Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-06 Thread Tom Piwowar
i guess dan drank too since he apologized.

His cracking under pressure doesn't really address the issue.

Galileo recanted too.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-06 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 10:12 AM 8/5/2008, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In order for secularism, whatever in hell THAT means, to be a religion, 
it must have some set of relatively well-settled articles of faith which 
have been organized into a more or less formal, and, in any event, 
objectively-determined, dogma.


I think you have just repudiated most of the world's religions. Good show!


 Hey! You know me. Always happy to help.

 I had no idea I was so powerful. Cool beans.

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Tom Piwowar
In order for secularism, whatever in hell THAT means, to be a 
religion, it must have some set of relatively well-settled articles of 
faith which have been organized into a more or less formal, and, in any 
event, objectively-determined, dogma.

I think you have just repudiated most of the world's religions. Good show!


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Tom Piwowar
The government is not supposed to be sticking a wetted finger into the air 
every hour to see which way the popular wind is blowing.

Read the Wikipedia article on The Wisdom of Crowds

It will make you feel better about all this.

Or maybe worse.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Chris Dunford
Yeah, I know about that.  However, the crowds twice elected a certain
individual whose name I won't mention but whose initials might include the
letters G, W, and B.  In my view, this fact disproves the entire premise.

 Read the Wikipedia article on The Wisdom of Crowds


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Larry Sacks
 tactic; furthermore, it is the most
likely tactic to be effective in halting these atrocities, he said in
an e-mail.

Others in the animal rights community decried the firebombings, saying
they would set the movement back.

We're against violence to any species, including our own, said Dr.
Elliot Katz, a veterinarian and president of In Defense of Animals in
San Rafael. With a broad brush, it makes everyone who cares about
animals look like an extremist, and that plays into the hands of people
who exploit them. They are able to discredit what we do.

Such attacks, however, can deter scientists from their work.

This sort of thing has a very chilling effect on researchers and
potential students, and thus on the entire enterprise of basic medical
research, said one Stanford University researcher. He requested
anonymity because of fears he would be targeted.


-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:21 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

The government is not supposed to be sticking a wetted finger into the
air 
every hour to see which way the popular wind is blowing.

Read the Wikipedia article on The Wisdom of Crowds

It will make you feel better about all this.

Or maybe worse.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy
**
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/
**

*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Jeff Wright
 In all this talk about the definition morality, I've always found it
 interesting how groups use their own definition of it to justify their
 cause.

 This might not have made the national news but

 Perpetrators must be stopped using whatever means necessary, and the
 use of force is a morally righteous tactic; furthermore, it is the most
 likely tactic to be effective in halting these atrocities, he said in
 an e-mail.

Mr. BurnsRelease the hounds!/Mr. Burns


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Tom Piwowar
whatever means necessary

People just need to jet their extreme-o-meters properly calibrated. 
Anyone using phrases like that scores 100.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Tom Piwowar
Yeah, I know about that.  However, the crowds twice elected a certain
individual whose name I won't mention but whose initials might include the
letters G, W, and B.  In my view, this fact disproves the entire premise.

Lots of money was expended on feeding the crowds misinformation and the 
press were cowed into not doing their jobs. Don't forget what happened to 
Dan Rather.

If we had actually got what we were promised none of us would be so 
unhappy.

This is why the Communist Chineese and Comcast want to control what goes 
through the pipes. (Back on topic! Can you do this too?)


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Larry Sacks
What's the frequency Kenneth!!

-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:13 PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

Yeah, I know about that.  However, the crowds twice elected a certain
individual whose name I won't mention but whose initials might include
the
letters G, W, and B.  In my view, this fact disproves the entire
premise.

Lots of money was expended on feeding the crowds misinformation and the 
press were cowed into not doing their jobs. Don't forget what happened
to 
Dan Rather.

If we had actually got what we were promised none of us would be so 
unhappy.

This is why the Communist Chineese and Comcast want to control what goes

through the pipes. (Back on topic! Can you do this too?)



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy
**
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/
**

*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread mike
You mean getting canned for using known false docs to get ratings?  Then
getting outed within minutes by people who use those fancy computer things?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Lots of money was expended on feeding the crowds misinformation and the
 press were cowed into not doing their jobs. Don't forget what happened to
 Dan Rather.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread Tom Piwowar
You mean getting canned for using known false docs to get ratings?  Then
getting outed within minutes by people who use those fancy computer things?

OMG you drank the KoolAid.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-05 Thread mike
i guess dan drank too since he apologized.

On 8/5/08, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean getting canned for using known false docs to get ratings?  Then
getting outed within minutes by people who use those fancy computer things?

 OMG you drank the KoolAid.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread mike
Is this to say the censoring of anything only comes from the religious?
City council in LA just banned the building of any new fast food restaraunts
in poorer sections.  Cities and counties across the US ban smoking in public
and private areas...I don't think there is any religious basis whatsoever
for the fairness doctrine which is working it's way up the ladder again in
congress.  That is a horribly clear example of censorship.  What about the
movement to remove anything resembling unorganized prayer in schools?  I
don't think that is religious in nature.  The secularists want censorship
also, it's just their kind of censorship so it's ok.

Mike

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Robert Michael Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

This is America, and you're entitled to your opinion, Stewart, but I think
you have it exactly wrong. Any societal outrage is necessarily and
obviously religious in nature. If it weren't, censors wouldn't feel
justified in attempting to control the lives, thoughts, and behaviors of
people, other adults, in fact, they will never meet or know. This is, after
all, a democracy. The censors you were describing take their perceived
strength, and the concomitant arrogance and sanctimoniousness (necessary if
they are to ignore or dismiss the democratic protections cloaking those they
seek to control), from their claim that they are doing God's work. They seek
power in order to require you to practice THEIR religion.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Tom Piwowar
All societies set their own morals/ethics by majority opinion.  Our 
federal government is supposed to reflect that choice by the laws it 
passes.  This is not always the case and people may disagree with it.

No they do not. Judicial opinion probably has the greatest influence. 
That system has a lot of drag built into it (and for good reason).

Gosh, if morals/ethics were set by opinion polls our socienty would 
operate little better than MS Office.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread John Emmerling
Robert,

As a fellow secularist, I have to point out that this type of
confrontational arguing serves to discredit us in the eyes of most US
citizens.  Please try a different approach.

--JE

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Robert Michael Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
...


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

By the way Morals/Ethics do not equal public law.

Now understand I am talking about this and looking at this as a 
Sociologist would.


How the everyday person looks a this is a confusion of all the above 
terms and realizations.


Stewart


At 08:25 AM 8/4/2008, you wrote:

All societies set their own morals/ethics by majority opinion.  Our
federal government is supposed to reflect that choice by the laws it
passes.  This is not always the case and people may disagree with it.

No they do not. Judicial opinion probably has the greatest influence.
That system has a lot of drag built into it (and for good reason).

Gosh, if morals/ethics were set by opinion polls our socienty would
operate little better than MS Office.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

By the way some would view secularism as its own religion.

Stewart


At 09:07 AM 8/4/2008, you wrote:

Robert,

As a fellow secularist, I have to point out that this type of
confrontational arguing serves to discredit us in the eyes of most US
citizens.  Please try a different approach.

--JE


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread mike
Right..censorship cause it's good for you!  Why is it good for you?  Cause
we decided it is!

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is this to say the censoring of anything only comes from the religious?
 City council in LA just banned the building of any new fast food
 restaraunts
 in poorer sections.  Cities and counties across the US ban smoking in
 public
 and private areas...

 So we ban fast acting poisons, but allow slow acting poisons? What is the
 dividing line between illegal fast-acting poisons and legal slow-acting
 poisons? If you can crawl away before you die would that make it a legal
 slow-acting poison? Or would the poison have to do its work over a period
 of years to be judged a legal slow-acting poison? Would a
 single-dose-effective poison be illegal, but one that required repeated
 administration be legal? If the poison tasted good and was willingly
 consumed by the deceased would that make it a legal poison? If one could
 get the deceased to pay for the poison would that make it a legal poison?
 If it can be established that the deceased wanted to die, would that make
 it legal? What if the deceased did not know (or care) the poison was
 harmful, but the purveyor did? If the deceased knew the slow-acting
 multiply-administered poison would eventually lead to their demise would
 the deceased become the damned? Does the introduction of the concept of
 damnation make this a religious question?

 America wants to know!


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

Interesting you should mention that.

The Aztecs used tobacco in their society for religious and medical 
purposes.  (I am watching the History channel!)


Stewart

At 11:58 AM 8/4/2008, you wrote:

So we ban fast acting poisons, but allow slow acting poisons? What is the
dividing line between illegal fast-acting poisons and legal slow-acting
poisons? If you can crawl away before you die would that make it a legal
slow-acting poison? Or would the poison have to do its work over a period
of years to be judged a legal slow-acting poison? Would a
single-dose-effective poison be illegal, but one that required repeated
administration be legal? If the poison tasted good and was willingly
consumed by the deceased would that make it a legal poison? If one could
get the deceased to pay for the poison would that make it a legal poison?
If it can be established that the deceased wanted to die, would that make
it legal? What if the deceased did not know (or care) the poison was
harmful, but the purveyor did? If the deceased knew the slow-acting
multiply-administered poison would eventually lead to their demise would
the deceased become the damned? Does the introduction of the concept of
damnation make this a religious question?

America wants to know!


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Steve Rigby

On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:

Unfortunately we have two (Executive and Legislative) that do not  
seem to be able to make any decisions without consulting public  
opinion.


  Our current Executive branch seems to be completely unconcerned  
about consulting with anyone beyond their little circle of neo- 
conservatives.  The Legislative is actually intended to consult  
public opinion.  As to the Judicial, that branch served to initially  
elect our sitting President and his band of cohorts.


  Steve


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Steve Rigby

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:


By the way Morals/Ethics do not equal public law.


  Is this the same as the Ollie North Defense?

