calling be used. Does it occur to you that your fairly constant calling people censors is doing exactly that? >When Jay >or Ronda or myself post something about the war in Iraq or in east >timbuktu, it >would be nice if you don't resort to insulting remarks like "you're demeaning >yourself by posting this, etc." Show me where I have said that. Yes, someone did--but be accurate in your quotes. >I believe that's all Ronda, Jay and I mean. Stay as long as you like, post >whatever you like, tell me you love laissez-faire capitalism ( hope >I spelled it >correctly if not please show me the correct spelling) in fact we love to be >educated, love it! However we beg you, let us post in peace and >reply , disagree >and if anyone makes the least attempt to censor you or to imply that >you do not >belong in netizens because you are in favor of privatization of the >internet, I >will fight on your side! >That's all we ask of you. >Lou D. > > >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >> >Hi, >> > >> >I am sorry to have not been able to participate in the current debates. >> > >> >For the record I want to state my position that netizens and netizenship >> >are closely connected with the quest for participatory democracy. The net >> >makes possible participation by people in the decisions that effect their >> >lives. What is needed is a lot of work to achieve this goal, technical >> >work and political work. What excited Michael in 1992-1993 was that he was >> >contacted by many people online who were dedicating themselves to achieve >> >that possibility. >> > >> >I feel many joined this list because of this goal. It is to me wonderful >> >that technical and political scientists and others are in the current >> >debates. >> >> The first goal for netizenship has to be having a net. Otherwise, >> there is no differentiation between network-enabled and conventional >> sociopolitical participation. >> >> >But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the >> >goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the >> >goal. >> >> Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as >> bound to network-enabled participation. >> >> I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear >> definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me >> this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to >> replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based >> on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it >> does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert > > opinion that might not be otherwise available. >> >> > >> >In any case I want to draw attention to my sense of the connection between >> >democracy and the current war and general direction of US policies because >> >that connection is for me at the essence of netizens and netizenship. >> >> I was hesitant about the attack into Iraq, but not into Afghanistan. >> Nevertheless, I feel there is no realistic alternative, at this >> point, to ousting the Baath leadership of Iraq, and returning control >> to the Iraqi people. >> >> Does this make me a non-Netizen? Is there an ideological litmus test >> for people who would use the Internet to affect political and social >> systems? I don't consider myself pro-war or anti-war, but, as I >> understand your usage of terms, I am pro-war. Does that make me a >> non-Netizen? >> >> > >> >Briefly, whoever committed the horrendous crimes of 9/11/01, whether the >> >US government itself, something called al Quadea, or other forces, changes >> >have been justified or explained by those events. The US government policy >> >makers have argued and acted on the premise that the US had enjoyed too >> >much democracy. >> >> _some_ policymakers have argued that. Others have argued strongly otherwise. >> >> Incidentally, I believe that some of the entertainment industry's >> extreme measures to protect intellectual property -- and I do believe >> in intellectual property rights -- are threats to civil liberties >> comparable to excesses in antiterrorist activities. Yet the list >> focus seems to stay on the war. >> >> >It was too easy here for people to communicate and to >> >travel and to meet with each other. Also the government has been too >> >restricted with its options by the various democratic practices that slow >> >down the processes now needed. >> >> I have more faith, I suspect, in the self-correcting properties of >> the American system than you do. Yes, I agree--the Patriot Act gave >> lots of opportunities to restrict civil liberties. John Ashcroft >> went beyond any conceivable satire when he draped the breasts of the >> statue of Justice -- if he were truly self-consistent, he would have >> put her in full burqua. >> >> But I see pressures on policymakers in many fora, from electronic >> lists that are seen by people in power, to court actions, to >> legislative remedies. No, these won't happen overnight. But >> sometimes delay is a good thing, allowing for reflection and for the >> passions of the moment to subside. >> >> > >> >My conclusion is the opposite. That we need more democracy to safe guard >> >our society. I take the program to lessen democracy as an attack on the >> >goal of netizenship. Netizens means to me the fight for more democracy not >> >less. >> > >> >As an example in my opinion, the war is the result of the failure of >> >American Democracy. The US media failed to foster a debate on the question >> >and the representatives to have such a debate. >> >> I have to disagree. The matter was debated in the Congress. What I'm >> hearing is you invalidating that debate because it didn't reach the >> conclusions you liked. >> >> I voted for Gore. But I accept that I lost and George W. Bush is the >> President of the United States. Voting and debate are supposed to be, >> I thought, processes whose results are not preordained. >> >> >But even absent that >> >debate, the American people and most people in the world have little say >> >if their government decides on war. The net makes possible the voicing of >> >people's opinions or questions or doubts or agreement. But as yet we have >> >not won the influence of that voicing on the decisions that effect >> >people's lives. So it is also the failure so far for netizens to get >> >closer to what I feel is the goal. >> >> Unless you are incorrect about the strength about antiwar feelings. >> Again, it may be a majority agrees, or at least is neutral, on the >> decision. Correct me if I misperceive, but I keep hearing from you >> that a measurable majority is opposed to the war. While there have >> probably been more antiwar demonstrations, polling data, which has a >> reasonable accuracy record when elections are not available, do not > > seem to support a massive antiwar sentiment. I remember Viet Nam, >> and popular opinion was quite different than it is today. >> >> > >> >I would hope this list could take up clarifying its purpose and working >> >toward clarifying how we might move toward it. >> >> By "its purpose", I hope that you are not saying that its purpose is >> simply an antiwar venue. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:16:09 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] censorship - --part1_1f0.6318da3.2bc441b9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 12:20:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > Wow, this is like Lay potato chips, it's hard to stop. > This above statement was expressed by Mark within his retort to Luis. I am truly hyperventilating trying to stop laughing. Please Mark. Control yourself. And Luis, stop 'counterbaiting' Mark. I swear I could use this material for a sitcom. It is just too convenient to use this list as a means to vituperate. Really, it is not germane and it is not professional. The comedic value is soon to become exhausted. Larry - --part1_1f0.6318da3.2bc441b9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 12:20:17 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

