Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATTENTION all steam lovers... your MASTER photo!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:39:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

to all steam lovers... your master photo!

http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

difool wrote:
> to all steam lovers... your master photo!
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg

Is there a particular reason you started two seperate thread for the same
picture?
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Stoned Monkey wrote:

> I would but I now think he should be silenced for being abusive, its
> really not on, at first it was funny now he had just become
> completely offensive does anyone know how to report his abuse?

<follow ups sent to csipga>

Difool uses individual.net, a free Usenet subscriber service. You can send
complaints to news@individual.net. Because they are a free provider they
have no financial interest to keep him as a customer (as opposed to a
costumer) if they keep getting complaints. From Individual's FAQ:

5.2 What happens if I don't stick to the rules?
We would regret to see such behavior because it naturally endangers
the service.
If we notice policy violation or get complaints about it, we block the
account concerned - in most cases without further inquiry or information of
the user.

I am inclined to agree with you. Difool went from funny loon to abusive
jerk during the last few weeks.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have Terms
>of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which violates
>the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark

There is also such a thing as a killfile.

C//
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:15:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Stoned Monkey" wrote

> I would but I now think he should be silenced for being abusive, its
> really not on, at first it was funny now he had just become completely
> offensive does anyone know how to report his abuse?
>
Check the headers of the message
I doubt there's anything you can do
He _is_ entitled to have his own opinion

Maybe abuse due to massive crossposting could be an approach

- Peter
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:56:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:

>
>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>
> There is also such a thing as a killfile.

I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports to
the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
suggestion.

But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
general expanation

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:56:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
> news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>>
>> There is also such a thing as a killfile.
>
> I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
> to
> the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
> suggestion.
>
> But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
> to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
> their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
> in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
> general expanation
>
> Gandalf Parker

Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
case we need to use some antibiotics.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:03:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <vlxNd.3345$Ub4.165628@news20.bellglobal.com>
, "Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:

>"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
>news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
>> Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
>> news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>>>
>>> There is also such a thing as a killfile.
>>
>> I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
>> to
>> the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
>> suggestion.
>>
>> But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
>> to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
>> their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
>> in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
>> general expanation
>>
>> Gandalf Parker
>
>Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
>case we need to use some antibiotics.


You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
nor responding to his posts.

It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
freedom of speech. People who would vociferously espouse the principle
of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
> of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
> what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
> nor responding to his posts.
>
> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
> freedom of speech. People who would vociferously espouse the principle
> of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
> erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
> right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.
>
> Jim
Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as he's
civil about it (the responsibility part). Since he's foregone the
responsibility, he loses the associated right. Simple.
--
-Acercanto (young pup)
user:forestman domain:vt.edu
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:03:57 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:


>
>You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
>of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
>what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
>nor responding to his posts.

That only works if you don't have to receive his postings to begin with.
Most ISPs that run newsservers do not have killfiles and have to download
those posts anyway, which in turn takes up disk space that could be used
for something more valuable (e.g. alt.binaries.*).

One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply that
by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that by the
number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take long before
the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill up a small hard
drive.

>It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
>freedom of speech.

There is no limitation on freedom of speech on usenet. You can say
whatever you want, as long as it is within the proper forums and does not
abuse the Internet. This 'shallowness' does not exist.

The only exceptions are cases where you have to contact your defence lawyer
anyway. (e.g. Libel, Harassment, etc.)

>People who would vociferously espouse the principle
>of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
>erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
>right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.

This is not a freedom of speech issue either. If it were, the anti-Steam
postings would not be spammed over and over again on off-topic newsgroups,
thus adding to the clutter of an already congested Internet.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:24:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <vlxNd.3345$Ub4.165628@news20.bellglobal.com>
> , "Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>"Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
>>news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
>>
>>>Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
>>>news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
>>>>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
>>>>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
>>>>
>>>>There is also such a thing as a killfile.
>>>
>>>I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
>>>to
>>>the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
>>>suggestion.
>>>
>>>But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
>>>to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
>>>their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
>>>in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
>>>general expanation
>>>
>>>Gandalf Parker
>>
>>Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
>>case we need to use some antibiotics.
>
>
>
> You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
> of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
> what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
> nor responding to his posts.
>
> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
> freedom of speech. People who would vociferously espouse the principle
> of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
> erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
> right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.
>
> Jim

Haven't been long here, have you?

