Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:20:19 -0500, Bane wrote:
>> Except that you could argue that the government is censoring it for the >> people, thereby making it an outside force imposing control on the >> inside. Merriam-Webster's online definition would tend to go with the >> whole "outside force" idea: >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor . Generally speaking, >> censorship refers to one group cutting out or blocking material from >> coming into contact with another group, but you might be able to argue >> that it doesn't _have_ to be an outside force. Still, in any kind of >> normal use, it would be. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis > > Legal/moral mumbo jumbo. There are group with resources to provide/deny > something to other groups, and there are those without that power. > Reason for first to do it at first place? Same why dog licks his ass - > because he can. > > So if admin of his mailing list can exercise his power to make it more > useful to majority of readers on expense of few (troublesome) > individuals, the better. Its not like anyone is going to gulag if placed > on ban list, for fucks sake. At least in this newsgroup it's easy to get into peoples' killfile. Just disagree with your beloved deitys, Andrei and W. A good way to piss them off is to mention dmd's broken support for tuples or .stringof, critizise the featuritis and language inconsistency, support Tango, or know something about functional languages.