  Steve


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall
Nope groups have a tendency to set their own more's which get 
translated into morals which individuals accept as ethics.  These are 
not always in congruency with the laws of the land.


Take for example the area of the country I live in.

For decades and even for a century the mores of the group that lived 
in the south was that Black's had no civil rights.  They could not 
vote, they were non people.  Even after the Civil War and the 
Emancipation proclamation that was still the taught morals of the 
people.  (Whites)  Until the public outcry and the civil rights 
marches in Selma and work in Montgomery, it was still the accepted 
ethic of the people but it was contrary to public law.  (Alabama's 
law system is set up to make it difficult to let local variance 
affect law.  Everything is an amendment to the state constitution and 
must be voted on by the state at large, not local population.)


Remember there were murders and assaults done on civil rights workers 
that were overlooked or dismissed by local authorities ignoring 
proper law application and had to be prosecuted by federal authorities,


This also was seen on a national scale when Brown vs Board of 
Education was decided in the Supreme Court and basically ignored by 
local authorities until a ruling mandating it in the 60's (implemented in 1970)


Now this is a general overview but the Ollie North defense is not a 
defense it is an excuse to disobey the law.  Done all the time, but 
still wrong.


From a religious view, and I know it is probably unique to me, but 
to deviate from the law in one iota, is to break the law.  There is 
no overriding law that allows people to break the law.


Stewart


At 01:24 PM 8/4/2008, you wrote:


  Is this the same as the Ollie North Defense?

  Steve


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 11:44 PM 8/3/2008, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is this to say the censoring of anything only comes from the religious?


 I was addressing the forms of censorship that Stewart was discussing. 
Those are, for the reasons I described, motivated by religious beliefs, on 
the one hand, and the desire by the proponents of censorship to force you 
to practice their religion, on the other. I called it an attempt at theocracy.


City council in LA just banned the building of any new fast food 
restaraunts in poorer sections.


 That's zoning, not censorship. Those opposed to the government policy 
are free say so. And do.



Cities and counties across the US ban smoking in public and private areas.


 That's a public health issue, not censorship. Those opposed to the 
government policy are free say so. And do.


I don't think there is any religious basis whatsoever for the fairness 
doctrine which is working it's way up the ladder again in congress.


 I don't understand the point you are making, since the fairness 
doctrine CREATES opportunities for speech, rather than foreclosing them.



That is a horribly clear example of censorship.


 To whom is it clear? It ain't clear to me.

What about the movement to remove anything resembling unorganized prayer 
in schools?


 What about it?


I don't think that is religious in nature.


 Then you haven't been paying attention.


The secularists want censorship also,


 Like what? You haven't given any valid examples.


it's just their kind of censorship so it's ok.


 Nope. If it's censorship, it's not OK. Doesn't matter who.

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 08:16 PM 8/3/2008, Rev. Stewart Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


You have a problem with organized religion.


 What problem is that, Stewart? Please enlighten me. I happen to ADORE 
both the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment.



Your right and my right to disagree with you.


 What, specifically, are you disagreeing with? I don't understand this 
sentence at all.


The problem arises when I try and force you to follow my opinion or live 
by it. It is also a problem when you try and make me live by your opinion.


 I agree, as a general proposition. I have no intention to make [you] 
live by [my] opinion. I haven't tried to make you live by my opinion.



All societies set their own morals/ethics by majority opinion.


 No, they don't. Morals, as I said, are always, and exclusively, held 
by individuals, regardless of what the majority thinks or wants. And 
sometimes ethics are determined by external realities, and may be highly 
contextual, again, having nothing to do with the will of the majority. In 
other instances, what is acceptable ethically is approved of by only a 
distinct minority, but it is permitted because of other factors. Like the 
law, for example. The majority opinion in this country is that Jesus died 
to redeem your sins, and it may be the majority opinion that everybody 
act in accordance with that article of religious faith. But our laws 
prohibit that majority opinion being translated into that kind of 
behavior. Other times, what is desirable behavior by the majority is 
horribly and inexcusably unethical: Just because an overwhelming majority 
of Alabamians wanted Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus, that didn't 
make it ethical to put her there. The civil rights struggle was basically 
requiring majorities to deal with the idea that they DIDN'T decide what was 
moral and what was ethical. Or, in another view, that what they 
understood to be a majority, was just the local picture, and the REAL 
majority was the country seen or taken as a whole. And, there, in that 
context, the local racist and segregationist behaviors that had, for 
centuries, been understood as perfectly acceptable, were now not just 
unethical, but criminal, to boot.


Our federal government is supposed to reflect that choice by the laws it 
passes. This is not always the case and people may disagree with it.


 I disagree with the supposed to part. They have a number of 
democratic ideals, and a number of constitutional provisions, to answer to, 
so, and THOSE take precedence over the opinion of the majority.


You can have your set of morals/ethics by which you operate by which is 
OK. The problem will arise when you try and force your morals/ethics upon 
someone who disagrees with you. I cannot force you to live by my 
ethics/morals anymore than you can force me to live by yours.


 You misunderstand, Stewart. Morals are strictly subjective, and 
strictly individual, and can't be shared. Therefore, it isn't possible for 
someone to force his morals on you. What he can do, however, is attempt the 
unethical act (in a democracy, anyway) of getting the state to require you 
to behave as he, personally, wants you to behave (as if you were practicing 
HIS religion, for example). However, whatever your outward behavior, he 
doesn't control, nor is it possible for him ever to control, the nature of 
the relationship you have with yourself, which is where your morals are, if 
they even exist.


 And whatever ethics there are in the society are those to which you 
have already, more or less, signed on to, anyway, so there's no need for me 
to force you to do anything. We see ourselves as part of the same society, 
the same ethos, because we share so many of the same ethical standards. You 
behave ethically because you are an ethical person.


 You ARE an ethical person, aren't you, Stewart?


As for your last comment it happens in all institutions.


 I couldn't agree more. People who live in glass houses, though, is 
what I was thinking.


I can only account for myself, not others just as I would expect you to 
account for yourself and what you do.


 You are entirely right about this. In this culture, in this ethos, we 
understand ourselves to be ethical when we take responsibility for 
ourselves. To the extent that we have a duty to behave ethically when we 
deal with others in this culture, in this ethos, Stewart is responsible for 
Stewart, and Bob is responsible for Bob. I don't need to mind your business 
or run your life, and you don't need to control mine.


 You nailed it, Rev.

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **

Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Chris Dunford
Our federal government is supposed to reflect that 
 choice by the laws it passes. This is not always 
 the case and people may disagree with it.

 I disagree with the supposed to part. They have a 
 number of democratic ideals, and a number of 
 constitutional provisions, to answer to, so, and 
 THOSE take precedence over the opinion of the majority.

Just so. That is why, for example, it is wrong to suspend habeas corpus even
if a large chunk of the population is momentarily in favor of it. The
government is not supposed to be sticking a wetted finger into the air every
hour to see which way the popular wind is blowing.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread mike
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Robert Michael Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

You are correct about the fairness doctrine, it has nothing to do with
censorship but rather a free market vs government regulated market.

Mike



 I don't understand the point you are making, since the fairness
 doctrine CREATES opportunities for speech, rather than foreclosing them.

  That is a horribly clear example of censorship.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 03:57 PM 8/4/2008, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You are correct about the fairness doctrine, it has nothing to do with 
censorship but rather a free market vs government regulated market.


 I disagree, Mike, because of your use of the term market. The legal 
philosophy in this country, and nearly all other countries in the world, is 
that the citizens own the broadcast frequencies, and, therefore, 
broadcasters have only a license to use, rather than ownership of, those 
frequencies assigned to them. There exists no right to be a radio or 
television broadcaster. Part of the license requires broadcasters to obey 
all applicable laws and provisions of the CFR (Code of Federal 
Regulations). Which means they must comply with the Fairness Doctrine, 
inter alia. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine isn't a feature of the market, 
although it may be an attempt to make use of the airwaves more ethical.


 We HAVE government regulation of the airwaves because we WANT 
government regulation of the airwaves. And, in any event, when enough 
people want there to be a different way of regulating, or not regulating, 
broadcasters, then we will have in office Congressmen and Senators who will 
enact different laws and CFR provisions. Which might be a signal that our 
sense of broadcasting ethics has changed.


 BTW, I used to be in broadcasting. I was B. A. the D. J. = bathedj. I 
played great big stacks of red hot wax! Non-stop, back-to-back, heavyweight 
smashes! Now, here's something to mellow out your morning: It's by 
Leddd Zeppelin! Let's rock!


 So, now you know.

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 07:07 AM 8/4/2008, John Emmerling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Robert,


 Bob, please.

As a fellow secularist, I have to point out that this type of 
confrontational arguing serves to discredit us in the eyes of most US citizens.


 No, it doesn't. And, even if it did, how would you know? You don't 
know, and you haven't communicated with, most US citizens. You don't 
speak for anyone apart from yourself.


 How's about THAT for confrontational?

 I submit that to whatever extent I am argumentative and/or 
confrontational, either, neither, or both, it matters not a tinker's dam to 
those people (I include non-Americans and non-Christians) who think anyone 
who doesn't practice their religion is automatically Beelzebub's 
handmaiden, right out of the gate.


Therefore, I choose to be IN YO' FAITH!


Please try a different approach.


 OK. I'll go from confrontational to vulgar: I'll tell them to suck my 
balls.


 THAT'S different, isn't it?

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 07:14 AM 8/4/2008, Rev. Stewart Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


By the way some would view secularism as its own religion.


 Which just goes to show you how desperate some theocrat wannabes can get.

 In order for secularism, whatever in hell THAT means, to be a 
religion, it must have some set of relatively well-settled articles of 
faith which have been organized into a more or less formal, and, in any 
event, objectively-determined, dogma.


 I don't think there is even a relatively well-settled understanding 
of what secularism is and/or entails, never mind a set of articles of faith 
which a secularist must believe. What, pray tell (Oops! Sorry!), therefore, 
would constitute secularist dogma?