Wow, this is like Lay potato ch= ips, it's hard to stop.

This above statement was expressed by Mark within his retort to Luis.

I am truly hyperventilating trying to stop laughing.  Please Mark. = ; Control yourself.  And Luis, stop 'counterbaiting' Mark.

I swear I could use this material for a sitcom. 

It is just too convenient to use this list as a means to vituperate.  R= eally, it is not germane and it is not professional.  The comedic value= is soon to become exhausted.

Larry - --part1_1f0.6318da3.2bc441b9_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:56:06 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] censorship - --------------58C77067999BFE5F9E5F213A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry: If you'll pardon me, the fighting is over, all you see is yesterday's smoldering ruins. I believe the dust has been settled to give way to something far more constructive and that is, continue with our postings, respecting them, not resorting to name calling, etc. I think its all right now. Lou D. AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > 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 - --------------58C77067999BFE5F9E5F213A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry: If you'll pardon me, the fighting is over, all you see is yesterday's smoldering ruins. I believe the dust has been settled to give way to something far more constructive and that is, continue with our postings, respecting them, not resorting to name calling, etc. I think its all right now.
Lou D.

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

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

- --------------58C77067999BFE5F9E5F213A-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:39:53 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] censorship - --part1_12a.27401927.2bc44749_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 12:49:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes within a retort to Mark: > Like I said and I will say it > over and over again, the attempt to censor was there, although I realize it > was > not an enforceable censorship because thank our lucky stars you and your > friends > do not have that power on this list, if you did Ronda, Jay and I would've > been > kicked out of it a long time ago. > Luis > Luis, it would not be a benefit for anyone to be removed from this list. As I said probably yesterday, I ultimately believe in the professionalism of all who post here or at least their intention to be professional. That is why at least I am still here. At this point, I do think we are using the wrong word; we are not trying to censor, we are trying to focus. Let us not suppress anything, but let us concurrently encourage a specific agenda. Is not that language more pleasing to you? Larry - --part1_12a.27401927.2bc44749_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 12:49:06 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes within a retort to Mark:

Like I said and I will say it over and over again, the attempt to censor was there, although I realize it=20= was
not an enforceable censorship because thank our lucky stars you and your fri= ends
do not have that power on this list, if you did Ronda, Jay and I would've be= en
kicked out of it a long time ago.
Luis


Luis, it would not be a benefit for anyone to be removed from this list.&nbs= p; As I said probably yesterday, I ultimately believe in the professionalism= of all who post here or at least their intention to be professional. =20= That is why at least I am still here.

At this point, I do think we are using the wrong word; we are not trying to=20= censor, we are trying to focus.  Let us not suppress anything, but let=20= us concurrently encourage a specific agenda. 

Is not that language more pleasing to you?

Larry - --part1_12a.27401927.2bc44749_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #478 ******************************