The 'public sphere' - what the muck rakers on both sides of aus.culture.true-blue are destroying
Tristan
Habermas' Public Sphere
The claim that the Internet can lead to a greater democratization of society
is founded on tenets of unlimited access to information and equal
participation in cultural discourse. But will this inundation of texts and
voices lead to anarchic, rather than democratic, forms of communication? To
put it another way, does discourse on the Internet lead to a completely
postmodern world in which multiple centers compete with one another in a
debate which can only lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?
Like the postmodernists, Jurgen Habermas hopes to create a dialogue which
occurs outside of the realm of government and the economy. But Habermas'
public sphere model attempts to thwart postmodern, chaotic dissipation by
reinstalling Enlightenment values of reason and freedom into a modern
discourse which aims at pragmatic consensus. In the public sphere, Habermas
says, discourse becomes democratic through the "non-coercively unifying,
consensus building force of a discourse in which participants overcome their
at first subjectively biased views in favor of a rationally motivated
agreement (Public Discourse 315)." By looking to rationality, he hopes to
produce democratic judgements which can have universal application while
remaining anchored within the practical realm of discourse among
individuals.
Habermas posits that the participants in his political sphere shall share
shared assumptions about communicative practice. These assumptions are
produced by an Enlightenment notion of reason which is characteristic of
democracy- it is this rationality which makes decisions formulated in
discourse binding .(Ess 240) In addition, Habermas lists certain criterion
of freedom and equality which are necessary for an "ideal speech situation"
to occur in a democratic polity.
The Ideal Speech Situation
For Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive arena that is home to
citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (Villa 712)." Here
individuals are able to freely share their views with one another in a
process which closely resembles the true participatory democracy advocated
for electronic networks.
Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
part in a discourse.
2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
discourse.
2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
These rules reflect the emancipatory potential of the autonomous individual
since institutions like government and business cannot affect what one
posits or questions. The openness of expression which 'the ideal speech
situation' demands can be applied to Internet, where rapid exchange of
dialogue and production of information take place unchecked. Indeed,
government regulation of electronic communication raises enormous outcries
from those who claim that free speech is the essential component of
democracy.
By allowing every person the same opportunity to participate in discourse,
Habermas hopes to eradicate the prejudices which limit marginalized groups
from fully attaining their rights in democracy. But since society holds onto
physical classifications for defining individuals, virtual spaces may
provide the best practical equivalent to the public sphere. Since the
Internet de-emphasizes the body as a characteristic for social evaluation,
users are able to interact on an equal level. Furthermore, because members
of the public sphere are rational beings, the basis for establishing
consensus is on the strength of argument, which comes from within the self,
as opposed to material power defined by certain groups from the outside.
Yet though particular interests are respected in the ideal speech situation,
participants also give attention to the concrete, practical needs of their
fellow human beings. The 'solidarity' which springs from this attention to
one another "concerns the welfare of consociates who are intimately linked
in an intersubjectively shared form of life and thus also to the maintenance
of the integrity of this form of life itself ("Justice and Solidarity,"
47)."
The public sphere, therefore, manages to generate a political space which
respects the rights of the individual and strengthens community. Because the
communication which takes place in the 'ideal speech situation' is free of
institutional coercion, dialogue in the public sphere can "institute
democratic discourses on the grassroots level (Ingram 155, quoted in Ess,
245)." If the rules of Habermas' 'ideal speech situation' can be transferred
to current electronic networks, the possibility arises for a democracy which
can truly represent both citizen and community interests.
Despite Habermas' rules of discourse, however, Lyotard criticizes the
conditions of the public sphere. The move toward consensus, he says,
re-establishes the dominant Enlightenment 'metanarrative', a story which
claims to include all reality, but which instead only advocates a monolithic
viewpoint. Any debatethat occurs under these Enilghtenment conditions is
only meant to reify the metanarrative as the only representative stance on
life. Habermas' desire to reach consensus through dialogue decided by the
most persuasive argument, neglects the plurality of voices inherent in
democracy.