   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Tom Piwowar
free market vs government regulated market

I hope you are not going to take the extreme position that a dog-eat-dog, 
unregulated marketplace is somehow superior to a market based on rules of 
conduct and fairness. Would you have Comcast shut down all services that 
it couldn't tax and block all websites that did not pay it tribute?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread mike
I would not have it say for every pizza hut pizza I order via the net I have
to order a peter piper pizza.  I would prefer both able to equally enter the
arena of selling me pizza, and based on taste or price or form/speed of
delivery, and in turn allow me to choose which pizza I eat, how often or at
all.  I'd not like comcast coming along after the fact and seeing that peter
piper pizza is selling 4 to 1 over pizza hut on the net, and creating a law
that says I have to order both equally...even if I don't like both.
Therefore, I probably wouldn't order either at all.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 free market vs government regulated market

 I hope you are not going to take the extreme position that a dog-eat-dog,
 unregulated marketplace is somehow superior to a market based on rules of
 conduct and fairness. Would you have Comcast shut down all services that
 it couldn't tax and block all websites that did not pay it tribute?


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Bert Brehm
From: Robert Michael Abrams

  OK. I'll go from confrontational to vulgar: I'll tell
them to suck my balls.

Mega-dittos!

-Bert


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread John DeCarlo
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 By the way some would view secularism as its own religion.


And some view Creationism as science.

Neither view can stand on its own, not being self-consistent.


-- 
John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread John DeCarlo
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Sociology 101 Morals = Ethics.


In practical terms, ethics have guiding principles, while morals have no
need for a basis or any consistency.  Thus, morals are more often associated
with religion than anything else.

-- 
John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 03:43 PM 8/4/2008, Chris Dunford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Our federal government is supposed to reflect that choice by the laws it 
passes. This is not always the case and people may disagree with it.


I disagree with the supposed to part. They have a number of democratic 
ideals, and a number of constitutional provisions, to answer to, ... and 
THOSE take precedence over the opinion of the majority.


Just so.


 Thank you. And mazel tov. Not everybody understands this. I'm glad 
you do.


That is why, for example, it is wrong to suspend habeas corpus even if a 
large chunk of the population is momentarily in favor of it.


 I would say that your position is even stronger than you argue it. 
Article I, §9 permits no such suspension unless when in Cases of Rebellion 
or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Public opinion isn't even a 
consideration. Unfortunately for the Guantánamo detainees, Article I 
protections are understood to apply to American citizens, and not prisoners 
of war. Even if habeas corpus isn't available, I would like for there to be 
at least SOME process by which an independent judiciary can review the 
detention orders imposed and enforced by the executive branch. I have a 
great deal of heartburn about an executive branch that doesn't want to be 
subject to checks and balances.


 I can't be the ONLY one, can I?

The government is not supposed to be sticking a wetted finger into the air 
every hour to see which way the popular wind is blowing.


 If we knew what we were doing, we would put into office only those 
people who could read that stuff on the fly, assuming they hadn't first 
seen it coming through the Midtown Tunnel. If they HAD seen it, then they 
could play the parts of leaders.


   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...chinese ban lifted apparently...

2008-08-03 Thread Matthew Taylor

Lessened a bit, but not lifted.

On Aug 2, 2008, at 5:47 PM, mike wrote:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/02/china.internet?gusrc=rssfeed=technologyfull



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Tom Piwowar
Censoring content is not part of our agenda.  We are in
compliance with applicable Federal regulations with regard
to common carriers.

Pardon the broad brush. Not all telecoms are evil.

This week the FCC told Comcast that they were bad boys because they were 
inspecting their customer's packets and deciding which of those packets 
would get proper service. In response Comcast essentially told the FCC to 
take a hike.

Do you think the FCC will react to such impudence with the same fervor as 
they applied to a wardrobe malfunction?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Chris Dunford
 Do you think the FCC will react to such impudence with the same fervor
 as they applied to a wardrobe malfunction?

Of course not. 

Common carriers' needs to maximize profits at the expense of the consumer
are perfectly in line with the current government's standards for Protection
of Corporate Profits Against Evil Government Regulation.

Wardrobe malfunctions, on the other hand, run right into the government's
Constitutional role as Chief Protector of Family Values.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Tom Piwowar
Can everyone here do me a favor and quit bashing religion.

I don't see that happening here. Perhaps you are reading something into 
comments that are more than what was intended? This sometimes happens 
when a sore spot is being discussed.

What I'm seeing bashed is religious extremism. Religious extremists, 
groups like the Taliban, seek to impose their beliefs by force on the 
rest of the community. I think this is what was meant when RMA posted 
everybody has the freedom to practice MY religion.

The gist of what I see being posted here is the belief that censorship 
and other forms of prior restraint are evil in themselves. That wrapping 
these evils in any religion is a perversion of religion.

To add my 2 cents: The way to prevent the posting of photographs 
depicting illegal acts is to prosecute those in the photograph committing 
the illegal acts. The person posting the photograph should receive our 
thanks for calling our attention to the illegal act and should be asked 
to assist in the apprehension of the criminal(s). Instead lazy law 
enforcement says: we don't want to see any evidence of the crime and we 
will prosecute the messenger.

A few months ago there was a high-profile international manhunt that lead 
to the arrest of a man in such a photograph. This needs to happen more 
often.

Last week a tourist posted a web video of a NYC police officer assaulting 
a bicyclist. Would you have the tourist prosecuted? Of course not. I 
think the same rules should apply throughout. 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Tom Piwowar
Japan is decidedly not a Christian society (I think everyone can agree 
on this) Yet they have some strict moral standards on what is allowed 
of a sexual nature.

I think after a little bit of research the Rev. would want to withdraw 
this example. 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Tom Piwowar
Most of the censoring being done on the Internet right now is not 
religious based but content based on protecting Children from stuff 
they should not have (Because some folks do not want to show or 
exercise any restraint) and also to protect our children from being 
exploited in a sexual nature.

Since you have ruled out religion. where do you get this prudish notion 
from? I had to think hard about this after watching Bill Moyers interview 
Sister Wendy (Wendy Beckett, nun and art historian who created a series 
of marvellous BBC programs on art). Moyers asked Sister what a nun was 
doing surrounded by so much nakedness. Sister asked rhetorically Do you 
not believe that we are made in the likeness of God? So when you object 
to nakedness I have to ask 'What do you have against God?'. (Or 
something close to this as best I can recall.) That set me back on my 
heels.

Since the Rev. cited foreign countries I wonder if the Rev. has been to 
Europe. Naked people in newspaper and magazine ads and on billboards are 
common. Does he think that children do not see these? Meanwhile the 
Europeans are quite upset at excessive violence depected in US media. 
They do not want their children to see this. (Hence my earlier quesion 
about Kill Bill or The Passion of the Christ -- which is being 
evaded.)

Bottom line is that there is no agreement about what children and others 
should or should not be allowed to see. 

So are you going to pick and choose whose opinion's counts? Are you going 
to accept all opinions with equal weight (including the Taliban's). Or 
are you going to tell all of them to get lost because you are not going 
to censor anthing. Hence we get back to the accusation that everybody 
has the freedom to practice MY religion applies.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread mike
Qwest only offers usenet with their premium package..which is 45.99 or
something per month for 1.5 megabit.  Under this premium price you also
get...wait for it...ONE pop account for email.  Cox a couple of years ago
took usenet to the woodshed and dropped the retention rate form more then a
week to several hours...this efectively will kill anything in the
alt.binaries by default.  I pay Qwest grudgingly 23 bux a month for access
to the internet at an average of 1.2megabit.  No email, no usenet...just
access.

Mike

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:32 PM, b_s-wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 When the ISPs remove a service that has been included in their package of
 services, what's the odds that they'll reduce the monthly/yearly charges?




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande
Do you think the FCC will react to such impudence with the same fervor as 
they applied to a wardrobe malfunction?


I do not know and I can not predict what the FCC decides.

I am about the business of transporting voice and data.

If you pay me I will do it and I guarantee it will be reliable.

I am not in the moral judgement business and I'm not about all
that.  Your personal responsibility controls those issues.

I just sell you the pipe.  What you use it for is up to you.  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande
They do not want their children to see this. (Hence my earlier quesion 
about Kill Bill or The Passion of the Christ -- which is being 
evaded.)


I am not a film critic.  But Kill Bill was not Quentin Tarantino's best
movie to date.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as Reservoir Dogs,
the iconic Pulp Fiction or even the darkly dramatic Jackie Brown 
(which is my favorite QT movie).


The Passion of the Christ, well I saw it but I wasn't impressed by it.  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Tom Piwowar
I am not a film critic.

In our context the issue with both Kill Bill or The Passion of the 
Christ (and many other films, I picked these two at random) was 
excessive, graphic violence.

Should children be allowed to see such stuff?

Sex vs torture?

Who's values?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall
Tom I will not argue with religious extremists are dangerous at every 
turn.  I know I am pilloried by my own church body, but I am not 
above regulation so that extremists can be persecuted and 
curtailed.  (My firm belief is that any freedom will eventually be 
turned into an abuse real fast by those who want it all.)


Ditto with those to be prosecuted.

When it comes to adults I think less is more appropriate.  I think 
way too much effort and time is put into so called Vice crimes.


On that video this past week, kudos to the tourist for posting the 
video.  Abuse at every turn should be stopped.


Stewart


At 10:49 AM 8/3/2008, you wrote:

I don't see that happening here. Perhaps you are reading something into
comments that are more than what was intended? This sometimes happens
when a sore spot is being discussed.

What I'm seeing bashed is religious extremism. Religious extremists,
groups like the Taliban, seek to impose their beliefs by force on the
rest of the community. I think this is what was meant when RMA posted
everybody has the freedom to practice MY religion.

The gist of what I see being posted here is the belief that censorship
and other forms of prior restraint are evil in themselves. That wrapping
these evils in any religion is a perversion of religion.

