Notice of Censorship on T.O?

[Hal Womack 3-dan]

Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:

{Access Public - Usenet}

Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?

BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
<hal.w...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
of the world.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Hey! Who let this one through?

Mitchell Coffey

[J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder]

Who are you a sock puppet of?

Jan

[Boikat]

On Feb 16, 8:20 pm, Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> {Access Public - Usenet}
>
> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?

The definition of "moderated" and "censorship".

>
> BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?

You are ignorant if you equate "moderated" with "censorship".

Boikat

[wiki trix]

On Feb 16, 9:41 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan

> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>
> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> >{Access Public - Usenet}
>
> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>
> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>
> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
> of the world.

Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
According to Wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.

Now why he is making a stick about censorship on this news group is
rather strange. You can easily opt out of news groups, but you cannot
easily opt of citizenship or get away from all government. What I find
to be a big problem is the powers of corporations to impose censorship
by way of distortions via financial and information monopolies. It is
not easy to opt out of that sort of thing.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

The news group moderator is a bot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Hal Womack 3-dan
<hal.w...@gmail.com>:

>Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
>{Access Public - Usenet}
>
>Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?

You certainly did; moderation, even in general, is not
censorship.

>BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?

Not in the sense you mean, and even in that sense "censored"
would be an incorrect description. You would benefit from
learning the meaning of words before using them.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:57:36 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

It still controls what is allowed to pass. The selection is based on
spcific content in the message header, not the body. The moderator
does, in fact, prevent certain individuals and even groups from
posting here and adjusts the bot settings to reflect those decisions.

I am not at all complaining about the process. It is done well and,
it seems to me, quite appropriately. Nevertheless this is a moderated
group and not every message posted here is allowed to be displayed.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b8f8b663-ffd9-49de...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 16, 9:41 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
> > <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >
> > >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
> >
> > >{Access Public - Usenet}
> >
> > >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> > >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
> >
> > >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
> >
> > Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
> > of the world.
>
> Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
> According to Wikipedia:
>
> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
> which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
> inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
> controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
> organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>
> If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
> group, that is indeed censorship.

Not necessarily. Posts are submitted for approval, similar to a book
publisher or newspaper editor. There exists no speech to be suppressed
until the submission is approved.

Not all forms of moderation is censorship. The OP either believes
that any and all moderation is censorship, or that talk.origins
is censorship operating under the guise of moderation.

snip

[wiki trix]

On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com>

According to Wikipedia on Talk.Origins: "The moderator for the
newsgroup is David Iain Greig (and technically Jim Lippard as
alternate/backup)."

Besides, the censorship may be automated by way of a bot, but the
moderator specifies the rules that the bot uses to perform the
censorship. Also, banning a user is not done by way of a bot, and that
also constitutes censorship. Why do you have a problem with
recognizing the facts here. It's not like censorship is always a bad
thing.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 17, 1:38 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b8f8b663-ffd9-49de...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 16, 9:41 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
> > > <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> > > >{Access Public - Usenet}
>
> > > >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> > > >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>
> > > >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>
> > > Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
> > > of the world.
>
> > Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
> > According to Wikipedia:
>
> > "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
> > which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
> > inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
> > controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
> > organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>
> > If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
> > group, that is indeed censorship.
>
> Not necessarily. Posts are submitted for approval, similar to a book
> publisher or newspaper editor. There exists no speech to be suppressed
> until the submission is approved.

Book publishers and newspaper editors do a lot of censorship. Call it
moderation if you like. But from my own experience, I know that
editors can be very strongly opinionated when it comes to book
manuscript content. If you cannot somehow justify it or negotiate it,
it will not get published. That is a form of censorship, acording to
the according to the Wikipedia definition I provided above. It is a
more mild form of censorship than many other forms, and it is
voluntary, and you often have the option to go publish elsewhere. But
it is a form of censorship with respect to a particular audience. As
for newspapers, have you heard of Pravda? Goebbels (NAZI Propaganda
Minister), was the editor of the Berlin newspaper Der Angriff (The
Attack). Do you think there was no censorship by that editor?

> Not all forms of moderation is censorship. The OP either believes
> that any and all moderation is censorship, or that talk.origins
> is censorship operating under the guise of moderation.

I think you need to provide some standard definitions here. Moderation
is a mild form of censorship. Look the terms up if you need to.

[Boikat]

Maybe it has something to do with context.

Boikat

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:38:31 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

It is censorship when your message is blocked; moderation if it is
those nasty other ones.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:pne2i89gi5ksn0vkk...@4ax.com...

I interpret that to mean you regard any form of moderation to be
censorship.