Lyotard doubts that "a reasonable consensus like the one in force at a given
moment in the scientific community could embrace the totality of
metaprescriptions regulating the totality of statements circulating in the
social collectivity (Lyotard 87)." Smaller, more local stories, like the
ones told by society's marginalized groups, are ultimately forced to remain
silent in a final consensus which excludes minority opinion. Thus, from a
postmodern viewpoint of the world, Habermas' public sphere fails in one of
its primary tasks: to give all individuals an equal say in the discursive
process.
Lyotard's critique raises an important question in regards to electronic
technologies as well. If electronic networks are to serve the purpose of
creating a more inclusive and participatory democracy can (or should) accord
be the final goal of discourse? Or is an open discourse itself the sign of
pure democracy?
The Future?
Electronic networks will neither completely democratize nor completely limit
discourse in the future. Inherent within the nature of technology are means
for liberation and means for restriction, which hinge on the motives of
those who have communicative power.
A 'cyerdemocracy' which opens speech to all parties needs a guiding model
which stresses freedom and equality, because institutional forces threaten
to use electonic networks for their own gain. A framework, then, like the
one outlined in Habermas' public sphere can serve as an alternative to
institutional coercion in the Age of Information.
Yet with the pervasiveness of electronic networks in every phase of life, it
becomes much more difficult to create a public sphere distinct from
government or commerce. Indeed, technologies can reinforce traditional
hierarchical structures as easily as they can subvert them.
The key to resistance lies in the formation of virtual communities on the
grassroots level, where real and virtual communities can validate the voices
of their members. If participants in electronic networks adhere to the
guidelines set forth by Habermas, an ideal speech situation can take shape
in which the Internet becomes both an instrument and a space for retuning
democracy to the people.
Ned Latham
>
> Habermas' Public Sphere
----snip----
> The Ideal Speech Situation
>
> For Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive arena that is home to
> citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (Villa 712)." Here
> individuals are able to freely share their views with one another in a
> process which closely resembles the true participatory democracy advocated
> for electronic networks.
>
> Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
> 'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
>
> 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
> part in a discourse.
>
> 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
>
> 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> discourse.
>
> 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
>
> 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
communications?
For example, how is the Usenet variant of the DOS attack to be dealt
with?
----snip----
> The Future?
>
> Electronic networks will neither completely democratize nor completely limit
> discourse in the future. Inherent within the nature of technology are means
> for liberation and means for restriction, which hinge on the motives of
> those who have communicative power.
> A 'cyerdemocracy' which opens speech to all parties needs a guiding model
> which stresses freedom and equality, because institutional forces threaten
> to use electonic networks for their own gain. A framework, then, like the
> one outlined in Habermas' public sphere can serve as an alternative to
> institutional coercion in the Age of Information.
>
> Yet with the pervasiveness of electronic networks in every phase of life, it
> becomes much more difficult to create a public sphere distinct from
> government or commerce. Indeed, technologies can reinforce traditional
> hierarchical structures as easily as they can subvert them.
>
> The key to resistance lies in the formation of virtual communities on the
> grassroots level, where real and virtual communities can validate the voices
> of their members. If participants in electronic networks adhere to the
> guidelines set forth by Habermas, an ideal speech situation can take shape
> in which the Internet becomes both an instrument and a space for retuning
> democracy to the people.
Habermas's requirements are too minimal. An "ideal" speech situation
should also discourage mendacity.
Ned
--
The aus.culture.true-blue Website
http://www.aussie-culture.net
FAQ: http://www.aussie-culture.net/faq.html
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.
fasgnadh
> "Tristan" wrote in <YPUp8.7695$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> >
> > Habermas' Public Sphere
>
> ----snip----
>
> > The Ideal Speech Situation
> >
> > For Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive arena that is home to
> > citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (Villa 712)." Here
> > individuals are able to freely share their views with one another in a
> > process which closely resembles the true participatory democracy advocated
> > for electronic networks.