He has every right to have an opinion, but once he starts associating
people who use and appreciate Steam as Nazis, that's offensive and wrong
and disregards the rights of others as well.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:51:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <4206d16c$1@yorrell.saard.net>,
GFree <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Haven't been long here, have you?

Only about 10 years.

>He has every right to have an opinion, but once he starts associating
>people who use and appreciate Steam as Nazis, that's offensive and wrong
>and disregards the rights of others as well.

What you apparently don't realize is he has every right to post what he did.
Offensive ? Probably to most. Wrong ? Most I suspect would agree. Disregards
the _rights_ of others ? Nonsense--none of the people posting about reporting
him etc, had a single _right_ of theirs violated.

The price individuals under a democracy pay to claim the right to freedom of
speech, is that speech is sometimes offensive. If you don't understand that,
you don't understand the principle.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:53:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:h0ANd.303143$6l.46102@pd7tw2no:

> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> belief in freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech does not apply. This is Internet. Internet is run by a
democracy which rules a million small tyrannys. You can "cast your vote" to
his SysAdmin, and thats who will decide. Period.

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:55:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:UIANd.302520$8l.52900@pd7tw1no:

> The price individuals under a democracy pay to claim the right to
> freedom of speech, is that speech is sometimes offensive. If you don't
> understand that, you don't understand the principle.

Democracy? Freedom of Speech? Thats USA.
And even then its rarely mentioned properly since it protects us from
government censors.

But anyway, this is Internet

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
>responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
>nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as he's
>civil about it (the responsibility part). Since he's foregone the
>responsibility, he loses the associated right. Simple.


The only thing simple is your analysis of what constitutes
freedom of speech. No constitution of any country which
guarantees the right of freedom of speech, includes the
addendum,"..as long as that speech is civil ".

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:08:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

difool bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...

>to all steam lovers... your master photo!
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~pudmonkey1/steamfornazis.jpg

Give it a rest. :^(


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:13:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

He He.. Ya have a right to say whatever ya want but that doesn,t mean
anyyone has to listen.... Ya'll miss the point...




"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with
the intention of arriving safely in an attractive
and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, cigarette in one hand, favorite beverage in
the other, body thoroughly used up,
totally worn out,and screaming
WOO HOO - What a Ride!"
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:30:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <Xns95F5C080C4DB7gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>
, Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:

>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:h0ANd.303143$6l.46102@pd7tw2no:
>
>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
>> belief in freedom of speech.
>
>Freedom of Speech does not apply. This is Internet. Internet is run by a
>democracy which rules a million small tyrannys. You can "cast your vote" to
>his SysAdmin, and thats who will decide. Period.
>Gandalf Parker


Yikes, the great Gandalf has declared the debate over. That " Period " is
intimidating and so authoritative.

You can report him to your heart's content, the fact you would however,
speaks volumes as to your character and level of tolerance of others who
don't happen to be as morally superior as yourself.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:39:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <Xns95F5C0CD74F8Cgandalfparker@208.201.224.15
4>, Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:

>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote in news:UIANd.302520$8l.52900@pd7tw1no:
>
>> The price individuals under a democracy pay to claim the right to
>> freedom of speech, is that speech is sometimes offensive. If you don't
>> understand that, you don't understand the principle.
>
>Democracy? Freedom of Speech? Thats USA.

Really ? Well I live in a democracy with a constitution guaranteeing freedom
of speech and it ain't the USA.

>And even then its rarely mentioned properly since it protects us from
>government censors.

Try reading the 1st amendment again, ' abridging ' does not only
apply to censorship.

