Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: warning: scumbags using usenet for pyramid schemes Message-ID: <1989Nov20.002935.9418@rpi.edu> Date: 20 Nov 89 00:29:35 GMT References: <15389@vlsisj.VLSI.COM> <667@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <1989Nov19.004703.16570@rpi.edu> <13526@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 53 In article <1989Nov19.004703.16570@rpi.edu> I wrote: Dave> I respectfully resond, "no". Voltaire's _Essay_on_Tolerance_ springs Dave> to mind. Though I dislike the referenced article very much (in spite Dave> of my empty wallet) I will not censor it. In <13526@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham): Paul> i zorched the offender here and wish that steve hadn't included the Paul> text of it in his posting. Why do you wish he hadn't included the text of it? Paul> but please don't bring up *censorship* or tolerance or Paul> the 1st amendment or any of the rest of that tripe. it *doesn't* Paul> apply. A) I used the word "censor" in a manner entirly consistent with the definitions in both the OED and Webster's Ninth New Collegiate. B) I didn't name Voltaire's essay. C) The First Amendment is not tripe. In spite of all that, I agree with you. All I was saying is that I didn't think it was appropriate to cancel the message in spite of the fact that I found it objectionable. One of the users here has already denounced me as being a terrible, hypocritical human being because I would not remove that article yet rpi.edu does not carry sci.aquaria. Perhaps they equate to the same thing in his mind, but they are not the same to me. I don't feel any burning desire to enumerate the differences here. One thing to be wary of, though, is that this smacks of the same cancelling of non-source articles to alt.sources a few months ago. I find non-source postings in alt.sources objectionable, too, but I would not partake in the cancelling scheme that Paul Traina implemented. I respect Steve for presenting this article and asking site admins to delete it rather than just blithely going off and cancelling it himself. At this point someone other than the sender might have cancelled it right out from under me and I wouldn't know it, but I still don't approve of that. My original question still stands. If anyone can point out to me what is fraudulent about that article and why it should be cancelled, from a legal standpoint, I will. "It's objectionable to me" just doesn't wash though. Paul> but despite that many people will immediately take keyboard in Paul> hand and insist loudly that it does apply and that the constitution Paul> assures them of rights on usenet that they have nowhere else. Well, _I_ won't and I assure you that I will dislike it just as much as you if that happens. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))