> >
> > Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
> > 'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
> >
> > 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
> > part in a discourse.
> >
> > 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
> >
> > 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> > discourse.
> >
> > 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
> >
> > 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> > exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
>
> How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
> communications?
It's been done already.
Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
Live with it, you arrogant neo-fascist.
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
- The Townsville Taliban's Sacred Creed
They mouthed the words, but betrayed the deed
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "Tristan" wrote:
> > >
> > > Habermas' Public Sphere
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > The Ideal Speech Situation
> > >
> > > For Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive arena that is home to
> > > citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (Villa 712)." Here
> > > individuals are able to freely share their views with one another in a
> > > process which closely resembles the true participatory democracy advocated
> > > for electronic networks.
> > >
> > > Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
> > > 'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
> > >
> > > 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
> > > part in a discourse.
> > >
> > > 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
> > >
> > > 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> > > discourse.
> > >
> > > 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
> > >
> > > 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> > > exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
> >
> > How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
> > communications?
>
> It's been done already.
Yes. But the proposal was defeated. Obviously, some other method of
dealing with trolls like you has to be developed.
> Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
Wrong again, moron. I made no such attempt.
> Live with it, you arrogant neo-fascist.
And there's Guano accusing someone of his own villainy again.
----snip----
Ferdie
Chinese gang shoots pedestrian this morning at Fairfield railway station.
Onya boys !
http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/default.asp?iSubCatID=181&iNavCatID=136
Seppo Renfors
Tristan wrote:
>
> Habermas' Public Sphere
>
[snip redundant tormenting of words]
> To
> put it another way, does discourse on the Internet lead to a completely
> postmodern world in which multiple centers compete with one another in a
> debate which can only lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?
To strip the question of pretences: "Does discourse on the Internet
lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?"
No.
[snip more word torture]
>
> Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
> 'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
>
> 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
> part in a discourse.
>
> 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
>
> 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> discourse.
>
> 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
>
> 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
Which is an excessively long way of saying "People can say whatever
they please to whomever they please, whenever they please."
NO they can't. Nor should they be able - that way lies ANARCHY!
>
[snip more word torture]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Latham
----snip----
> To strip the question of pretences: "Does discourse on the Internet
> lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?"
>
> No.
As exemplified by the tightly centred unity of your posts, Renfors?
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo renfors, who puts some amazing things together.
The Enlightenment
> Tristan wrote:
> >
> > Habermas' Public Sphere
> >
> [snip redundant tormenting of words]
>
> > To
> > put it another way, does discourse on the Internet lead to a completely
> > postmodern world in which multiple centers compete with one another in a
> > debate which can only lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?
>
> To strip the question of pretences: "Does discourse on the Internet
> lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?"
>
> No.
>
> [snip more word torture]
> >
> > Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an
> > 'ideal speech situation' to occur. They are:
> >
> > 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
> > part in a discourse.
> >
> > 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
> >
> > 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> > discourse.
> >
> > 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
> >
> > 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> > exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik," 86)
>
> Which is an excessively long way of saying "People can say whatever
> they please to whomever they please, whenever they please."
>
> NO they can't. Nor should they be able - that way lies ANARCHY!
Let us apply your own resoning to you:
1 Your posts are extremely divisive; you create unfounded fears of
persecution and racism that polarise this multiracial society and
thereby incite violence, fear and anxiety. - that way lies ANARCHY!
2 Your post are rhetorical and chaotic and therby we can say - that
way lies ANARCHY!
3 You make volumouse rhetorical smear accusations of racism of
goebelesque magnitude. Clearly you and your New Zealand chum Peter
Terry (Who came in under Australias Racist immigration policy that
favours NZs as you put it) are serial internet pests that disorder
discusion. - that way lies ANARCHY!
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
>
Of course, it would have disrupted free communications! (you are SO slow!)
It's no good whimpering. You and your oligarchic cronies will have
to lick each others wounds and move on. B^)
YOUR NEO-FASCIST GRAB FOR CONTROL WAS ROUTED!