>But anyway, this is Internet

What does that matter ? It's the behavior of you and others I'm talking about,
not where that behavior occurs.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:24:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <mnmd01dg07ha6pp9rvprboimhouqvipk49@4ax.com>
, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:

>That only works if you don't have to receive his postings to begin with.
>Most ISPs that run newsservers do not have killfiles and have to download
>those posts anyway, which in turn takes up disk space that could be used
>for something more valuable (e.g. alt.binaries.*).

I sincerely don't understand the above. I've never plonked anyone, and have
had no problem not reading posts or threads I didn't want to.

>One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply that
>by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that by the
>number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take long before
>the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill up a small hard
>drive.

But off-topic is a function of the participants, not some usenet bible dictating
what can or can't be discussed, isn't it ? The newsgroup I spend almost all
my usenet time on, is the Canucks hockey newsgroup. Over the years, the
regulars and semi-lurkers alike have determined nothing is off topic. It's a vibrant
community, especially when the damn NHL is actually playing. :-)

There will be many threads or posts I'm not particularly excited about, and will
simply pass over on them. I guess it's because of this that I see the current flap
over the anti-steam poster as no big deal.

>There is no limitation on freedom of speech on usenet. You can say
>whatever you want, as long as it is within the proper forums and does not
>abuse the Internet. This 'shallowness' does not exist.

I would be willing to bet no one reporting the poster comes to the table with
clean hands. Nary a single off-topic or abusing or insulting or offensive post
in their lives ?

In the group I mentioned above, we've found ignoring, or mockery and humor
does a hell of a better job in dissuading jerk behavior from continuing than threats
of being reported.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:30:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <a4od01tefjfnvgi54dmkji27b8fr6egnrq@4ax.com>
, Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote:

>But there have been many people I've reported over the years. Usually
>it's the repeat-duplicate poster types. You know? Same post, again and
>again. "Did you hear the good news?" is going around now, repeatedly
>crossposted, with the same god-saved-you message. I reported that one
>(although I'm doubtful that will do much good).

I can understand that.

>The only other type I have it out for is the "reply in news /and/ in email"
>type. This includes some set of personal insults, in email.

Fortunately I haven't experienced that. But a person taking it to e-mail
is out of bounds afaic, and I would similarly do what it took to put a stop
to it.

Jim
February 7, 2005 10:26:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"foamy" wrote

> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> belief in
> freedom of speech.

'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you would
not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu:

> Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
> responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
> nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as
> he's civil about it (the responsibility part).

Wrong, utterly and completely wrong. Cite the SPECIFIC LAW that says that
one can be legally denied ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION merely for being rude.
Of course, since you're an idiot and/or lying pig, you will fail to do so.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) abagooba zoink larblortch
news:mnmd01dg07ha6pp9rvprboimhouqvipk49@4ax.com:

> One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply
> that by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that
> by the number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take
> long before the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill
> up a small hard drive.

Or, just stop carrying the worthless pr0n newsgroups. That would make up
for the space thousands of times over. Oops, but that would make lifetime
basement dwellers unhappy, wouldn't it.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:35:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:ac5e01dbeo1620ltvj7e94kkuqv7aqo8ne@4ax.com:

> i don't see it that way at all
> what you have there is simple
> you pick a person photo, someone who is doing IMMENSE HARM to many
> people someone who is acting like an ARROGANT MONOPOLISTIC DICTATOR
> and edit the photo by including "universal" EVIL symbology

Dear moron: How you "see" it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters
is how a judge will "see" it if it ever comes to a defamation civil suit.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:38:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> "foamy" wrote
>
>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is
>> the belief in
>> freedom of speech.
>
> 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter fascist
nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to offend", so
long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or an
incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER in US
courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the USA.
I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and totalitarian
tyranny.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:18:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>"foamy" wrote
>
>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
>> belief in
>> freedom of speech.
>
>'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

Of course it does. If you tried to restrict speech based upon the subjective
determination of whether what you said was offensive specific to ' each
listener ', few of us could ever say anything. That's why the freedom lies
pre facto with the speaker, even if offensive, and tools such as libel laws
are available post facto to determine if the offense taken was justified.