[Bill]

What matters is what it takes for a post to get blocked. As far as I
know, posts get blocked automatically if they are cross-posted to more
than four newsgroups.. That reduces spam a fair bit. Posters get
banned for spamming, nym-shifting, and perhaps for the most extreme
forms of homophobia. On the other hand lots of pointless, off-topic
stuff gets through, personal grudge matches run on for months, name
calling abounds, virulently anti-theist and anti-atheist stuff is here
all the time.Along with the interesting posts. So the question is, do
you (the general you) wish it were any different. Whether you prefer
to call it moderation or mild censorship is up to one's own taste in
words.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 17, 3:29 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:pne2i89gi5ksn0vkk...@4ax.com...

> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:38:31 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>

> > >"wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b8f8b663-ffd9-49de...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Yes. Moderation literally means to avoid extremes. For example, a
thermostat is a moderating process. But what does moderation means
w.r.t. information? What makes some information extreme? Of course,
this is relative. Goebbels moderated information, which he no doubt
considered extreme from his point of view. To many others, Goebbels'
own position itself was inherently extreme. The problem with such a
concept comes down to the issue of making a relative value judgment.
On the other hand, censorship has been typecast into government
censorship, which can make it problematic. I would use the neutral
phrase "information filtering" to cover both cases. Moderation is a
more positive characterization of information filtering, and
censorship is a more negative characterization of information
filtering. But yes, I would say that in all cases of moderation, you
have a type of censorship going on. They are essentially the same type
of process.

[wiki trix]

True. So you have made a good argument that the censorship is
desirable. You have not shown that it is not censorship.

> On the other hand lots of pointless, off-topic
> stuff gets through, personal grudge matches run on for months, name
> calling abounds, virulently anti-theist and anti-atheist stuff is here
> all the time.Along with the interesting posts.

True. So you have made a good argument that the cencorship is liberal
and unobtrusive. You have not shown that it is not censorship.

> So the question is, do
> you (the general you) wish it were any different.

False. The question is not whether you wish it were any different. It
is a question about whether it is a form of censorship.

> Whether you prefer
> to call it moderation or mild censorship is up to one's own taste in
> words.

False. The choice between the words "moderation" or "censorship" is
not up to one's own taste. It is a matter of standard definitions. In
this case, censorship is slightly more correct than "moderation", as
we are talking about filtering of information according to mostly
content free rules rather than killing extreme content.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:29:56 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You may interpret what I write however you wish. That doesn't mean
you are correct.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:31j2i8t3m8ha5n62o...@4ax.com...

Both should go without saying. Yet it also doesn't mean that my interpretation is incorrect.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:36:21 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>

Pretty much everything on this news group should go without saying.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gnj2i8dl6h383dstm...@4ax.com...

What are you saying?

[John S. Wilkins]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Hal Womack 3-dan
> <hal.w...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
> >
> >{Access Public - Usenet}
> >
> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>
> You certainly did; moderation, even in general, is not
> censorship.
>
> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>
> Not in the sense you mean, and even in that sense "censored"
> would be an incorrect description. You would benefit from
> learning the meaning of words before using them.

Hal seems to think that anyone should have the right to stand anywhere
they like and shout whatever they like. To stop the ranter from coming
into my home or workplace is censorship...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[wiki trix]

On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Hal Womack 3-dan

> > <hal.wom...@gmail.com>:

>
> > >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> > >{Access Public - Usenet}
>
> > >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> > >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>
> > You certainly did; moderation, even in general, is not
> > censorship.
>
> > >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>
> > Not in the sense you mean, and even in that sense "censored"
> > would be an incorrect description. You would benefit from
> > learning the meaning of words before using them.
>
> Hal seems to think that anyone should have the right to stand anywhere
> they like and shout whatever they like. To stop the ranter from coming
> into my home or workplace is censorship...

The pauli exclusion principle is an example of censorship. So is the
heisenberg principle. So is the photoelectric effect. So is quantum
entanglement. It is everywhere.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2972bdb9-fce9-4452...@m9g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

"It" behind every tree.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 17, 6:19 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2972bdb9-fce9-4452...@m9g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

Especially among the raging forests of Iceland.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b8f94523-8dfd-4258...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

That too.

[Robert Camp]

It is warm, just watch it grow all around me
It is here, it is now.

[Glenn]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5e82d167-86f8-4d02...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

What grows all around me is hair, but I heard it helps to keep me cool and deboner.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 16, 9:20 pm, Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> {Access Public - Usenet}
>
> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>

> BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?

Yes, talk.origins is censored. It's censored in the same sense as many
other venues. Is it censorship that the scientific journal _Auk_ does
not publish articles about mammals? Yeah. There are places to write/
publish things like homophobic screeds (as just one example of a
poster being banned), but t.o. is not one of them, and the rules are
published on the group twice a month.