To add my 2 cents: The way to prevent the posting of photographs
depicting illegal acts is to prosecute those in the photograph committing
the illegal acts. The person posting the photograph should receive our
thanks for calling our attention to the illegal act and should be asked
to assist in the apprehension of the criminal(s). Instead lazy law
enforcement says: we don't want to see any evidence of the crime and we
will prosecute the messenger.

A few months ago there was a high-profile international manhunt that lead
to the arrest of a man in such a photograph. This needs to happen more
often.

Last week a tourist posted a web video of a NYC police officer assaulting
a bicyclist. Would you have the tourist prosecuted? Of course not. I
think the same rules should apply throughout.


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall
Nope they do censor sexual stuff.  Not to the extent that we do.  We 
tend to outlaw all of it, but they only outlaw explicit 
content.  (i.e. no penetration etc.)


Plus the % of Christian's is nil..  Their main religion is ancestor 
worship.  (Shintoism)


Stewart

At 10:56 AM 8/3/2008, you wrote:


I think after a little bit of research the Rev. would want to withdraw
this example.


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

Been there done that.

I also happen to agree with sister.

America tends to follow the traditions of the conservative Reformed 
traditions which believe in regulation by the church through 
government.  (I a oppose this)


Check out John Calvin's experiment in Geneva in the 1500's.

Also their views of sexuality are much more common sense.  European 
TV does not censor and shows much more than we do.  (When I was a 
teenager I was very surprised by what I saw on German TV.)


They also were very nonplused by the whole Clinton-Lewinsky deal (He 
had an affair?  Ho Hum.)


In America (and surprisingly Canada) they have set a far higher 
standard on what children can and should view and have done so based 
on their view of sex.  Even Muslims have a very narrow view of what 
is appropriate and not.  As I said before it is a community based 
standard.  Which means it is normally based on what the majority of 
the community says it does.


Do you remember when Pornography prosecutions became very selective 
based solely on community standards.  What was appropriate in NY NY 
would not be in Hazzard, KY.  So the federal prosecutors would 
prosecute a Porn distributor or film in Hazzzrd not NY.


Personally I do not set filters nor do I let anyone else set filters 
on my computers, my family computers, or the church computers.  No 
one will be deciding for someone else what they can look at.


I did not go see The Passion of Christ as I am not into that type 
of movie (way too much gore for me) but many of my members did.  Kill 
BIll?  Dumb movie!


And yes everyone else does have the right to practice THEIR religion, 
without my interference, until it gets to the point that it 
interferes with my being able to practice my religion.


That is the proper religion (It is a constant tension)

Stewart



At 11:28 AM 8/3/2008, you wrote:

Since you have ruled out religion. where do you get this prudish notion
from? I had to think hard about this after watching Bill Moyers interview
Sister Wendy (Wendy Beckett, nun and art historian who created a series
of marvellous BBC programs on art). Moyers asked Sister what a nun was
doing surrounded by so much nakedness. Sister asked rhetorically Do you
not believe that we are made in the likeness of God? So when you object
to nakedness I have to ask 'What do you have against God?'. (Or
something close to this as best I can recall.) That set me back on my
heels.

Since the Rev. cited foreign countries I wonder if the Rev. has been to
Europe. Naked people in newspaper and magazine ads and on billboards are
common. Does he think that children do not see these? Meanwhile the
Europeans are quite upset at excessive violence depected in US media.
They do not want their children to see this. (Hence my earlier quesion
about Kill Bill or The Passion of the Christ -- which is being
evaded.)

Bottom line is that there is no agreement about what children and others
should or should not be allowed to see.

So are you going to pick and choose whose opinion's counts? Are you going
to accept all opinions with equal weight (including the Taliban's). Or
are you going to tell all of them to get lost because you are not going
to censor anthing. Hence we get back to the accusation that everybody
has the freedom to practice MY religion applies.


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread mike
Actually this wasn't in our context till you changed the context.  It was
not children being protected from pornography or some kind of violience
pornography but rather the right to post children IN pornography.  You seem
to be arguing for that very thing until the rubber hit the road and you
changed the terms.

Mike

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am not a film critic.

 In our context the issue with both Kill Bill or The Passion of the
 Christ (and many other films, I picked these two at random) was
 excessive, graphic violence.

 Should children be allowed to see such stuff?

 Sex vs torture?

 Who's values?


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande

You picked the movies at random?  You watched them, right?

No, assuming that I had children I wouldn't permit them to view
these movies.

That would be my responsibility as a parent.

As an adult and a citizen I can watch any material I please.

And I can do it without governmental restriction, except as
specified.  The Supreme Court has ruled that child pornography
is not protected speech under the First Amendment.  Fine, I'm
all for it.

Everything else that does not involve the commission of a crime,
goes.

But that doesn't mean we don't have responsibilities that relate
to our roles, our beliefs, or our vocations.

Some statement about freedom of choice would be appropriate
here, but I think I'm all typed out.

 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

Beginning:

At 08:22 PM 8/2/2008, Rev. Stewart Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Can everyone here do me a favor and quit bashing religion.


 No. When religion deserves not to be bashed, people, generally 
speaking, I predict, will stop bashing it. But this is America, Stewart. 
You're perfectly free to characterize yourself, and the articles of faith 
in which you believe, as somehow victimized. You and they aren't victimized 
in the slightest. But you're free to suggest that you and they are.



Morals are set by society.


 No, they aren't. Morals and society have nothing to do with each 
other. Morals, even assuming such a thing exists, color the way someone, 
individually, deals with himself, how he makes himself behave, what he 
knows or doesn't know about himself, if anything, and what he decides to 
believe or disbelieve or admit to himself that he does not know, if 
anything. If there exists such a thing as morality, it exists solely within 
the individual. Morality, if it exists, is strictly subjective, and isn't 
capable of being shared, or objectively appraised, the superstitious 
beliefs of America's Puritan forefathers to the contrary (i.e., that how 
one acts shows how moral one is), notwithstanding.


 Ethics, however, are very much a creature of society, to the extent 
(which is usually very great) that the society reflects the ethos in which 
it exists. My guess is that most societies have boundaries that are largely 
coterminous with the relevant ethos. Ethics, for the purposes of this post, 
is pretty much how you treat other people. The Golden Rule, for example, is 
ethics plenipotentiary. The convention seems to be (to me, anyway) that 
behaving ethically means that you treat others fairly, decently, 
honestly, justly, reasonably, and equitably. Ethics ARE objectively 
observable and appraisable, and, most certainly can be, and, in fact, are, 
shared. Unlike morals and morality.


 And there is nothing that is necessarily absolute or eternal about 
what is or isn't ethical. It depends upon the culture, society, or ethos in 
question. In classical Sparta, it wasn't unethical for young boys in 
training to be warriors to steal food from the general Spartan agricultural 
community. Spartans wanted their warriors to be adept at stealth and living 
off the land. Once you completed your training, however, it became 
unethical to steal from other Spartans. [If you were in training, and you 
got caught stealing, you were punished not for attempting to steal, but for 
getting caught.]


 And there is nothing that is necessarily coterminous about or between 
ethics and morality. They are two very distinct and different things, as 
anyone who read, and understood, Victor Hugo's Les Miserables can tell 
you: On the two occasions when the bishop lied, where we understand that 
lying, in our culture, is unethical behavior, was he behaving morally, 
instead, by saving the life of Valjean, and the lives of Valjean's wife and 
children? Valjean, himself, engaged in the act of theft, which is generally 
understood to be unethical, but he did so in order to feed his literally 
starving children. I think Hugo wants you to ask whether there isn't some 
sense of what is good, proper, or moral, inside these people that is 
apart from, or somehow beyond, what otherwise compels them to commit a 
bad act. And if French literature isn't up your alley, then how about the 
Sally Field character, in the movie Places In The Heart, lying to protect 
the Danny Glover character?


 In any given individual in a society, morals and ethics may overlap, 
like Venn diagrams, such that one person may perceive it to be a duty to 
himself (morals) to refrain from cheating or killing his fellow man 
(ethics). You and I, observing him, can see his ethical behavior (he treats 
his neighbor with decency and honesty), but we have no way of knowing 
whether or not HE, PERSONALLY, acts that way out of a sense of morals, even 
if we imagine (and that's all it is, most of the time, I believe) that WE 
would be moral if we behaved in the same ethical way. The way I see it, we 
spend our entire lives trying to find out who we are, and what it is most 
proper (moral, some say) for us to believe and to do and to treat 
ourselves, and, if we are very wise and very lucky, we might, just might, 
by the time we die, begin to figure it all out. We simply aren't wise 
enough, we aren't smart enough, we aren't knowledgeable or perspicacious 
enough, even to discern, let alone to sit in judgment of, someone else's 
morality.


Any society has a sense of morals, and taboos set by what the community 
standard is.


 No, it doesn't, as I pointed out above. It has a sense of ETHICS, 
instead, since ethics, and not morality, is what is shared by those in 
the society. Maybe you think that YOU have a sense of morality, and it 
requires you to behave this way or that, but, to the extent that you and 
others in the 

Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

Conclusion:

China which is not a Christian nation has a very strict moral code on what 
is allowed and what is not.  I can give you many examples out there.


 I don't think there are any examples to give. Just because you, or 
they, call it a moral code doesn't make it one. Particularly when what is 
being discussed is how you may or may not treat others. Which is ethics, 
instead.



Most censoring is done for power and control sake, not morality's sake.


 This obfuscates the issue, since the point of obtaining power is to 
be able to engage in the wholly unethical practice of imposing on everybody 
else one's personal articles of faith, whether or not the imposer calls it 
morals. It's obvious that this is what the Chinese were doing when this 
thread began.


Most of the censoring being done on the Internet right now is not 
religious based but content based on protecting Children from stuff they 
should not have (Because some folks do not want to show or exercise any 
restraint) and also to protect our children from being exploited in a 
sexual nature.