>The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you would
>not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.

You're right, and governments are constantly trying to place more and more
restrictions on expression. The contemporary crop of ' hate ' laws in vogue
around the world are a fine example, where not only actions but speech can
be labeled as such.

Jim
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:25:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <cu88sb$p6h$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Stoned Monkey" <tenny2k@NOSPAMrtennant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>> Kill filters are a bitch in OE. Get Free Agent, you'll be glad you
>> did.
>
>yeah I've been thining about gettin something different I use newsleecher
>for binaries


A most beautiful small newsreader is NewsXpress. It was developed by a
guy a decade ago as part of his doctorate at Stanford. What I love about
it is, everything is done in full screen, no fiddling around with panes.

ftp://ftp.malch.com/nx201.zip

Jim
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:11:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
>
>
>>Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
>>responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling people
>>nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as long as
>>he's civil about it (the responsibility part).
>
>
> Wrong, utterly and completely wrong. Cite the SPECIFIC LAW that says that
> one can be legally denied ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION merely for being rude.
> Of course, since you're an idiot and/or lying pig, you will fail to do so.
I'm not talking about LAWS, I'm talking about RIGHTS. I stand by what I
said about it being a responsibility, but maybe I was misunderstood
about the civil part. I'm not saying he can be LEGALLY denied anything,
just that... Gah, screw it, I don't know how to explain it well enough.
It's the difference between a heated debate, and an argument, if that
makes sense. After the debate, they'll go shake hands and smile. After
an argument, they'll take it out back and finish it up. That probably
didn't help any...


-Acercanto (young pup)
user:forestman domain:vt.edu

You can have only two of the following
three qualities when developing a product:
cheap, fast or good. You can produce something
cheap and fast, but it won't be good,
good and fast, but it won't be cheap,
good and cheap, but it won't be fast.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:47:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:mnmd01dg07ha6pp9rvprboimhouqvipk49@4ax.com:
>
>
>>One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply
>>that by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply that
>>by the number of news servers attached to the internet. It won't take
>>long before the total disk space occupied by the spamming run to fill
>>up a small hard drive.
>
>
> Or, just stop carrying the worthless pr0n newsgroups. That would make up
> for the space thousands of times over. Oops, but that would make lifetime
> basement dwellers unhappy, wouldn't it.
>
Why are you so abrasive today? Got divorced or something?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:57:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote in
news:Xns95F6BBA83A785Yarblookie@216.196.97.136:

> acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:cu6ksl$j6e$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
>
>> Free speech is a responsibility as well as a freedom. DiFool has the
>> responsibility to be civil (civil=being polite, eg: not calling
>> people nazi's). He can say anything he likes (the freedom part) as
>> long as he's civil about it (the responsibility part).
>
> Wrong, utterly and completely wrong. Cite the SPECIFIC LAW that says
> that one can be legally denied ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION merely for
> being rude. Of course, since you're an idiot and/or lying pig, you
> will fail to do so.

Hmmmm actually I think it would be more along the line of being loud and
rude somewhere like a mall or restaurant. They get asked to take their
buisness elsewhere

Gandalf Parker
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:05:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote in
news:Xns95F6BCCF8B1BAYarblookie@216.196.97.136:

> bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:mnmd01dg07ha6pp9rvprboimhouqvipk49@4ax.com:
>
>> One individual off-topic posting isn't a problem. However, multiply
>> that by the number of repeated off-topic postings. Then multiply
>> that by the number of news servers attached to the internet. It
>> won't take long before the total disk space occupied by the spamming
>> run to fill up a small hard drive.
>
> Or, just stop carrying the worthless pr0n newsgroups. That would make
> up for the space thousands of times over. Oops, but that would make
> lifetime basement dwellers unhappy, wouldn't it.