Deal with it.

Chris

[Richard Norman]

How many months (years?) has it been since you have seen those rules
published here?

[chris thompson]

On Feb 17, 4:31 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:29:56 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >"Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:pne2i89gi5ksn0vkk...@4ax.com...

> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:38:31 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
>

> >> >"wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b8f8b663-ffd9-49de...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

The mod-bot is not censorship IMHO. But when DIG bans a poster for
homophobic posts, that is censorship. Mind you I don't disagree- I
think it's a good thing. Rather like I censor people coming into my
home and shouting "You're under arrest!" when they are not law
enforcement people.

Chris


Chris

[Roger Shrubber]

I suspect that as the "rules" are not really rules so much as
guidelines, that the Master has decided not to bother with
the monthly posting. The faithful, however, will appear to not
notice that the arbitrary powers are not held in check by
apparent adherence to the rules. Consider it a convenient fiction.
It eases their conscience.

Ultimately the rule is don't piss off the moderator. That's
how usenet works for moderated groups. Posting a faq
that suggests otherwise is perhaps less than honest.

Things that piss off the moderator include nym shifting,
spamming and certain gross antisocial hate speech.
That list is likely incomplete.

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9379b3c6-911a-4bad...@c10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

Who was banned solely for homophobia?

[Paul J Gans]

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 16, 9:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
>> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>
>> >{Access Public - Usenet}
>>
>> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>
>> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>
>> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>> of the world.

>Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
>According to Wikipedia:

>"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
>which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
>inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
>controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
>organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

>If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news

>group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
>type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
>U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.

I do believe that DIG has never "moderated" the message content
to talk.origins. He has banned posters for what he considers
good and sufficient reason. But as far as I know he has never
changed content in any way.

It is imporant to remember the dictum that free speech is not
a suicide compact. Newsgroups are not robust creatures. The
corpses of many famous and useful newsgroups lie littered about,
some on open graves -- killed by free speech.

>Now why he is making a stick about censorship on this news group is
>rather strange. You can easily opt out of news groups, but you cannot
>easily opt of citizenship or get away from all government. What I find
>to be a big problem is the powers of corporations to impose censorship
>by way of distortions via financial and information monopolies. It is
>not easy to opt out of that sort of thing.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kfs0sm$6la$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 16, 9:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
> >> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>
> >> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
> >>
> >> >{Access Public - Usenet}
> >>
> >> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> >> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
> >>
> >> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
> >>
> >> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
> >> of the world.
>
> >Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
> >According to Wikipedia:
>
> >"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
> >which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
> >inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
> >controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
> >organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>
> >If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
> >group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
> >type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
> >U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.

But it has been rumored that your memory is failing and you have ringworm.

[Paul J Gans]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:57:36 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:

>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>>wrote in talk.origins:

>>
>>>On Feb 16, 9:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
>>>> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>>
>>>> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>>>
>>>> >{Access Public - Usenet}
>>>>
>>>> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>>>> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>>>
>>>> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>>>
>>>> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>>>> of the world.
>>>
>>>Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
>>>According to Wikipedia:
>>>
>>>"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
>>>which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
>>>inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
>>>controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
>>>organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>>>
>>>If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
>>>group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
>>>type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
>>>U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.
>>>

>>>Now why he is making a stick about censorship on this news group is
>>>rather strange. You can easily opt out of news groups, but you cannot
>>>easily opt of citizenship or get away from all government. What I find
>>>to be a big problem is the powers of corporations to impose censorship
>>>by way of distortions via financial and information monopolies. It is
>>>not easy to opt out of that sort of thing.
>>

>>The news group moderator is a bot.

>It still controls what is allowed to pass. The selection is based on
>spcific content in the message header, not the body. The moderator
>does, in fact, prevent certain individuals and even groups from
>posting here and adjusts the bot settings to reflect those decisions.

>I am not at all complaining about the process. It is done well and,
>it seems to me, quite appropriately. Nevertheless this is a moderated
>group and not every message posted here is allowed to be displayed.

But no messages are altered or have content deleted or changed.

[Paul J Gans]

Yes it has, but I don't remember who started it, especially
the ringworm bit.

[Don Cates]

He has, on occasion, ummm... 'translated' someones posts.
'Shiver me timbers' 'bork,bork, bork'

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Richard Norman]

I don't understand your distinction. When DIG bans a poster he
changes the mod-bot so it is the agent that actually does the work.

[Richard Norman]

DIG used to publish the address of the bot script so anybody could see
exactly what was involved. Since the moderation was done
algorithmically then there were, indeed, "rules" even if the rules got
changed from time to time.

