Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anarchy (Re: Fool) Message-ID: <1990Nov18.160226.15864@com50.c2s.mn.org> Date: 18 Nov 90 16:02:26 GMT References: <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org> Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Lines: 40 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". >In article <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >> My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for >> anarchy. > >A dictionary is not an authoritative source in matters like this. In fact >the usual result of this sort of response is what is commonly known as a >"dictionary war". I shall refrain, and I hope that everyone else does so >too. This is why I refrained from posting the actual definitions from any of the three different dictionaries I keep at hand. The definitions do all vary, btw, from one dictionary to another. But if the dictionary is not the source of authority in this case, what is? If there is no source of authority, then we have anarchy. And if we have anarchy, then my definitions and arguments about whether we have anarchy are as valid as any other. If the network is truly anarchy, why do so many people spend so much time trying to bring others around to their way of thinking? To build a larger consensus base? For what purpose? To exert authority over others? Heavens! That would lead to the end of anarchy. >>the moderator of n.a.n seems to be approaching the dictatorial stage according >>to some people on the net. > >He thinks he has a certain power. Is this meant to imply that if I think I'm >god you shall bow down and worship me? If so, let me know right now so I can >start exacting a tithe... No. I referred to the n.a.n. situation to show that there are instances on the network where people have subjugated their newsgroup creation abilities to a single authority. The comment about the dictatorial stage was to point out that some do not believe that there is an adequate grievance procedure. /craig