Actually many ISPs dont carry all of the newsgroups. Some cut off all
binary groups. Others carry only official chartered groups. Others only
groups their customers request added to the server. And yet others only
carry local groups they made for their own ISP while renting out news
access on some newsservice providor. Very few want to carry all the
groups themselves like in the old days

Good time for a new cabal (TINC)

Gandalf Parker
February 8, 2005 4:19:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-02-06, Stoned Monkey <tenny2k@NOSPAMrtennant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> I would but I now think he should be silenced for being abusive, its really
> not on, at first it was funny now he had just become completely offensive
> does anyone know how to report his abuse?

Check his headers, email his ISPs abuse department. Stop
following up to him.

BTW, at this point it's obvious he's mentally ill. Try to keep
things in perspective. He definetly needs help.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 5:58:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <cu9763$ekk$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
acercanto <send.spam@microsoft.com> wrote:

>I'm not talking about LAWS, I'm talking about RIGHTS. I stand by what I
>said about it being a responsibility, but maybe I was misunderstood
>about the civil part. I'm not saying he can be LEGALLY denied anything,
>just that... Gah, screw it, I don't know how to explain it well enough.

Let me help you out. :-)

Even though I was arguing on the other side of the fence, you are absolutely
right when you suggest with ' rights ' come ' responsibilities '.

And just because one has the ' right ' to say or do something, doesn't mean
a civilized person in a civil society should necessarily exercise that right.

Rights to one, can be tyranny to another, and as a result should be exercised
with prudence.

Jim
February 8, 2005 10:36:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote
> "Vince"

>> "foamy" wrote

>>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is
>>> the belief in freedom of speech.

>> 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.

> Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter fascist
> nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to offend", so
> long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or an
> incitement to criminal activity.

So you *can't* say anything you like then! How difficult is this to
understand.

> This has been tested OVER AND OVER in US
> courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the USA.

I'ts not just about the courts. Television companies, newspapers, Etc,
already heavily censor what people would like to say. So do Internet forums.

> I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and totalitarian
> tyranny.

It is less totalitarian than the States.
February 8, 2005 10:39:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" wrote

> acercanto wrote:

>>I'm not talking about LAWS, I'm talking about RIGHTS. I stand by what I
>>said about it being a responsibility, but maybe I was misunderstood
>>about the civil part. I'm not saying he can be LEGALLY denied anything,
>>just that... Gah, screw it, I don't know how to explain it well enough.

> Let me help you out. :-)

> Even though I was arguing on the other side of the fence, you are
> absolutely
> right when you suggest with ' rights ' come ' responsibilities '.

> And just because one has the ' right ' to say or do something, doesn't
> mean
> a civilized person in a civil society should necessarily exercise that
> right.

> Rights to one, can be tyranny to another, and as a result should be
> exercised
> with prudence.

You argued both sides pretty well.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:59:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <b1_Nd.37587$B8.4962@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> Rights to one, can be tyranny to another, and as a result should be
>> exercised
>> with prudence.
>
>You argued both sides pretty well.


Heh, thanks :-) Maybe I'm a natural for politics. <g>

Jim
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:47:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"the more the talk, the less the content"...anon!

freestone
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:52:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Vince wrote:

> I'ts not just about the courts. Television companies, newspapers, Etc,
> already heavily censor what people would like to say. So do Internet forums.

Lest we forget about Janet Jackson's boobie... ;-)
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 5:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote in message
news:Xns95F6BD8BA8488Yarblookie@216.196.97.136...
> "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> > "foamy" wrote
> >
> >> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is
> >> the belief in
> >> freedom of speech.
> >
> > 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>
> Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter fascist
> nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to offend", so
> long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or an
> incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER in US
> courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the USA.
> I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and totalitarian
> tyranny.