I know it is improper to respond to two separate posts but I am sure
Paul will read this, too. He argues vigorously (and quite correctly)
that the substantive content of posts is not altered (except for the
Swedish Chef episode). Nevertheless, selectively admitting or
excluding the entire text of a post can be considered a form of
censorship. Again, I do not at all object -- I appreciate the
moderation and all of DIG's work.

[Bill]

I've lived in countries where separatist songs were forbidden to be
broadcast on the radio (Brasil) and where publishing criticism of the
head of state could get you jailed or exiled (Cambodia). So calling
what goes on in t.o. censorship seems to me to dilute the force of the
word.

You are free to call it censorship if you like. Who am I to stop you
from expressing your opinion?

[chris thompson]

On Feb 17, 8:38 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9379b3c6-911a-4bad...@c10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

I forget- perhaps Prawnster? DIG posted a response to someone saying
the poster was banned for homophobic speech. Personally I thought it
was a little extreme but I'm not the moderator.

Chris

[chris thompson]

You don't see a difference between a single post not going through
because it violates the four-group rule, versus a poster being banned
from making any and all posts? I do.

Chris

[wiki trix]

So you make a distinction in type based on manitude. So the beggar on
the corner only has a few bucks in his pocket, and Bill Gates has 60
billion (after already giving away about 30 billion). So calling what
the beggar has in his pocket seems to you to dilute the force of the
word "money"?

[Richard Norman]

I have no idea about how many posts fail because of any limits on
cross posting. However when I did review the bot script a number of
years ago I was astonished at the rather long list of specific names
that were included in the ban. DIG apparently does not examine all
the posts to see if one comes from a banned poster. He has the bot do
the job for him.

To repeat: I do not see the difference between DIG choosing which
posts go through and having DIG program a bot to do exactly the same
thing.

In case someone comes in late on this I will repeat my statement that
I have no problem with DIG doing what he does, bot or personally. I
think it can easily be considered a form of censorship -- legitimate
and appropriate censorship.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 2/17/2013 12:40 PM, wiki trix wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:41 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
>> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>
>>> {Access Public - Usenet}
>>
>>> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>>> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>
>>> BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>
>> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>> of the world.
>
> Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
> According to Wikipedia:
>
> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
> which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
> inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
> controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
> organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>
> If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news

> group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
> type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
> U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.
>
> Now why he is making a stick about censorship on this news group is
> rather strange. You can easily opt out of news groups, but you cannot
> easily opt of citizenship or get away from all government. What I find
> to be a big problem is the powers of corporations to impose censorship
> by way of distortions via financial and information monopolies. It is
> not easy to opt out of that sort of thing.

One can use a word with technical accuracy, yet still deceive. When we
read the word "censored" we generally assume things are happening that
don't apply to T.O.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:047b6a66-d68f-4b79...@h6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

Didn't you use "mild" to describe t.o. moderation?

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9ab8a0ba-ebed-48d8...@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

You're right, I missed that post, and only recalled the other post DIG invited to guess.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:7og3i8ltnm4q9k8cq...@4ax.com...

If a publisher turns down a request from an author to publish a work
because the author is a homophobe, is it censorship?
Posts are *submitted* to talk.origins for "publication".

[Mitchell Coffey]

It was Prawnster.

Mitchell

[jillery]

Yeppers. Too many equate free speech with irresponsible speech. All
freedoms are necessarily constrained by other freedoms. Censorship is
based on the opinions expressed. To conflate censorship with
maintenance and organization is to dilute the meaning of it into
uselessness.

That some people sometimes abuse their authority to moderate in no way
justifies other people to abuse their freedom of speech. Keeping out
multiple crossposts and stopping unrestrained off-topic posts is not
censorship by any reasonable definition.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Sometimes they go through "dialect" translation filters such as Brer Rabbit,
Swedish Chef, and Pirate. DIG has to be very annoyed to do that.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Bill]

If you do not like the criteria by which posts are blocked on t.o. you
call it censorship. And you can find definitions that support that.
But you do so not out of an abstract loyalty to accurate definitions
but in order to bring in the pejorative connotations of censorship
which that word has because it also describes far more repressive
systems than anything that goes on at t.o.

On the other hand, if you have no objection to the criteria for
blocking posts at t.o. you call it moderation. And you can find
definitions that support that. But you do so not out of an abstract
loyalty to accurate definitions but in order to bring in the mild,
neutral connotations that come with the word "moderation."

So rather than play a rhetorical game of warring definitions and
connotations it makes more sense to me simply to describe what is
happening and then decide whether you approve or not.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 1:26�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:047b6a66-d68f-4b79...@h6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

Yes. Why do you ask?

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 1:38�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:7og3i8ltnm4q9k8cq...@4ax.com...

> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:13:30 -0800 (PST), chris thompson

It would be an edge case for the definition, but yes.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9a3fb28d-fb2a-4e30...@d3g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

Because that diluted the force of the word "censorship".

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2bac08b2-3eb9-42c0...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

Is that like an egg carton?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <7og3i8ltnm4q9k8cq...@4ax.com>,

Remember freedom of the press applies to those who own a press. DIG
owns this froup.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[wiki trix]

Wrong. I like the criteria by which posts are blocked on t.o. and I
call it censorship. This is closer to the meaning of "censorship"
rather than "moderation". Moderation implies filtering out extreme
content. Censorship implies filtering out undesireable content.

[jillery]

I admit there is much ambiguous overlap between extreme and
undesireable. An argument can be made that homophobic posts are
extreme in T.O. and so their exclusion qualifies as moderation rather
than censorship.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:41:16 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Hal Womack 3-dan
>> <hal.w...@gmail.com>:

>>
>> >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>> >
>> >{Access Public - Usenet}
>> >
>> >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>> >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>

>> You certainly did; moderation, even in general, is not
>> censorship.

>>
>> >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>

>> Not in the sense you mean, and even in that sense "censored"
>> would be an incorrect description. You would benefit from
>> learning the meaning of words before using them.
>
>Hal seems to think that anyone should have the right to stand anywhere
>they like and shout whatever they like. To stop the ranter from coming
>into my home or workplace is censorship...

That's the impression I have. Somehow they've acquired the
idea that censorship includes refusal to provide a specific
venue, even when numerous other legal venues are open. Under
this definition essentially *all* speech is censored and the
term becomes effectively meaningless.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:38:08 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9379b3c6-911a-4bad...@c10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

>> On Feb 17, 4:31 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:29:56 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> > >"Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:pne2i89gi5ksn0vkk...@4ax.com...

>> > >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:38:31 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>

>> > >> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >"wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b8f8b663-ffd9-49de...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>> > >> >> On Feb 16, 9:41 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > >> >> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
>> > >> >> > <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >

>> > >> >> > >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>> >
>> > >> >> > >{Access Public - Usenet}
>> >
>> > >> >> > >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>> > >> >> > >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>> >

>> > >> >> > >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>> >

>> > >> >> > Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>> > >> >> > of the world.
>> >
>> > >> >> Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
>> > >> >> According to Wikipedia:
>> >
>> > >> >> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
>> > >> >> which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
>> > >> >> inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
>> > >> >> controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
>> > >> >> organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>> >
>> > >> >> If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news
>> > >> >> group, that is indeed censorship.
>> >
>> > >> >Not necessarily. Posts are submitted for approval, similar to a book
>> > >> >publisher or newspaper editor. There exists no speech to be suppressed
>> > >> >until the submission is approved.
>> >

>> > >> >Not all forms of moderation is censorship. The OP either believes
>> > >> >that any and all moderation is censorship, or that talk.origins
>> > >> >is censorship operating under the guise of moderation.
>> >

>> > >> It is censorship when your message is blocked; moderation if it is
>> > >> those nasty other ones.
>> >
>> > >I interpret that to mean you regard any form of moderation to be
>> > >censorship.
>> >
>> > You may interpret what I write however you wish. That doesn't mean
>> > you are correct.
>>
>> The mod-bot is not censorship IMHO. But when DIG bans a poster for
>> homophobic posts, that is censorship. Mind you I don't disagree- I
>> think it's a good thing. Rather like I censor people coming into my
>> home and shouting "You're under arrest!" when they are not law
>> enforcement people.
>>

>Who was banned solely for homophobia?

No one; the ban was for action, not belief.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 18, 1:03�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:13:30 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Could that plethora of names represent a significantly fewer number of
posters- those who'd been banned for nym-shifting?

Chris

[Mitchell Coffey]

Maybe, but filtering out undesirable content that makes other people
either less able or less willing to participate I'd consider to be
"moderation" in ordinary speech. You're use of "censorship" would tag a
use of Roberts Rules of Order as censorship, for instance.

I think that the way you use the word "censorship" waters down its
meaning and, if it prevailed, would perversely make stronger censorship
easier to oppose.

Mitchell

[Richard Norman]

We know of cases (because DIG said so) of individuals banned for
content.