(and from ferdies photos, SO WERE YOU! B^)
> Obviously, some other method of
> dealing with trolls like you has to be developed.
Live with it, you arrogant neo-fascist.
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
fasgnadh
our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
They could have set up a sheltered workshop for themselves,
a closed NG where only the echoes of their prejudices would
be allowed, but they tried to subvert an existing NG DESPITE
THE PROTESTS OF PEOPLE ALREADY USING IT!
Su, Scott, Ironbark, Seppo, Mark, Tony, Stan, Grabes, Che, to name but a few!
What Ned and his venemous coven of neo-fascists have never
grasped is the simple nature of open, free speech.
If you don't like what's being said you don't have to listen!
You have choices to argue, ignore, killfile,
BUT NOT TO SILENCE!
That is the path of the Nazi.
So to Ned and all his goose-stepping proteges:
Go Fuck yaselves! B^)
I don't have to agree with Seppo, but will defend his right to speak!
And the fact that you parasites cling to every post he makes,
posted to every Che thread, shows that you are mere reactionaries,
feeding off the ideas of others, even when you can't understand,
and, merely misrepresent, them.
Instead of ideas, Ned offers only witless bile:
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrnaaq40m....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
Seppo Renfors
Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote in <3CAC44C5...@not.ollis.net>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > To strip the question of pretences: "Does discourse on the Internet
> > lead to complete divergence and fragmentation?"
> >
> > No.
>
> As exemplified by the tightly centred unity of your posts, Renfors?
>
> ----snip----
>
> > SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
>
> Says Seppo renfors, who puts some amazing things together.
>
If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
n...@apex.net.au
secu...@connect.com.au
geo...@apex.net.au
rob...@apex.net.au
Seppo Renfors
Sorry, you are not capable of "reasoning", only bigotry, racist
propaganda and vilification - as you have so well demonstrated in the
past, and are about to demonstrate part of it here again.
> 1 Your posts are extremely divisive; you create unfounded fears of
> persecution and racism that polarise this multiracial society and
> thereby incite violence, fear and anxiety. - that way lies ANARCHY!
See that's the problem with you little pocket Hitlers. YOU LIE. The
correct version is; *I* RESPOND to divisive posts intended to generate
"persecution and racism that polarise this multiracial society and
thereby incite violence, fear and anxiety." To defuse, belittle, scorn
their propaganda and treat those people in the manner they treat
others.
> 2 Your post are rhetorical and chaotic and therby we can say - that
> way lies ANARCHY!
Ohhh, are you at the old game of accusing ME of what you do, eh. Arfur
the Racist tried that too .....and failed :-)
Sooooooorrrrreeeeeee boyo, you are TOO LATE and it merely smears egg
all over your face even attempting :-)
> 3 You make volumouse rhetorical smear accusations of racism of
> goebelesque magnitude.
But of course you have actual PROOF of such, haven't you. Like a
message ID number and the quote IN CONTEXT from such message??? Of
course then you could just be another bag of wind full of froth and
bubble but no substance!
> Clearly you and your New Zealand chum Peter
> Terry (Who came in under Australias Racist immigration policy that
> favours NZs as you put it) are serial internet pests that disorder
> discusion.
Ahhhh.... so PT has exposed your racism as well I see :-)
Good on him!
It is quite apparent that you only want those people responding who
belong to your klavern in mind of not card holing members! So if you
OBJECT to people responding to you, start a MAILING LIST for the "me
too" morons who might just be CONNED by your racist propaganda.
> - that way lies ANARCHY!
Yep, you represent it!
The grapes a bit sour for you, were they? Here try a LEMON instead, it
matches your 'arguments' :-)
The Enlightenment
politics is fueling the growth reactionay race based divisions.
Moron
peter terry
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:39556695.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Have you ever considered that your divisive race based hysteria
> politics is fueling the growth reactionay race based divisions.