 I don't see how you could know what motivates most of anything on 
the Internet, since you haven't had contact with most of the people who 
do or say stuff on the Internet. You simply aren't competent to say what 
motivates anyone apart from yourself, to attempt Internet censorship, 
unless he or she first tells you.


 Nobody with two cerebral cortex neurons to rub together is going to 
object to ANYONE wanting to protect children. However, the censoring to 
which you refer merely USES that rationalization [by which I mean a true, 
or ostensibly true or reasonable, statement or description that is not the 
REAL reason or motivation] to deny this stuff to adults, which is the REAL 
intent.


Most of the content banning seems to be ill placed in my mind, and not 
reflect a religious moral outrage, but a societal outrage at misuse of the net.


 This is America, and you're entitled to your opinion, Stewart, but I 
think you have it exactly wrong. Any societal outrage is necessarily and 
obviously religious in nature. If it weren't, censors wouldn't feel 
justified in attempting to control the lives, thoughts, and behaviors of 
people, other adults, in fact, they will never meet or know. This is, after 
all, a democracy. The censors you were describing take their perceived 
strength, and the concomitant arrogance and sanctimoniousness (necessary if 
they are to ignore or dismiss the democratic protections cloaking those 
they seek to control), from their claim that they are doing God's work. 
They seek power in order to require you to practice THEIR religion.


But as someone has pointed out banning something is not going to prevent 
it. Just make it more desirable.


 Betty [b_s-wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED]] said almost exactly that very 
thing, didn't she?


 Wasn't there a guy on Jeopardy some years ago who said that his 
education began when bluenoses attempted to take books like Boccaccio's 
The Decameron, Huxley's Brave New World, Vonnegut's 
Slaughterhouse-Five, and a bunch of others, out of his high school 
library? In response to this, he went to used book stores, and the public 
library, to read everything the bluenoses tried to exclude. He said he had 
the time of his life, and discovered how enjoyable it was to read. I bet he 
had as much fun reading banned books as some people have bashing religion, 
now that YOU told them to stop.



Proper education and self policing is the key.


 If, and only if, you define proper and self policing in a way 
that I approve of. Otherwise, how do I know this isn't just code for your 
wanting me to behave only in ways you select?


As for the NY AG, they seem all bent on one thing making a name for 
themselves at the expense of the people.


 Many people have exactly the same opinion of the clergy, and other 
members of church hierarchies.


 How/Why do you suppose that happened?

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

Sociology 101 Morals = Ethics.

Stewart


At 09:37 PM 8/3/2008, you wrote:

Morals are set by society.


 No, they aren't. Morals and society have nothing to do with 
each other. Morals, even assuming such a thing exists, color the 
way someone, individually, deals with himself, how he makes himself 
behave, what he knows or doesn't know about himself, if anything, 
and what he decides to believe or disbelieve or admit to himself 
that he does not know, if anything. If there exists such a thing as 
morality, it exists solely within the individual. Morality, if it 
exists, is strictly subjective, and isn't capable of being 
shared, or objectively appraised, the superstitious beliefs of 
America's Puritan forefathers to the contrary (i.e., that how one 
acts shows how moral one is), notwithstanding.


 Ethics, however, are very much a creature of society, to the 
extent (which is usually very great) that the society reflects the 
ethos in which it exists. My guess is that most societies have 
boundaries that are largely coterminous with the relevant ethos. 
Ethics, for the purposes of this post, is pretty much how you treat 
other people. The Golden Rule, for example, is ethics 
plenipotentiary. The convention seems to be (to me, anyway) that 
behaving ethically means that you treat others fairly, 
decently, honestly, justly, reasonably, and equitably. 
Ethics ARE objectively observable and appraisable, and, most 
certainly can be, and, in fact, are, shared. Unlike morals and morality.


 And there is nothing that is necessarily absolute or eternal 
about what is or isn't ethical. It depends upon the culture, 
society, or ethos in question. In classical Sparta, it wasn't 
unethical for young boys in training to be warriors to steal food 
from the general Spartan agricultural community. Spartans wanted 
their warriors to be adept at stealth and living off the land. Once 
you completed your training, however, it became unethical to steal 
from other Spartans. [If you were in training, and you got caught 
stealing, you were punished not for attempting to steal, but for 
getting caught.]


 And there is nothing that is necessarily coterminous about or 
between ethics and morality. They are two very distinct and 
different things, as anyone who read, and understood, Victor Hugo's 
Les Miserables can tell you: On the two occasions when the bishop 
lied, where we understand that lying, in our culture, is unethical 
behavior, was he behaving morally, instead, by saving the life of 
Valjean, and the lives of Valjean's wife and children? Valjean, 
himself, engaged in the act of theft, which is generally understood 
to be unethical, but he did so in order to feed his literally 
starving children. I think Hugo wants you to ask whether there 
isn't some sense of what is good, proper, or moral, inside 
these people that is apart from, or somehow beyond, what otherwise 
compels them to commit a bad act. And if French literature isn't 
up your alley, then how about the Sally Field character, in the 
movie Places In The Heart, lying to protect the Danny Glover character?


 In any given individual in a society, morals and ethics may 
overlap, like Venn diagrams, such that one person may perceive it 
to be a duty to himself (morals) to refrain from cheating or 
killing his fellow man (ethics). You and I, observing him, can see 
his ethical behavior (he treats his neighbor with decency and 
honesty), but we have no way of knowing whether or not HE, 
PERSONALLY, acts that way out of a sense of morals, even if we 
imagine (and that's all it is, most of the time, I believe) that WE 
would be moral if we behaved in the same ethical way. The way I see 
it, we spend our entire lives trying to find out who we are, and 
what it is most proper (moral, some say) for us to believe and to 
do and to treat ourselves, and, if we are very wise and very lucky, 
we might, just might, by the time we die, begin to figure it all 
out. We simply aren't wise enough, we aren't smart enough, we 
aren't knowledgeable or perspicacious enough, even to discern, let 
alone to sit in judgment of, someone else's morality.


Any society has a sense of morals, and taboos set by what the 
community standard is.


 No, it doesn't, as I pointed out above. It has a sense of 
ETHICS, instead, since ethics, and not morality, is what is 
shared by those in the society. Maybe you think that YOU have a 
sense of morality, and it requires you to behave this way or that, 
but, to the extent that you and others in the society agree upon 
how each of you should treat others, you aren't expressing a sense 
of morals, as you used the term. You (plural) are merely behaving 
according to shared ethics.


 Any person who claims that the community has a moral standard, 
and that HE knows what it is, is just using code for the idea that 
everybody is supposed to act in a manner consistent with HIS 
narrow, selfish, arbitrary, and subjective 

Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande

Ethics, however, are very much a creature of society, etc.


Good essay, try to cut that son of a bitch down to five sentences,
please.  We all ready know most of this.

Eschew obfuscation.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande

Sociology 101 Morals = Ethics.


Not exactly.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Eric S. Sande
I can only account for myself, not others just as I would expect you 
to account for yourself and what you do.


Yep.  I am on the same boat as the Reverend here but I am not sure
where we are going.  This boat looks a lot like a handbasket, come
to think of it... 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

Note third use and also see Websters #2

Stewart


At 10:21 PM 8/3/2008, you wrote:

Sociology 101 Morals = Ethics.


Not exactly.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall
And to quote a very conservative radio broadcaster there is a 
shortage of hand baskets.


Stewart



At 10:35 PM 8/3/2008, you wrote:
I can only account for myself, not others just as I would expect 
you to account for yourself and what you do.


Yep.  I am on the same boat as the Reverend here but I am not sure
where we are going.  This boat looks a lot like a handbasket, come
to think of it...

*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-03 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 07:43 PM 8/3/2008,  Rev. Stewart Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Sociology 101 Morals = Ethics.


 Extant mammals = Unicorns. I gave you examples of clearly unethical 
behaviors that might have been moral, assuming morals exist, but, rather 
than consider them on their merits, such that you could see and/or reflect 
upon the distinction between morals and ethics, you ignore all of that and 
rely, instead, on what is clearly, to me, anyway, a falsehood. I can't help 
it if lots of people got together, including sociology textbook authors and 
publishers, including the editors and publishers of dictionaries, including 
those who post, and contribute to, Wikipedia, and agreed among themselves 
that something is the case when, in reality, it isn't. I submit that 
aphorisms in the culture like, To thine own self be true, and Be sure 
you're right, then go ahead, are reminders that (at least some of us in) 
the culture recognize(s) that morals and ethics are separate and distinct, 
even if they frequently overlap.


 The Wikipedia entry specifically said individual conscience, which 
is where I was going, and it also seemed to limit the scope of morality to 
what it called matters of right and wrong. But before you can take even 
two steps down THAT road, someone like me will ask, quite properly, Right 
and wrong for whom? Right and wrong according to what? Any answer which 
invokes some commonly held set of beliefs about how we should treat each 
other, or how we should behave in this culture, yanks you out of morals 
and shoves you into ethics.


 BTW, I got an A in Sociology 101 (and also in every other sociology 
and criminology course I took, which makes me just extra-special, 
super-duper smart), and my textbook didn't say any such thing. It did, 
however, talk about the relationship between the members of a society and 
the ethos which they create. I was encouraged by my professor (1) to 
separate that which is observable from that which isn't, such that I would 
(2) not draw conclusions about the relationship a person has with himself, 
which isn't observable (and isn't even in the field of sociology), from the 
relationships he has with others, which is observable (and is the nuts and 
bolts of sociology). It's a real shame that your sociology course/professor 
didn't require the same intellectual rigor from you that mine demanded of 
me. 33 years after the fact (Summer session, 1975), I am more in her debt 
today than I was then.


 Sociology = The scientific study of human interaction.

 The relationship a person has with himself, which is where morals 
lie, assuming they even exist, isn't human interaction, as contemplated 
by this definition, since interaction means that more than one person 
must be involved. How a person gets along with himself (morals) isn't the 
same thing as how he gets along with others (ethics). End of story.