Yes it has. Sadly that is becoming less of a joke. I'd rather have Tony
Tiger running the country than Bliar. But anyways...
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:46:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:38:03 -0600, "Bryan J. Maloney"
<cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:

>"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> abagooba zoink larblortch
>news:uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> "foamy" wrote
>>
>>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is
>>> the belief in
>>> freedom of speech.
>>
>> 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>
>Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter fascist
>nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to offend", so
>long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That sounds oxymoron. "You have right to offend someone, as long as
you don't hurt his feelings.". LOL!

>incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER in US
>courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the USA.
>I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and totalitarian
>tyranny.

I think you are playing with semantics, and the US freedom of speech
is not really that different after all.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 6:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:46:59 GMT, riku wrote:

>>Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter fascist
>>nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to offend", so
>>long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or an
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That sounds oxymoron. "You have right to offend someone, as long as
> you don't hurt his feelings.". LOL!

Actually the First Amendment in the US only guarantees the right to speak
against the government. Private individuals don't have such guarantees
(they are considered separately under the libel/slader/etc clauses). Of
course it all comes down to how the judge (or justice) interprets it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme...
--
RJB
2/9/2005 2:53:00 PM

Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.
--P. J. O'Rourke
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message 6iONd.313143$8l.232794@pd7tw1no...
> In article <uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> >, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"foamy" wrote
> >
> >> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the
> >> belief in
> >> freedom of speech.
> >
> >'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>
> Of course it does. If you tried to restrict speech based upon the
subjective
> determination of whether what you said was offensive specific to ' each
> listener ', few of us could ever say anything. That's why the freedom lies
> pre facto with the speaker, even if offensive, and tools such as libel
laws
> are available post facto to determine if the offense taken was justified.
>

I think you're right. In such cases, I tend to define "freedom" as "other
people's right to do things I dislike" - it helps me in clarifying the
issues a bit, and especially in deciding how far I want to defend the
particular freedom in question. After all, it's too easy to defend freedom,
if I define it as "my right to do what I like". And not particularly useful
to live together in a civilized way.

> >The 'Freedom' is never absolute anyway. There are lots of things you
would
> >not be allowed to transmit on TV whatever country you're in.
>
> You're right, and governments are constantly trying to place more and more
> restrictions on expression. The contemporary crop of ' hate ' laws in
vogue
> around the world are a fine example, where not only actions but speech can
> be labeled as such.
>
> Jim

Another god point - and again I'm with you 100%.

Alfredo
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 6:42:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <5VvOd.25124$QG6.431378@twister2.libero.it>,
"Alfredo Tutino" <ducciotutino@libero.it> wrote:

>I think you're right. In such cases, I tend to define "freedom" as "other
>people's right to do things I dislike" - it helps me in clarifying the
>issues a bit, and especially in deciding how far I want to defend the
>particular freedom in question. After all, it's too easy to defend freedom,
>if I define it as "my right to do what I like". And not particularly useful
>to live together in a civilized way.


That's an excellent position to adopt Alfredo. I think it perfectly
illuminates what freedom of speech is really all about.

We all see and hear things which we feel the world would be better off
without. But if we allow other's freedom of expression to be limited, it
won't be long before they come for ours. The first steps on the slippery
slope to totalitarianism often appear to be innocent and benign.

Jim
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:17:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>
> Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter
fascist
> nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to
offend", so
> long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or
an
> incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER
in US
> courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the
USA.
> I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and
totalitarian
> tyranny.

I think "offend" in this context should be understood as "libelous,
slanderous, obscene, or an incitement to criminal activity". As in your
right free speech does not give you the right to do the above.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 10:58:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

riku <riku@invalid.none.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:anfj019na9adonpb7qtk3afkpsljjksrgg@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:38:03 -0600, "Bryan J. Maloney"
> <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:
>
>>"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> abagooba zoink larblortch
>>news:uKENd.16270$68.8606@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>>> "foamy" wrote
>>>
>>>> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is
>>>> the belief in
>>>> freedom of speech.
>>>
>>> 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>>
>>Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter
>>fascist nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to
>>offend", so long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous,
>>obscene, or an
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That sounds oxymoron. "You have right to offend someone, as long as
> you don't hurt his feelings.". LOL!