[Paul J Gans]

Don Cates <caHOR...@mts.net> wrote:
>On 17/02/2013 7:52 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:57:36 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>>

>>>>> On Feb 16, 9:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan
>>>>>> <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {Access Public - Usenet}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>>>>>>> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>>>>>> of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. He had the correct interpretation of the term "censorship".
>>>>> According to Wikipedia:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
>>>>> which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
>>>>> inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other
>>>>> controlling body. It can be done by governments and private
>>>>> organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
>>>>>
>>>>> If a news group moderator moderates the messages posted to the news

>>>>> group, that is indeed censorship. Government censorship is just one
>>>>> type, and the only type that happens to be covered by laws such as the
>>>>> U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now why he is making a stick about censorship on this news group is
>>>>> rather strange. You can easily opt out of news groups, but you cannot
>>>>> easily opt of citizenship or get away from all government. What I find
>>>>> to be a big problem is the powers of corporations to impose censorship
>>>>> by way of distortions via financial and information monopolies. It is
>>>>> not easy to opt out of that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> The news group moderator is a bot.
>>
>>> It still controls what is allowed to pass. The selection is based on
>>> spcific content in the message header, not the body. The moderator
>>> does, in fact, prevent certain individuals and even groups from
>>> posting here and adjusts the bot settings to reflect those decisions.
>>
>>> I am not at all complaining about the process. It is done well and,
>>> it seems to me, quite appropriately. Nevertheless this is a moderated
>>> group and not every message posted here is allowed to be displayed.
>>
>> But no messages are altered or have content deleted or changed.
>>

>He has, on occasion, ummm... 'translated' someones posts.
>'Shiver me timbers' 'bork,bork, bork'

Then I stand corrected, though I suspect context matters here.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[raven1]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:41:36 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), Hal Womack 3-dan

><hal.w...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>
>>Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>
>>{Access Public - Usenet}
>>
>>Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>>censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>
>>BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>
>Your understanding of censorship may be different from that of the rest
>of the world.

That we can read and reply to his post would tend to support that
notion.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, I've been corrected on that score. I should have said
"few", or better, not have brought it up.

[chris thompson]

Of course- I mentioned one myself. But I still maintain that quite a
few of those names/userids/nyms represent people who were nym-
shifting.

Chris

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 1:17�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All words tend to go that way when pushed to the edge. In computing,
we call it an edge case. A word means less and less the more you think
about it. Think about "mouse" hard enough and it blows up. Moderation
in everything may seem a bit extreme, but we must do it to stay
insane.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 18 February 2013 05:11:34 UTC, chris thompson wrote:
> I forget- perhaps Prawnster? DIG posted a response to someone saying
> the poster was banned for homophobic speech. Personally I thought it
> was a little extreme but I'm not the moderator.

I want content to be on-topic. But one can be relevant
and homophobic, I expect.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 18 f�v, 15:20, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:07�am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> > If you do not like the criteria by which posts are blocked on t.o. you
> > call it censorship.
> Wrong. I like the criteria by which posts are blocked on t.o. and I
> call it censorship. This is closer to the meaning of "censorship"
> rather than "moderation". Moderation implies filtering out extreme
> content. Censorship implies filtering out undesireable content.

Is there a consensus on the definition of an "extreme content" in
usenet newsgroup? And the same for the definition of an "undesireable
content"?

[Burkhard]

That's just 'edging your bets, me old china plate.

[wiki trix]

On-topic gets dull fast. How much can you say about one topic that has
been hashed on this news group for decades?
I am OK with homophobic, racist, sexist, leftist, rightist, religious,
etc. What I am not OK with is stupid horseshit that goes nowhere.
I prefer opinions that contrast with my own.
Oh yah... and Glenn sucks.

[wiki trix]

The Cockney Bible...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w0aTzevVjqk

[wiki trix]

Of course not. It is relative to the sensitivities and objectives of
the information controller. Why do you ask?

[jillery]

So why deliberately misuse the word in the first place?

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:gcq4i85ks2fda1rp4...@4ax.com...

His post only said "banned for homophobia". If the poster had only believed but not expressed
or practiced his belief, DIG could not have known. You provided no emoticon to show
you were only playing with words.
But I suspect that regardless of what DIG posted, his decision to ban was based on more than
one instance, or even solely because of it.

[wiki trix]

I am not deliberately misusing the word "censorship". To ose the word
"moderate" for the same purpose here is less accurate. An edge case is
still a case inclusive within the set. For example, "Great Apes"
defines a biological species (aka Hominidae) that includes gorillas,
chimpanzees, bonobos, as well as orangutans, and humans. To many,
humans should not be included, but correct scientific categorization
includes them. Is it a deliberate misuse of the term "Great Apes" to
include people?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:08:15 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>> >All words tend to go that way when pushed to the edge. In computing,
>> >we call it an edge case. A word means less and less the more you think
>> >about it. Think about "mouse" hard enough and it blows up. Moderation
>> >in everything may seem a bit extreme, but we must do it to stay
>> >insane.
>>
>> So why deliberately misuse the word in the first place?
>
>I am not deliberately misusing the word "censorship". To ose the word
>"moderate" for the same purpose here is less accurate. An edge case is
>still a case inclusive within the set.