 Or maybe only the beginning.

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 08:54 AM 8/1/2008, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you...


I is not at all limited to sexually explicit material.


 I agree completely with you, which uses up my Agreement With Tom 
quota for the decade, but I only addressed that one item since that's what 
was under discussion. Abortion, under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, 
prayer in public schools, creationism is science, and so on, are similar 
attempts at theocracy by elements of the American far right. To them, the 
United States stands for the right to impose their Christianity on you: In 
this country, everybody has the freedom to practice MY religion.


In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of 
the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views 
being blocked.


 Why Western journalists, news organizations, and the frigging IOC, 
already, who are used to the value, meaning and intent of contract law in 
capitalist cultures and economies would actually believe a Marxist regime, 
in Asia, populated by people who are interested far more in the value of 
the personal power they hold under their communist system, than they are in 
the value or honor of their promises, is just beyond me. I heard an 
analysis yesterday, of the media access restrictions (on NPR, IIRC), and 
the analyst called the IOC's trust in the Chinese naive.


 OTOH, maybe the dude is right. At least, I THINK it was a dude. Yeah. 
Definitely a dude. Anyway, maybe he had a point, because if Tiananmen 
Square is an indication of how unimportant human lives, including (or 
especially) Chinese lives, are to these murderers, just imagine how 
insignificant to such people a promise (made to the imperialist, 
counterrevolutionary, and hopelessly bourgeois IOC) of media access is. It 
must be a great deal of fun for Hu Jintao, and his Beijing Bitch Boys, to 
micromanage every single ISP in the country, and not have to justify jack 
shit to anyone about any decision they make. Mel Brooks in a different 
movie: It's good to be the totalitarian dictator.



We have Comcast and possibly now ATT blocking P2P.


 And the western wear store down the street from me is blocking my hat.

 Coincidence?

 I don't THINK so.

Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot plastered 
with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that claimed the 
parking lot was now under video surveillance.


 So, Tom. What were you doing loitering at the Home Despot?

   Bob

Electricity comes from electrons. Morality comes from morons.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread b_s-wilk

 -Original Message-
 ISP's are shutting off USENET because of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of
 State
 for New York State.


Ah, the proud New York tradition of electing power mad, publicity whoring,
thuggish assholes as their Attorney General.  (He is actually the AG, not
the SoS)


As opposed to power mad, publicity whoring thuggish assholes in the 
White House? or in the Alabama or Mississippi state houses? At least 
Cuomo really thinks he's doing it for the children while the others 
are simply amassing power by whatever means they can.


The problem is a general ignorance of technology, Usenet, the Internet 
by public officials, not the Jeff's fantasy about Cuomo. Blocking Usenet 
is censorship which may or may be permissable by private companes. 
However blocking all of Usenet through clients like Thunderbird, Eudora, 
etc. blocks millions of very useful and informative groups. Blocking 
alt. or alt.binary. does the same.


The proposed actions are ignorant and just plain lazy. Why not block 
only child porn groups? Or monitor them? Besides, you can go to Usenet 
sites through the Internet, and see the same messages.  Who defines 
child porn? Censorship is always wrong.


Just don't arrest us for taking baby pictures of our children in the 
bath tub, in the pool or at the beach and pretend it's for the children.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread mike
Which groups are those?  Isn't this logic the same as driving around looking
for homes with 'we make meth here' signs in the yard?  I realize the alt's
are a wild west and being wild, blocking xyz groups means they move to abc
groups and post.

I've not much hope if you are serious with the 'censorship is always wrong'
comment.

Mike

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 10:15 AM, b_s-wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 The proposed actions are ignorant and just plain lazy. Why not block only
 child porn groups? Or monitor them? Besides, you can go to Usenet sites
 through the Internet, and see the same messages.  Who defines child porn?
 Censorship is always wrong.

 Just don't arrest us for taking baby pictures of our children in the bath
 tub, in the pool or at the beach and pretend it's for the children.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Tom Piwowar
I've not much hope if you are serious with the 'censorship is always wrong'
comment.

Censorship is always wrong. Just go back 100 years or 200 years to 
examine some bit of censorship with the benefit of not being caught up in 
the moment. At best you will see it is absurd. More likely you will see 
its obvious evil intent. 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread mike
Indeed..so we should allow the posting of 50 year old men having sex with
nine year old boys?  Free speech no matter what?  If that were true we would
have no laws about libel or slander.  I suppose we should repeal those laws
as well.   Civilized society would be much more...civilized.

Mike

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I've not much hope if you are serious with the 'censorship is always
 wrong'
 comment.

 Censorship is always wrong. Just go back 100 years or 200 years to
 examine some bit of censorship with the benefit of not being caught up in
 the moment. At best you will see it is absurd. More likely you will see
 its obvious evil intent.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Tom Piwowar
In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of 
the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views 
being blocked.

I've never seen that done in the United States.

Well no, this is a Capitalist society. Here blocking is motivated by 
profit motives. The telecoms lie to us about how expensive it is to move 
electrons and seek to block services they see as a threat to their 
ability to overcharge.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread mike
Holy crap...I agree with Tom again.  Earthquake? Fire? Flood? Locusts??

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of
 the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views
 being blocked.
 
 I've never seen that done in the United States.

 Well no, this is a Capitalist society. Here blocking is motivated by
 profit motives. The telecoms lie to us about how expensive it is to move
 electrons and seek to block services they see as a threat to their
 ability to overcharge.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...chinese ban lifted apparently...

2008-08-02 Thread mike
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/02/china.internet?gusrc=rssfeed=technologyfull


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Tom Piwowar
Holy crap...I agree with Tom again.  Earthquake? Fire? Flood? Locusts??

Summer cicadas?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...chinese ban lifted apparentl

2008-08-02 Thread Tom Piwowar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/02/china.internet?gusrc=rssfeed=
technologyfull

Ultimately this is good push back. Exposes them to the civilized world.

Ultimately McCain will agree that 18 months is not a bad deadline.

Ultimately IT managers will admit that Microsoft sucks.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Tom Piwowar
Indeed..so we should allow the posting of 50 year old men having sex with
nine year old boys?  Free speech no matter what?  If that were true we would
have no laws about libel or slander.  I suppose we should repeal those laws
as well.   Civilized society would be much more...civilized.

What do you think about movies like Kill Bill or The Passion of the 
Christ?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...chinese ban lifted apparentl

2008-08-02 Thread mike
I hope these two are not dependent on one another.



On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Ultimately McCain will agree that 18 months is not a bad deadline.

 Ultimately IT managers will admit that Microsoft sucks.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread mike
I'll wait for your reply on my question, I'll answer yours in the movie
listserv.

Mike

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Indeed..so we should allow the posting of 50 year old men having sex with
 nine year old boys?  Free speech no matter what?  If that were true we
 would
 have no laws about libel or slander.  I suppose we should repeal those
 laws
 as well.   Civilized society would be much more...civilized.

 What do you think about movies like Kill Bill or The Passion of the
 Christ?


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Jordan

Tom Piwowar wrote:

Indeed..so we should allow the posting of 50 year old men having sex with
nine year old boys?  Free speech no matter what?  If that were true we would
have no laws about libel or slander.  I suppose we should repeal those laws
as well.   Civilized society would be much more...civilized.



What do you think about movies like Kill Bill or The Passion of the 
Christ?

Or men who swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then do 
everything they can to subvert it?
  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 02:32 PM 8/2/2008, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Indeed..so we should allow the posting of 50 year old men having sex with 
nine year old boys?


 Interesting image. How/Why did you come up with it? Have you ever 
actually seen anything like that? Do you know anyone who has? How can you 
tell the ages of people in a .jpeg, anyway? Is the image a true photograph, 
or is it a Photoshopped amalgam of pixels depicting an event that never 
occurred? [My guess is that you have no idea whatsoever of the great number 
of obscenity prosecutions that have gone down in flames because the law 
prohibited photographs of minors having sex, or appearing unclad, but not 
images that were made to LOOK LIKE photographs, but weren't.]


 I can't speak for Tom, but I'm not sure his Censorship is always 
wrong is the same thing as First Amendment absolutism, in the first place 
(because of the possibility that he was speaking in generalities, however 
broad, rather than in the absolute), but, even if that's what he thought it 
meant, I also don't think he believes that limiting the prospect that such 
images as you describe would fall under the gaze of kids who might not be 
able, psychologically or emotionally, to handle them in some healthy 
fashion is a reasonable goal of the law, in the second.



Free speech no matter what?


 Kinda. Even with a law restricting the Internet dissemination of the 
images you describe, people who want the freedom to create or look at 
those sorts of images are still free to engage in speech which argues the 
point that the law which restricts them is bad. As long as you obey the 
parade and sidewalk-blocking regulations, you can carry your Kiddie Porn 
Now! banner or sign down Main Street. Just as you can lobby publicly for 
legalization of marijuana in jurisdictions where its possession, use, and 
sale are criminal acts.


 Duuude.


If that were true we would have no laws about libel or slander.


 That is entirely false, and, unfortunately, demonstrates your 
unfamiliarity with the subject matter about you are nevertheless attempting 
to opine.


 Defamation laws are on the books precisely because we DON'T have 
censorship, at least, not in the form of prior restraint of defamatory 
remarks. People are free as hell to libel and slander you, and you are 
powerless to shut them up. You can't even shut them up if they tell you two 
weeks in advance that they are going to run a story (completely false, of 
course) that you were having sex with nine year-old boys. You can show a 
judge the letter which contains the warning, and ask him to enjoin the 
publication of the story. The judge will tell you to take a hike. The law 
permits the story to run, and then you sue for libel. That's the way this 
deal goes down in the Newnited Stakes.



I suppose we should repeal those laws as well.


