Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Politics (Copy protection)
Message-ID: <4318@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 22:59:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.4318
Posted: Thu Jul  9 22:59:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 10:48:01 EDT
References: <Overflow!> <2497@husc6.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Followup-To: talk.politics
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 70
Keywords: black holes, Boy George, leafy green plants, mailboxes
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:6369 talk.politics.misc:3588

This long ago stopped being apropriate for the comp.sys.amiga, and
should have moved elsehwere. I just couldn't find the elsewhere. Mitsu
decided to point followups to misc.misc (not very appropriate,
especially considering the topic) and didn't bother telling anyone.

Cute, mitsu, real cute. And not confrontational at all. We'll just try
to get people to put things in a place no one will expect to find
them.  Since your postinging shows that you play talk.politics, you
should know that it exists, and would have been appropriate for
crossposting and pointing folloups to.

In any case, there is now an appropriate newsgroup to move this to, so
I did. This is being cross-posted to talk.politics, and followups are
being directed there.

I also put "copy protection" back in the subject line, for those who
are using that phrase to trigger killing articles.

In article <2497@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
<><no consideration for the other points of view.  This is a typically
<><white-male style of negotiation (i.e., no compromise negotiation.)
<
<Although the two sides may be on "opposite" sides of the coin,
<they tend to be on the "same side" culturally, particularly when it
<comes to negotiation style.  Thus I stick by my assertion.

So what culture does your "silent censorship" approach come from? Of
course, that tactic also makes considering the other sides point of
view almost impossible.

<	I do not quite understand what you mean by "consider it
<evolution in action." 

Basically, that laws that are "for the good of other people" (from the
viewpoint of the passers) make it inconvenient for everybody at the
expense of protecting some part of the populace from themselves. An
inability to take care of yourself puts you at an evolutionary
disadvantage. Allowing nature to take it's course in those cases is
"evolution in action."

<Yet many of these things
<I feel are well justified, not to mention left-wing.  (By the way,
<please do not continue to assume that you are the only person with
<left-influenced political ideas.)

I don't consider myself left-wing. I even made a comment about that
very early in this discussion, being amused at finding myself holding
the anti-capitalist end of an argument. Of course, you've really
warped things by making keeping some companies (like the one you work
for) in business a "social good." That's even stranger than than my
being on the socialist side of an argument.

My political position is one that seems to be very popular among
computer types, but doesn't fit well on the idiotic
left-wing/right-wing scale.  For more information, check out John
Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream." There's a lot more
literature, that's just what I happen to have handy. The bibliography
in it will point you in other directions.

<>[ I ] didn't try to play on peoples moral sense

Quoting out of context - my best evidence that you know that
talk.politics exists.

	<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall			Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking?			mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall			ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking?				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET