"retard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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.
Meh, I've outright argued with both of them plenty of times.
