Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"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.
I confirm Nick is not in my killfile :o).
Andrei