By your own expressed standards, what DIG does is closer to moderation
than censorship.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c1355725-a7fa-4ae3...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

What you are and are not OK with is irrelevant.
There are plenty unmoderated newsgroups where
you can get all you want and say whatever you
want, including your silly argument of moderation
being censorship. I'm sure you'll be more than
satisfied with the contrasting opinions you will
receive, and have no reason to return to t.o.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 1:40�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c1355725-a7fa-4ae3...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

My understanding is that while wiki says moderation is censorship, she
also says that in moderation, censorship is not a bad thing. We could
have a census on whether this requires censure, but my sensors are
telling me that data may not be available. So let's put some herbs on
the censer and all breath in deeply.

[Robert Camp]

That makes sense, sir.

RLC

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 8:40 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c1355725-a7fa-4ae3...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

Nope. I think that if t.o was a bird, it woud be a penguin. I will
stay put thanks.
Oh yah... and Glenn sucks only a little bit some of the time.

[wiki trix]

I am incensed. Sorry, but that is the best I could come with so far.
Will keep trying...

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:a0a9491d-6aab-4216...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

The point is that there can be no censorship when there are unmoderated
groups available. Participants here implicitly agree to follow certain rules,
and can be banned for breaking one. These rules are not discriminatory
of any particular context, including off-topic posting. Consequently,
banning for breaking a rule need not be seen as censorship of any particular
context. The consequences of breaking rules is clearly not censorship.

If the moderator discriminates between posters (most all to some degree
has created or posts to off topic subjects or creates off topic discussion)
and bans an individual based on homophobia for instance, that may
be considered an act of censorship. But the rare instance of that happening
would not evidence that all moderation is equivalent to censorship, or that
talk.origins moderation is censorship.
I believe the moderator here acts in the interest of the group and not his own.
That seems pretty clear. The interest of the group is in maintaining some
level of order, not to censor those with differing opinions or biases alone.
Posters whose words break laws, or are seen to be dangerous to others,
may be banned because of those actions. A person who commits a crime
in society and gets caught goes to jail, and that isn't seen as censorship.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 10:09�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:a0a9491d-6aab-4216...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

That is like saying that there can be no governments that censor
because other governments are available. So North Korea has no
censorship. You have proved nothing.

> Participants here implicitly agree to follow certain rules,
> and can be banned for breaking one.

I implicitly agree with the imposed censorship here, as we all must if
we want to post messages. That does not imply that there is no
censorship here. In fact, I would expect that there are many in North
Korea that implicitly agree with the imposed censorship there. You
have proved nothing.

> These rules are not discriminatory
> of any particular context, including off-topic posting.

I never claimed discrimination. I claimed censorship. North Korean
censorship is pretty indiscriminant. You have proved nothing.

> Consequently,
> banning for breaking a rule need not be seen as censorship of any particular
> context. The consequences of breaking rules is clearly not censorship.

That makes no gramatical sense. I would think that many people in
North Korea have poor grammar. Like them, you have proved nothing.

> If the moderator discriminates between posters (most all to some degree
> has created or posts to off topic subjects or creates off topic discussion)
> and bans an individual based on homophobia for instance, that may
> be considered an act of censorship.

Woops. You accidently said a truth.

> But the rare instance of that happening
> would not evidence that all moderation is equivalent to censorship, or that
> talk.origins moderation is censorship.

Woops. You went back to stupid.

> I believe the moderator here acts in the interest of the group and not his own.

That may be true. But that is not relevant to the definition of
censorship. Censorship can be good.

> That seems pretty clear. The interest of the group is in maintaining some
> level of order, not to censor those with differing opinions or biases alone.

Censorship on this newsgroup has never been much about differing
opinions or biases.

> Posters whose words break laws, or are seen to be dangerous to others,
> may be banned because of those actions. A person who commits a crime
> in society and gets caught goes to jail, and that isn't seen as censorship.

That is closely related, known as "censure", not "censor". Censorship
deals with filtering information, not punishment.

[Mitchell Coffey]

No attempt has been make to reach consensuses in such matters. Decisions
can only be made by DIG, and he isn't interested in other peoples input
on such things.

Mitchell Coffeh

[Mitchell Coffey]

I like Glenn. I also like you. I like outliers.

Mitchell

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 11:56�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Blush.

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kfv0k4$u82$2...@dont-email.me...

I'll hold him down while you kiss him.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c34f1265-e5d9-4a54...@hd10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

North Korea is not analagous to Usenet.

