Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net
Message-ID: <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 5-Dec-86 18:14:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cartan.485
Posted: Fri Dec  5 18:14:15 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Dec-86 22:59:05 EST
References: <8612040701.AA14267@jade.berkeley.edu>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms (David desJardins)
Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley
Lines: 27

In article <8612040701.AA14267@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes:
>Mr. Ellis happens to be a frequent contributor to talk.philosophy.misc.
>Now, for the past 6 months, his many messages have all been completely
>devoted to making, over and over again, with varying degrees of
>rudeness, just one statement: that all Objectivists should be removed
>from the newsgroup.

   While some may call this $truth, this is what is known in English as
a *lie*.  Michael Ellis has *never* advocated censorship, or the "removal"
of any individual or posting from the newsgroup.
   He has indeed disagreed vehemently and perhaps offensively with certain
postings.  He may well have stated his opinion that you are a fool or that
your opinions are worthless.  But this is *far*, *far* different from
censorship, from attempting to *prevent* another from expressing his
opinions, which is what Mr. Harnad apparently would like to do and what
those of us who appreciate freedom of speech find so odious.
   Can you not appreciate the distinction between censorship and disagree-
ment?  I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your
statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed
from the newsgroup."  Frankly, he is about the least likely person I know
to make such a statement; those whose freedom of speech has been jeopardized
generally have the greatest appreciation of the dangers of censorship.
   Unless and until you can produce at least *one* quote supporting your
statements, it seems you should confine your complaints to those you can
support with *evidence* rather than innuendo.

   -- David desJardins