Roeland and all,
Here Here! Exactly right. However it is not just the left wing political movement
here that is at fault but the Right wing just a much. I thankfully do not
belong to either the Democratic or Republican party's I would not wish
to be tarnished with their political dribble and dinsengeniousness that
both of those parties espouse and seek to influence the masses with.
Hate breeds just more hate. And the rancor amongst both political
bents has become equally disgusting and revolting. WIlliam Walsh's
fecal matter explosions not withstanding.
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> I'm going to say one thing on this thread and leave it strictly alone. Yes, this is
>a rant.
>
> It's amazing how much opportunistic trash takes advantage of such a tragedy. This
>includes Clinton. NPR just informed the US that Clinton is taking this opportunity to
>ram some more anti-gun legislation through, as if that would have made a difference.
>Scareamnto is putting forward some other civil-rights restricting crap. Congress has
>two new bills to reduce our freedoms further.
>
> The the folks who took the trenchcoatmafia.com domain got nothing on the scum-ball,
>Orwellian, "liberal" politicians that take advantage of EVERY tragic opportunity to
>further their cause, which is the eventual enslavement of the US citizen. I am
>talking about HCI, MADD, and other "liberal" do-gooder groups. They are all folks
>that would trade leg-irons for security any day. The real problem is that they want
>to force that trade on everyone else. This is morally wrong. The way they are using
>children to gain their political will is also extremely disgusting.
>
> William and I part company on this one and I'm surprised to find myself siding with
>Santagata here. Michael Bryan is saying the same thing, the right-think way. There
>should be absolutely no restrictions on what ever name the customer chooses to use,
>period, full-stop.
>
> Too often, among the "liberal" facists, we see the dark shadow of right-speak and
>right-think. Nowhere is it more visible than in the debate on the "appropriateness"
>of a domain name. What is "politically correct" this week? I have some news for you,
>no matter how you dress it up, censorship is censorship. Fascism is also fascism and
>it does not have to be goose-stepping down main street to be present. It's all about
>intolerance to an extreme level. It's not about responsibility, it's about CONTROL.
>
> Do you know that you can spend more money and jail-time for being convicted of
>driving with 0.09% alcohol in your blood-stream than you will for a low-grade MURDER
>conviction? Kids are killing each other, but at least they are doing it "straight"
>(sadly, that's not sarcasm, it's the truth).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Michael Bryan
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 4:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: speculators?
>
> On 4/22/99 at 9:40 PM William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:27:17 -0700, James Santagata
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>As much as people may find these domain names repugnant, (and I do,
> >>too) I find it more repugnant that people would even consider censorship.
> >[...]
> >I have let those who are providing services to these people know
> >exactly how this could affect their image and reputation. Most are
> >very concerned about such issues and are responding quite positively.
> >The ones that don't will have their failure to act made public along
> >with their contact information so others who find it repugnant can let
> >their displeasure be known as well.
> >
> >This is the same type of public pressure that has been used in the
> >past when trademark holders have crossed the line. It can be used for
> >many thing quite effectively.
>
> And just where do you draw the line? You apparently think it's ok
> to bash/harass/threaten a company because they are providing services
> for a group or individual that is doing something that you feel is in
> poor taste and/or insensitive, and not "politically correct". Does it
> then follow that it's ok for service providers to be harassed/bullied
> into shutting down services for a liberal/progressive group in order
> to keep some ultra-conservative faction happy, just because that faction
> happens to be a vocal minority?
>
> That is a very real, dangerous, and ugly slippery slope that you are on.
> If service providers allow various outspoken factions to force them into
> removing sites that express views or attitudes that are offensive or
> objectionable to some group of people, then you will eventually be left
> with a very -boring- Internet, one which has very little diversity or
> true freedom of speech.
>
> Why do you even care whether or not that site exists? If it personally
> offends you, don't go there. One of the major problems society seems to
> have always had to one degree or another is some level of inability to
> handle/allow diversity, an inability to "agree to disagree" and leave it
> at that. Instead, we engage in genocide, wage wars, torture and harass
> those who we don't like, and do everything in our power to destroy that
> which we don't understand or agree with, rather than accepting diversity
> as a natural part of life. Frankly, it sickens me, at -all- levels.
>
> Those who do so under the guise of "moral superiority", by acting as the
> moral/ethical/thought police are the worst of the lot. In fact, those
> that truly think they are doing a world a favor by "protecting" others
> from these dangerous/offensive ideas are usually the most dangerous
> practitioners of this behaviour. It's easier to ignore or write off
> somebody who is just plain insane or evil --- it's the ones that have
> "the power of being 'right'" on their side that are often the most
> persuasive.
>
> There are cases where there is arguably a moral/ethical obligation to
> stand up against some group or practice. If a group is inciting others
> to engage in violent acts, then they should be opposed, to protect future
> potential victims. If a group is actively attacking another group, or
> engaging in violations of basic human rights, then they should be opposed,
> to protect those being attacked. On a smaller scale, if a company is
> failing to treat its employees fairly in some respect, then pressure can
> be brought against that company to provide more equitable treatment.
>
> But in all of these cases, action should not be undertaken lightly, and
> never just because somebody's actions offend you. In the case of domain
> names and web sites that are of questionable taste, and certainly offensive
> to some people (or even many/most people), taking actions to try and
> "wipe them off the Net" is a -serious- undertaking, with strong repurcussions.
> You are infringing upon their rights to freedom of speech. Unless they are
> actively harming you or others, or threatening to do so, why is it so bloody
> important to squash them?
>
> Ignore them. It's easier and causes less hypertension. Or if it -really-
> offends you, then attempt to engage the domain -owners- in conversation,
> trying to convince them that what they are doing is wrong for some reason.
> But don't take punitive actions against them by trying to get their domain
> dropped by their current provider. That's no better than a fascist
> government shutting down a newspaper because it prints stories that cast
> the government in a negative light.
>
> Michael Bryan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