>
> Moron
Ned Latham
>
> No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
attack on free speech.
Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
attacked free speech.
Go figure.
----snip----
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> > > > "Tristan" wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
----snip----
> > > > How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
> > > > communications?
> > >
> > > It's been done already.
> >
> * Yes. But the proposal was defeated. Obviously, some other method of
> * dealing with trolls like you has to be developed.
(Text restored above and below to show up the dishonesty of guano's
editing and "responses".)
> > > Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
> >
> * Wrong again, moron. I made no such attempt.
> >
> > But the proposal was defeated.
>
> Of course, it would have disrupted free communications! (you are SO slow!)
It would have filtered out the abuses you're now posturing about in other
threads; "not my story but just spreading some light", for example.
Your posturing here about free speech and "free communications" is
absurd. There are moderated groups aplenty, and communications within
them are quite effective.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote> > fasgnadh wrote
> > > > > "Tristan" wrote:
(Ned Guano's obsessed forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> ----snip----
>
> > > > > How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
> > > > > communications?
> > > >
> > > > It's been done already.
> > > > Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
> > >
> * Wrong again, moron. I made no such attempt.
What can be said for a dolt who simultaneously denies
seeking control, and then claims it was necessary to do so: B^D
> > >
> > > But the proposal was defeated.
The proposal you just denied being part of!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Time for the men in white coats for you, Neddles.
> >
> > Of course, it would have disrupted free communications! (you are SO slow!)
>
> It would have filtered out the abuses you're now posturing about in other
> threads; "not my story but just spreading some light", for example.
Unlike you, liberal democrats can handle divergent viewpoints
without demanding powers of censorship! B^p
When it comes to scum, derision is far more effective than
your crude dreams of control. By holding them up to the light,
people see through their bullshit. Thats why you were defeated,
and why most of your mates crawled back under their rocks with
their spider mates.
>
> Your posturing here about free speech and "free communications" is
> absurd.
Only to you enemies of it.
We true blues revel in the preservation of free speech,
the clash of opinions, the competition of ideas, which so
obviously frightens you neo-fascist control freaks.
Why don't you go order your clique about, so you can feel
important! ROFLMAO!
> There are moderated groups aplenty, and communications within
> them are quite effective.
So piss off and form one, you whining loser.
No one has ever stopped you. Instead you tried to sieze control
of an existing NG, as if you had proprietal ownership, you
jumped up little oligarch, and the true-blues who were using
it told you to bugger off. You just prefer to BLEAT!
We meet your kind in politics all the time, PROFESSIONAL
WHINERS incapable of doing anything but blaming others for
their own inadequacies.
Clearly you can't handle rational debate in a forum
where your views are critically challenged; you spit the
dummy, become tediously abusive, repost poetry no-one has
ever shown interest in, dance around your archaic political views,
afraid to expose them to the light, and whine, whine, whine about
the intellectual dominance of the fair dinkum true-blues,
even ones like Che who haunt you in absentia! LOL!
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
Thats your forte, cutting and running.
People need only read the thread backward to see the
trivia and vitriol to which you reduce EVERY exchange of
IDEAS.
Thats what you fear most, the ideas of others.
Because your own are so second rate.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>::
> >
> > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
>
> I supported the proposal to moderate act-b,
Thats right you hypocrite, you proposed yourself
as arbiter and gatekeeper of what others could post.
Because your ideas were constantly defeated in
open intellectual struggle, you sought to control
the playing field.
> and Guano calls that an attack on free speech.
I am pleased that your alter ego agrees with Che,
Fasgnadh, Mark, Seppo, Su, Stan, Scott, Ironbark
and the scores of true-blues in their wholly correct
view that your proposal to sieze control of an
open NG was an attack on free speech.
And you minority troublemakers were routed! B^D
> Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> attacked free speech.
You really should see a shrink about these views of your imaginary
companion, "Guano". Or perhaps make a movie about these voices
in your head, do they only come after periods of heavy drinking?