 Why? With those laws, if someone says or prints something false about 
you, BECAUSE THE LAW PROHIBITS IT FROM BEING CENSORED, and your reputation 
and/or your earnings are damaged, you can sue him or her to make you whole, 
to compensate you for your loss.


 But NOBODY gets censored. Just because the other guy's falsehoods 
can't be kept out of publication, that doesn't mean there aren't 
consequences to him for his speaking or printing defamatory falsehoods 
about you.



Civilized society would be much more...civilized.


 You're being ironic, aren't you?

 Hey, everybody! He's just being ironic, isn't he?

 Huh?

   Bob

Jaco Pastorius: Bo be boo bop doo bay.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread b_s-wilk
When the ISPs remove a service that has been included in their package 
of services, what's the odds that they'll reduce the monthly/yearly 
charges?


I remember back in the good old days when I was in grade school, we read 
my best friend's church newsletter every Sunday, starting with the back 
pages where they listed the banned books. Those were always the first 
books we read. Thank you church prudes for a fine education! Blocking 
anything on the Internet will only make it more tempting.


Betty


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Eric S. Sande
Well no, this is a Capitalist society. Here blocking is motivated by 
profit motives. The telecoms lie to us about how expensive it is to move 
electrons and seek to block services they see as a threat to their 
ability to overcharge.


Well, it isn't that expensive to move electrons but it costs a lot
to build and maintain a network.  Most of this is in labor costs
but we see it as an investment in the sense that our people are
trained, experienced professionals.

We're capitalists.  I see no need to apologize for that.  That
means we spent and are spending the money, billions of dollars
in fact, to deliver products on which we expect to see a return on
investment.

Seems like a good plan to me.

At the same time we are a regulated public utility that offers products 
at rock bottom prices that we can't possibly recover costs on.


I know you love to kick the phone company but so does
everybody. 


Censoring content is not part of our agenda.  We are in
compliance with applicable Federal regulations with regard
to common carriers.

Nothing I say here represents anything but my personal opinion.   
  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Jeff Wright
 As opposed to power mad, publicity whoring thuggish assholes in the
 White House?

No, in addition to that.  Do you have trouble envisioning both, or just ones
with a (D) next to their name?

 or in the Alabama or Mississippi state houses?

Mississippi has more problems than that. Like a state medical examiner whose
incompetent (and possibly perjurous) testimony has probably sent god knows
how many of innocent people to prison.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127188.html

 At least Cuomo really thinks he's doing it for the children while the
others
 are simply amassing power by whatever means they can.

If you say so.  I thought the children was everyone's favorite refuge now
that patriotism is passé.

 The proposed actions are ignorant and just plain lazy.

No, they're politically expedient (not to mention unconstitutional).
You're against this?  You don't actually *like* kiddie porn do you?  You
must be a sick and twisted SOB.

 The problem is a general ignorance of technology, Usenet, the Internet
 by public officials, not the Jeff's fantasy about Cuomo.

R-i-i-i-i-ght.  He's a really nice guy, who's just completely misunderstood.
All the humility of Giuliani and the integrity of Spitzer, rolled into a
nice suit.  Nah, there's no way he could just being using a convenient (and
politically unimpeachable) scapegoat to bulldoze himself into the headlines
(and as a bonus, the governor's office, which he's already made one
unsuccessful go at):

Comcast is no slouch in the child porn fight: it helped organize an
industry-wide agreement last week with 45 attorneys general. But what was
good enough for the National Association of Attorneys General was not good
enough for New York; we're told that Cuomo was one of the handful of
officials to withhold his signature.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9997051-38.html
 
My fantasy?  You're projecting.  Again.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

Can everyone here do me a favor and quit bashing religion.

Morals are set by society.  Any society has a sense of morals, and 
taboos set by what the community standard is.  (There may be a basis 
in a common religious background, but even diverse religious 
backgrounds can agree on moral standards.)  Japan is decidedly not a 
Christian society (I think everyone can agree on this) Yet they have 
some strict moral standards on what is allowed of a sexual 
nature.  China which is not a Christian nation has a very strict 
moral code on what is allowed and what is not.  I can give you many 
examples out there.  Most censoring is done for power and control 
sake, not morality's sake.


Most of the censoring being done on the Internet right now is not 
religious based but content based on protecting Children from stuff 
they should not have (Because some folks do not want to show or 
exercise any restraint) and also to protect our children from being 
exploited in a sexual nature.


Most of the content banning seems to be ill placed in my mind, and 
not reflect a religious moral outrage, but a societal outrage at 
misuse of the net.


But as someone has pointed out banning something is not going to 
prevent it.  Just make it more desirable.


Proper education and self policing is the key.

As for the NY AG, they seem all bent on one thing making a name for 
themselves at the expense of the people.


Stewart


At 08:32 PM 8/2/2008, you wrote:
When the ISPs remove a service that has been included in their 
package of services, what's the odds that they'll reduce the 
monthly/yearly charges?


I remember back in the good old days when I was in grade school, we 
read my best friend's church newsletter every Sunday, starting with 
the back pages where they listed the banned books. Those were always 
the first books we read. Thank you church prudes for a fine 
education! Blocking anything on the Internet will only make it more tempting.


Betty


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-02 Thread Eric S. Sande

Comcast is no slouch in the child porn fight: it helped organize an
industry-wide agreement last week with 45 attorneys general.


I was required to conduct training on this issue for my employees.

It wasn't comfortable for anyone but I did it and that satisfied
the requirement.

I have no doubt that we all knew what was being covered.

Nobody was comfortable with the topic and there was no discussion.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread Tom Piwowar
The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you...

I is not at all limited to sexually explicit material.

In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of 
the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views 
being blocked.

We have Comcast and possibly now ATT blocking P2P.

Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot 
plastered with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that 
claimed the parking lot was now under video surveillance.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread mike
ISP's are dropping USENET completely now also...i wager at the request of
the same who are wanting p2p shut down.

Mike

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you...

 I is not at all limited to sexually explicit material.

 In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of
 the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views
 being blocked.

 We have Comcast and possibly now ATT blocking P2P.

 Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot
 plastered with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that
 claimed the parking lot was now under video surveillance.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread gerald
the home depot in oxon hill has had signs and cameras for about 6 months.  they 
have cleared the loiters out of the store so they no longer approach customers 
when shopping, however, during any weekday, there are 20 to 30 day laborers 
loitering on the edges of the lot.

they also have a single new fire lane sign up.  fine is $100.  i requested 
trial, they have not tried to collect from me so far



Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot 
plastered with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that 
claimed the parking lot was now under video surveillance.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread John Duncan Yoyo
ISP's are shutting off USENET because of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of State
for New York State.

From the Wikipedia article on Cuomo-

On June 10 2008 Cuomo, then New York Attorney General, announced that three
major Internet service providers (Verizon
Communicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications,
Time Warner Cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable, and
Sprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel) would shut down major
sources of online child pornography by no longer hosting many
Usenethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenetgroups. Time Warner Cable
ceased offering Usenet altogether, Sprint no
longer provides access to the alt.*
hierarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.%2A_hierarchy,
and Verizon limiting its Usenet offerings to the Big
8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_8_%28Usenet%29.
The moves came after Cuomo's office located 88 different newsgroups that
contained child pornography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties
Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union's
technology and liberty program, compared the action to taking a
sledgehammer to an ant.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo

--

I think it is idiotic and short sighted but I have Verizon which allows the
big 8.  I still buy usenet separately from Forte so I can read
alt.fan.pratchett among others.   Plus the alt hierarchies are available
through google groups.  This also has the effect of killing many of the
local usenet heirachies.

If they wanted to stop usenet pron most of what was needed to do was block
binaries groups.

I think this is grandstanding and I will never vote for the fool.  I have a
mind to actively boycott New York but I never go there anyway.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ISP's are dropping USENET completely now also...i wager at the request of
 the same who are wanting p2p shut down.

 Mike

 On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you...
 
  I is not at all limited to sexually explicit material.
 
  In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of
  the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views
  being blocked.
 
  We have Comcast and possibly now ATT blocking P2P.
 
  Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot
  plastered with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that
  claimed the parking lot was now under video surveillance.
 
 
  *
  **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
  **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
  *
 


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *




-- 
John Duncan Yoyo
---o)


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread Jeff Wright
 -Original Message-
 ISP's are shutting off USENET because of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of
 State
 for New York State.

Ah, the proud New York tradition of electing power mad, publicity whoring,
thuggish assholes as their Attorney General.  (He is actually the AG, not
the SoS)


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread mike
They don't need to shut down the alt newsgroups, or block binaries
actively...just do what cox and qwest do, have a retention rate of about 48
seconds.

Mike

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM, John Duncan Yoyo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 ISP's are shutting off USENET because of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of State
 for New York State.

 From the Wikipedia article on Cuomo-

 On June 10 2008 Cuomo, then New York Attorney General, announced that three
 major Internet service providers (Verizon
 Communicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications,
 Time Warner Cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable, and
 Sprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel) would shut down
 major
 sources of online child pornography by no longer hosting many
 Usenethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenetgroups. Time Warner Cable
 ceased offering Usenet altogether, Sprint no
 longer provides access to the alt.*
 hierarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.%2A_hierarchy,
 and Verizon limiting its Usenet offerings to the Big
 8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_8_%28Usenet%29.
 The moves came after Cuomo's office located 88 different newsgroups that
 contained child pornography 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography.
 Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties
 Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union's
 technology and liberty program, compared the action to taking a
 sledgehammer to an ant.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo

 --

 I think it is idiotic and short sighted but I have Verizon which allows the
 big 8.  I still buy usenet separately from Forte so I can read
 alt.fan.pratchett among others.   Plus the alt hierarchies are available
 through google groups.  This also has the effect of killing many of the
 local usenet heirachies.

 If they wanted to stop usenet pron most of what was needed to do was block
 binaries groups.

 I think this is grandstanding and I will never vote for the fool.  I have a
 mind to actively boycott New York but I never go there anyway.
 On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  ISP's are dropping USENET completely now also...i wager at the request of
  the same who are wanting p2p shut down.
 