Wow, you ARE a professional moron. I make any amount of offensive
statements and accusations in public WITHOUT libeling/slandering someone.
They merely need to be FACTUAL statements. Only an utter waste of DNA
like you would be ignorant of the simple legal principle that truth is
perfect defense against the charges of libel and slander. If a statement
is true, it CANNOT be libelous nor slanderous, regardless of how
offensive it is--but you're obviously too ignorant for that.

Furthermore, if an offensive portrayal is sufficiently obvious as satire,
it is not slander nor libel. Likewise, as an ignorant loser like you
would no doubt be utterly ignorant of, a statement of OPINION that is
portrayed as such is at least partially protected from charges of libel
and slander, regardless of how offensive it might be. But you're just
too stupid to know that, obviously.

>
>>incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER
>>in US courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech
>>in the USA. I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized
>>and totalitarian tyranny.
>
> I think you are playing with semantics, and the US freedom of speech
> is not really that different after all.

I think you're an ignorant loser who should stop playing with mommy's
computer.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:00:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:1108041430.624140.264560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>>
>> > 'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'right to offend'.
>>
>> Wow, I didn't realize that the UK was such a complete and utter
> fascist
>> nightmare. In the USA, "fredom of speech" DOES mean "right to
> offend", so
>> long as the offensive speech is not libelous, slanderous, obscene, or
> an
>> incitement to criminal activity. This has been tested OVER AND OVER
> in US
>> courts. Inoffensiveness is NOT a prerequisite for free speech in the
> USA.
>> I hadn't realized that the UK had become such a sanitized and
> totalitarian
>> tyranny.
>
> I think "offend" in this context should be understood as "libelous,
> slanderous, obscene, or an incitement to criminal activity". As in your
> right free speech does not give you the right to do the above.

I think that "speech" should be understood as "singing the sextet from La
Traviata". Unlike idiots, I do not seriously indulge in the humpty-
dumptyism that you prefer.
February 12, 2005 4:08:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Grackle wrote:
>
> "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
> news:Xns95F58404CACD2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
> > Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in
> > news:3euc015r9smn9teh6q0eel77ert2msaiac@4ax.com:
> >
> >>
> >>>Not sure if it will work though. Borderline irritant. Most ISPs have
> >>>Terms of Service which say you cant spam and cant post anything which
> >>>violates the newsgroups charter. Im not sure it has passed either mark
> >>
> >> There is also such a thing as a killfile.
> >
> > I know that many would prefer that killfiles be used rather than reports
> > to
> > the ISP. And in cases where its not an alt.troll player that is a good
> > suggestion.
> >
> > But since Im an ISP Admin and a Moderator, I feel it rather an obligation
> > to not use killfiles myself. And to let other admins or moderators know if
> > their users might be breaking their rules. That tends to be true of anyone
> > in any position I think. Again Im not sure this case fits the bill. Just a
> > general expanation
> >
> > Gandalf Parker
>
> Killfiles are like bandages over an infected wound. I think in difool's
> case we need to use some antibiotics.

And if that doesn't work, surgery?

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz
February 12, 2005 4:09:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

foamy wrote:
>
> You guys can try and convince yourself you're acting out of some sense
> of propriety until you're blue in the face, but the fact is you don't_like_
> what he's saying. Which of course could easily be resolved by not reading
> nor responding to his posts.
>
> It's always funny to me to see in threads like this how shallow is the belief in
> freedom of speech. People who would vociferously espouse the principle
> of free speech are often the first to try and limit it. And all because they somehow
> erroneously believe they have a right to_not be offended_and that supposed
> right supersedes another persons legitimate right to expression.
>
> Jim

Right on. Freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn't include speech
which is offensive.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz
!