As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG, except the one from you
and Lisa of course, but if you provide a citation, so people can
ascertain if you are not lying as usual, I will be happy to
condemn it.
> Go figure.
After realising the depths of their unpopularity,
your Taliban Townsville comrades seem to have done exactly
that, and disappeared humiliated.
You have stuck around to parade your humiliation, and the
obvious bile it has left you with.
What an interesting shade of green you are.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
Most people snip Ned.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > "Tristan" wrote:
(Guano's forgeries of my attribution lines undone.)
> > > > > > How is it proposed to deal with deliberate efforts to disrupt these
> > > > > > communications?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's been done already.
> * > >
> * > * Yes. But the proposal was defeated. Obviously, some other method of
> * > * dealing with trolls like you has to be developed.
> *
> * (Text restored above and below to show up the dishonesty of guano's
> * editing and "responses".)
> *
> * > > > Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
> * > >
> * > * Wrong again, moron. I made no such attempt.
> * > >
> * > > But the proposal was defeated.
> * >
> * > Of course, it would have disrupted free communications! (you are SO slow!)
> *
> * It would have filtered out the abuses you're now posturing about in other
> * threads; "not my story but just spreading some light", for example.
> *
> * Your posturing here about free speech and "free communications" is
> * absurd. There are moderated groups aplenty, and communications within
> * them are quite effective.
(Text restored again to show up Guano's forgery and dishonesty of "response.)
> > > > It's been done already.
> > > > Your attempt to achieve hegemony was voted down.
> > >
> > * Wrong again, moron. I made no such attempt.
>
> What can be said for a dolt who simultaneously denies
> seeking control, and then claims it was necessary to do so: =*=
Someone like you, of course. You're the one who thought it up.
> > > > But the proposal was defeated.
>
> The proposal you just denied being part of!
Wrong again, liar. Your forgery didn't work.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
> >
> * I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> * attack on free speech.
> *
> * Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> * attacked free speech.
> *
> * Go figure.
(Text restored.)
> Thats right you hypocrite,
Wrong again, liar. You and Renfors are the hypoctites here.
> you proposed yourself
Nope. I accepted nomination.
> as arbiter and gatekeeper of what others could post.
IOW, moderator. But you got all hysterical about "free speech",
trying to cover up the fact that your abuses are what would have
gone from the group, *not* the free exchange of topical ideas.
----snip----
> As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
> remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG,
Your problem.
Ferdie
Seppo Renfors
No, no RFD issued or requested to be issued. Merely open discussion on
it for the reason the group was dysfunctional. *I* didn't go behind
people's backs to collude and hatch secret plans in the "back room".
Interestingly freedom of speech was UPHELD at that time, until the RFD
to take it away of course. In any event, only a madman can argue I
have "attacked free speech" by discussing the issue. As the deletion
of the group would have affected everyone equally, and with around
140K of groups on usenet, you can HARDLY call it "attacked free
speech", unless you are disingenuous.
On the other hand RESERVING the group for a small clique, to vent
their spleen of hatred, without right of reply IS definitely "attacked
free speech".
>
> > Go figure.
>
> After realising the depths of their unpopularity,
> your Taliban Townsville comrades seem to have done exactly
> that, and disappeared humiliated.
Well... ALMOST disappeared, some just don't know when they have ben
defeated!
>
> You have stuck around to parade your humiliation, and the
> obvious bile it has left you with.
>
> What an interesting shade of green you are.
:-)
>
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > Ned
>
> Most people snip Ned.
--
Ned Latham
> "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
(Guano's fogery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
> > >
> * > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> * > attack on free speech.
> * >
> * > Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> * > attacked free speech.
> * >
> * > Go figure.
(Guano's text butchery undone.)
----snip----
> > As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
> > remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG, except the one from you
> > and Lisa of course, but if you provide a citation, so people can
> > ascertain if you are not lying as usual, I will be happy to
> > condemn it.
>
> No, no RFD issued or requested to be issued. Merely open discussion
> on it for the reason the group was dysfunctional.