  Mike
 
  On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you...
  
   I is not at all limited to sexually explicit material.
  
   In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of
   the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political
 views
   being blocked.
  
   We have Comcast and possibly now ATT blocking P2P.
  
   Last night I was at Home Depot and found the store's parking lot
   plastered with No Loitering signs as well as signs in Spanish that
   claimed the parking lot was now under video surveillance.
  
  
  
 *
   **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy
  **
   **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/**
  
 *
  
 
 
  *
  **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
  **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
  *
 



 --
 John Duncan Yoyo
 ---o)


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-08-01 Thread Eric S. Sande
In the news today we have reports of China's decision to block parts of 
the Internet from visiting journalists. These are mainly political views 
being blocked.


I've never seen that done in the United States.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*



Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-31 Thread rlsimon
Wasn't that settled by Potter Stewart who said, I can't define it but I
know it when I see it!! ...not many are aware it was a case of a certain
piece of film (which was shown in the supreme court chamber) ...Stewart
further added, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

-Original Message-
From: b_s-wilk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Puritans at the helm...


  22 public interest groups roast FCC smutless broadband plan   By Matthew
Lasar | Published: July 29, 2008 - 08:55AM CT  
They may not agree on net neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine, but 
almost half a dozen advocacy groups from liberal to libertarian do 
concur on one issue: they hate Federal Communications Commission Chair 
Kevin Martin's proposal for a national broadband service with the porn 
filtered out.
  Unconstitutional and unwise, their Friday filing calls the plan, 
which they charge amounts to a government mandated 'blacklist' of 
websites. The filtering component would limit the system so 
dramatically that the usefulness of the service would be radically 
reduced. Plus, if the agency actually approved the scheme, it would 
face a tsunami of lawsuits.
 
  Read on: http://tinyurl.com/6phwoz


What's smut? What's porn?

To some of those nuts, the paintings in the Louvre, or Museum of Modern 
art are porn. So is this, 
http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=2468733 [after the 
woot-off], or http://naturist-holidays-uncovered.co.uk/naturist.htm. 
Don't forget John Ashcroft hiding Lady Liberty's boobs, like the boob 
that he is. Also some porn filters doesn't allow access to medical 
information about breast cancer.

First it's porn next it's politics, religion, important news, and who 
knows what else? The local Marantha church radio here broadcasts the 
most hateful programs I've heard in a long time. Their athletes wear 
head to toe sweats for games; cheerleaders wear sweaters and 
floor-length skirts, yet the sermons in their tent meetings [you can 
hear them in the neighborhood] are all about hate, sin, hell, damnation, 
bigotry, racism, censorship, xenophobia. Will people like this dictate 
the filters? Will the hideous people in Texas who tell textbook 
publishers what kind of censored books our children should read in 
school dictate the filters?

Those pathetic, ignorant, repressed souls can buy filters for their own 
computers, and can also take the time to study the Constitution. 
Unconstitutional and unwise only scratches at the surface of their 
problems!

Betty


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-31 Thread Robert Michael Abrams

At 06:49 PM 7/31/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wasn't that settled by Potter Stewart who said, I can't define it but I 
know it when I see it!!


 I don't think anyone with an adult level of cultural and 
sociological sophistication (which, if you trust most of the opinions of 
those who knew him well, did not include Stewart) would consider anything, 
except an affirmation of Stewart's lack of familiarity with parts of the 
culture that he, personally, did not inhabit, settled by that aphorism.


 The aphorism is really Stewart being arrogant, in the most 
unflattering semantic sense of the word, since it presupposes that there is 
something absolute about smut, pornography (whatever THAT means), and/or 
obscenity, as the law defines it, when there has never been any evidence 
that whether something is or is not one of those things is anything 
other than entirely subjective, and Stewart is declaring that he knows what 
it is. In fact, the legal definition of obscenity, as enacted by most of 
the States, uses a test which asks the jury to find whether or not the 
material on trial appeals, in the average John Q. Public, to a prurient 
(which is usually defined as shameful or morbid) interest in sex, among 
other things. The problem is that the average person doesn't HAVE a 
prurient interest to which ANYTHING can appeal, no matter how many tits or 
pubic hairs the material describes or shows. The average person has a 
normal and healthy interest in things sexual and erotic. I am, of course, 
willing to make allowances for people on this list, however.


 My point is that the deck is already stacked. Stewart doesn't know 
jack shit about erotic material, in any absolute sense. Nobody does, 
including a criminal petit jury, I submit, because there is nothing 
absolute about it to know. It's all strictly subjective, and that makes the 
obscenity laws (which falsely and erroneously presuppose that there is 
something objectively appraisable about it) irrational and, therefore, 
perverse themselves.


 The bluenoses are merely looking for some way to justify hating you, 
if you like sexually explicit material, since your enjoyment of this stuff 
reminds them of how terrified they are of it, and of their own respective 
sexual natures, and/or the sexual natures of other adults. Reminding them 
of how terrified they are means they are so pissed off at you that they 
can't, and no longer want to, think straight. The obscenity laws, and 
arrogant aphorisms, are merely products of those who are so terrified 
and/or angry that they can't think straight. I mean, how ridiculous and 
irrational do you have to be to see it as a priority of some kind to 
control what all the adults in the whole world can and cannot see 
privately, on their home computers?


...not many are aware it was a case of a certain piece of film (which was 
shown in the supreme court chamber) ...Stewart further added, and the 
motion picture involved in this case is not that.


 Too late! The damage was already done.

   Bob

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.

OK
End 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-31 Thread Eric S. Sande
They seem to have some trouble with the idea that, in the United 
States, you ought to have some freedom to think, say, and do things that 
chap somebody else's ass.


Yeah, as long as their exercise of rights doesn't infringe mine.

I may not agree with a particular dogma but as far as I'm
concerned I'll leave it alone if they keep it in their yard.

These before mentioned individuals appear not to appreciate the
distinction between public and private space.

I am sure I have opinions and positions that might tend not to
appeal to either side of the spectrum, but I'm not lost in an ideology
and I'm always willing to listen.  


Maybe I'm not the right kind of storm trooper that's needed for
whatever kind of repression is on tap at the moment.

I might even agree in principle to particular agenda items, but I
don't define myself as anything other than a law abiding United
States citizen.  There's nothing in the Constitution that speaks
against the rights of free speech and assembly, and that is what
the Internet represents to me.

To me at least.  As Betty says, if someone doesn't like it they can 
filter it locally.  They have a right to build a fence around their house, 
and they have the right to control what happens inside that fence.


And that can be a good thing for them, depending.

But luckily the US isn't China yet.  The State isn't supreme, yet.  Stay
tuned, recent developments haven't been promising.


  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-30 Thread b_s-wilk

 22 public interest groups roast FCC smutless broadband plan
 By Matthew Lasar | Published: July 29, 2008 - 08:55AM CT

   They may not agree on net neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine, but 
almost half a dozen advocacy groups from liberal to libertarian do 
concur on one issue: they hate Federal Communications Commission Chair 
Kevin Martin's proposal for a national broadband service with the porn 
filtered out.
 Unconstitutional and unwise, their Friday filing calls the plan, 
which they charge amounts to a government mandated 'blacklist' of 
websites. The filtering component would limit the system so 
dramatically that the usefulness of the service would be radically 
reduced. Plus, if the agency actually approved the scheme, it would 
face a tsunami of lawsuits.


 Read on: http://tinyurl.com/6phwoz


What's smut? What's porn?

To some of those nuts, the paintings in the Louvre, or Museum of Modern 
art are porn. So is this, 
http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=2468733 [after the 
woot-off], or http://naturist-holidays-uncovered.co.uk/naturist.htm. 
Don't forget John Ashcroft hiding Lady Liberty's boobs, like the boob 
that he is. Also some porn filters doesn't allow access to medical 
information about breast cancer.


First it's porn next it's politics, religion, important news, and who 
knows what else? The local Marantha church radio here broadcasts the 
most hateful programs I've heard in a long time. Their athletes wear 
head to toe sweats for games; cheerleaders wear sweaters and 
floor-length skirts, yet the sermons in their tent meetings [you can 
hear them in the neighborhood] are all about hate, sin, hell, damnation, 
bigotry, racism, censorship, xenophobia. Will people like this dictate 
the filters? Will the hideous people in Texas who tell textbook 
publishers what kind of censored books our children should read in 
school dictate the filters?


Those pathetic, ignorant, repressed souls can buy filters for their own 
computers, and can also take the time to study the Constitution. 
Unconstitutional and unwise only scratches at the surface of their 
problems!


Betty


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Re: [CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-30 Thread Eric S. Sande
Those pathetic, ignorant, repressed souls can buy filters for their own 
computers, and can also take the time to study the Constitution. 
Unconstitutional and unwise only scratches at the surface of their 
problems!


Well, I agree with you in theory.  As an employee of a common
carrier and a Libertarian I'd say consenting adults can do whatever
they please as long as it doesn't break the law.

On the other hand, no matter what you do or how you operate you
are bound to piss someone off.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


[CGUYS] Puritans at the helm...

2008-07-29 Thread Steve Rigby

22 public interest groups roast FCC smutless broadband plan
By Matthew Lasar | Published: July 29, 2008 - 08:55AM CT

  They may not agree on net neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine, but  
almost half a dozen advocacy groups from liberal to libertarian do  
concur on one issue: they hate Federal Communications Commission  
Chair Kevin Martin's proposal for a national broadband service with  
the porn filtered out.
Unconstitutional and unwise, their Friday filing calls the plan,  
which they charge amounts to a government mandated 'blacklist' of  
websites. The filtering component would limit the system so  
dramatically that the usefulness of the service would be radically  
reduced. Plus, if the agency actually approved the scheme, it would  
face a tsunami of lawsuits.

+++

Read on: http://tinyurl.com/6phwoz


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*