>
> > Participants here implicitly agree to follow certain rules,
> > and can be banned for breaking one.
>
> I implicitly agree with the imposed censorship here, as we all must if
> we want to post messages. That does not imply that there is no
> censorship here. In fact, I would expect that there are many in North
> Korea that implicitly agree with the imposed censorship there. You
> have proved nothing.

Your record is stuck. It wasn't a proof, but a statement of fact.

>
> > These rules are not discriminatory
> > of any particular context, including off-topic posting.
>
> I never claimed discrimination. I claimed censorship. North Korean
> censorship is pretty indiscriminant. You have proved nothing.

It wasn't a proof, but a claim. Discrimination is a reasonable description
of censorship.

>
> > Consequently,
> > banning for breaking a rule need not be seen as censorship of any particular
> > context. The consequences of breaking rules is clearly not censorship.
>
> That makes no gramatical sense. I would think that many people in
> North Korea have poor grammar. Like them, you have proved nothing.

Yes it does, you just need help from a mental health professional.

>
> > If the moderator discriminates between posters (most all to some degree
> > has created or posts to off topic subjects or creates off topic discussion)
> > and bans an individual based on homophobia for instance, that may
> > be considered an act of censorship.
>
> Woops. You accidently said a truth.

You mean you recognized what a ten year old would.

>
> > But the rare instance of that happening
> > would not evidence that all moderation is equivalent to censorship, or that
> > talk.origins moderation is censorship.
>
> Woops. You went back to stupid.

Your stuck record is what is stupid.

>
> > I believe the moderator here acts in the interest of the group and not his own.
>
> That may be true. But that is not relevant to the definition of
> censorship. Censorship can be good.

It wasn't a definition of censorship, but it is relevant to the moderators intent.

>
> > That seems pretty clear. The interest of the group is in maintaining some
> > level of order, not to censor those with differing opinions or biases alone.
>
> Censorship on this newsgroup has never been much about differing
> opinions or biases.

I agree, since there has been little or no censorship.

>
> > Posters whose words break laws, or are seen to be dangerous to others,
> > may be banned because of those actions. A person who commits a crime
> > in society and gets caught goes to jail, and that isn't seen as censorship.
>
> That is closely related, known as "censure", not "censor". Censorship
> deals with filtering information, not punishment.
>

In any event, it is an analogy to what the moderator does here.

[Mitchell Coffey]

How much does he suck? And how much do you mean by "a little bit?"
Understand, your entire future depends on you answer.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Oh. Thank God. I first thought you wrote "Bush." Not the sort of outlier
I meant.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

After you.

Mitchell

[wiki trix]

On Feb 19, 1:18�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c34f1265-e5d9-4a54...@hd10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

I never said that North Korea is analogous to Usenet in any way. I
pointed out North Korea as an counter-example to your claim that there
can be no censorship within a givent environment when there are other
environments available. Your response is rather stupid. A more
effective response from you would have been if you had pointed out
that there is great freedom in leaving a particular Usenet group and
perhaps going to another or none at all, but you typically have much
less freedom in leaving a dictatorial government and going elsewhere
or nowhere at all. It is rather sad that I have to help you with your
own arguments against me.

Rest of your crap is snipped.

[David Iain Greig]

Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>
> {Access Public - Usenet}
>
> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>

You overlooked something.

--D. 'try again'

--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

[David Iain Greig]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:11?pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 5:41?pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Hal Womack 3-dan
>> > > <hal.wom...@gmail.com>:

>>
>> > > >Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>
>> > > >{Access Public - Usenet}
>>
>> > > >Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>> > > >censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>

>> > > You certainly did; moderation, even in general, is not
>> > > censorship.

>>
>> > > >BTW it is censored alias "moderated", rt?
>>

>> > > Not in the sense you mean, and even in that sense "censored"
>> > > would be an incorrect description. You would benefit from
>> > > learning the meaning of words before using them.
>>
>> > Hal seems to think that anyone should have the right to stand anywhere
>> > they like and shout whatever they like. To stop the ranter from coming
>> > into my home or workplace is censorship...
>>
>> The pauli exclusion principle is an example of censorship. So is the
>> heisenberg principle. So is the photoelectric effect. So is quantum
>> entanglement. It is everywhere.
>
> It is warm, just watch it grow all around me
> It is here, it is now.

NO NO NO THAT SONG RUINS THE ENTIRE SHOW

ARRRRGH I HATE THAT SONG

--D.

[David Iain Greig]

David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Herewith the sum of Google's description of t.o. WRT our point:
>>
>> {Access Public - Usenet}
>>
>> Does "About This Group" really fail to mention t.o's status as a
>> censored alias "moderated" ng or did I overlook something?
>>
> You overlooked something.
>
> --D. 'try again'
>

Did NOBODY but me click the Google Groups page?

--D. 'suckerrrrrrs'