Dysfunctional, adj: any newsgroup Renfors wants closed down.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the fool who's too stupid to refrain from exposing
his malice.
Seppo Renfors
If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
n...@apex.net.au
secu...@connect.com.au
geo...@apex.net.au
rob...@apex.net.au
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > > > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried
> > > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > * > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls
> > > * >
> > > * > Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says
> > > * >
> > > * > Go figure.
> >
> > (Guano's text butchery undone.)
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
> > > > remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG, except the one from you
> > > > and Lisa of course, but if you provide a citation, so people
> > > > can ascertain if you are not lying as usual, I will be happy
> > > > to condemn it.
> > >
> > > No, no RFD issued or requested to be issued. Merely open discussion
> > > on it for the reason the group was dysfunctional.
> >
> > Dysfunctional, adj: any newsgroup Renfors wants closed down.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
> >
> > Says Seppo Renfors, the fool who's too stupid to refrain from exposing
> > his malice.
>
> stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
Have you worked out why you're a social outcast yet, Renfors?
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, Pontifex Peccabilissimus.
Seppo Renfors
Tony Hancock
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrnab7vrs....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> Have you worked out why you're a social outcast yet, Renfors?
Is that what you true blues do to people who don't subscribe to your views,
wannabe moderator?
Sorry, no bone pointing powers for you Ned.
Cheers
Tony
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Seppo Renfors wrote in <3CB30653...@not.ollis.net>:
> * > Ned Latham wrote:
> * > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> * > > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> * > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> * > > > > > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> * > >
> * > > (Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> * > >
> * > > > > > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> * > > > > > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried
> * > > > > > > that.
> * > > > > >
> * > > > * > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls
> * > > > * > that an attack on free speech.
> * > > > * >
> * > > > * > Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says
> * > > > * >
> * > > > * > Go figure.
> * > >
> * > > (Guano's text butchery undone.)
> * > >
> * > > ----snip----
> * > >
> * > > > > As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
> * > > > > remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG, except the one from you
> * > > > > and Lisa of course, but if you provide a citation, so people
> * > > > > can ascertain if you are not lying as usual, I will be happy
> * > > > > to condemn it.
> * > > >
> * > > > No, no RFD issued or requested to be issued. Merely open discussion
> * > > > on it for the reason the group was dysfunctional.
> * > >
> * > > Dysfunctional, adj: any newsgroup Renfors wants closed down.
> * > >
> * > > ----snip----
> * > >
> * > > > SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
> * > >
> * > > Says Seppo Renfors, the fool who's too stupid to refrain from
> * > > exposing his malice.
> * >
> * > If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
> * > stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
> *
> > Have you worked out why you're a social outcast yet, Renfors?
(Text restored so Hancock's treatment of the issues is plain.)
> Is that what you true blues do to people who don't subscribe to your
> views, wannabe moderator?
No, it's what I do to slimy dobbing little cowards who are too gutless
to do their own snitching.
> Sorry, no bone pointing powers for you Ned.
You get no say in that, wanker.
----snip----
Seppo Renfors
Ned Latham
>
> No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
attack on free speech.
Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
attacked free speech.
Renfors has benn harassing my ISP since October 2000 to get me kicked
off the net and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
Renfors has, in the last six weeks, posted over 200 times soliciting
complaints against me, and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
----snip----
> I don't have to agree with Seppo, but will defend his right to speak!
Not to mention his and your "right" to abuse, stalk, harass, vilify and
defame those who have the effrontery to counter your crud with the truth,
hey Guano?
----snip----
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
>
> I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> attack on free speech.
The very website you quote in your sig agrees with me!
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
> Ned
> --
> The aus.culture.true-blue Website
> http://www.aussie-culture.net
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Logically;
a) you don't believe in free speech hence you wanted the NG moderated
b) you are not a True Blue.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tony Hancock wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > * Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > * > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > * > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > * > > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > > * > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > * > > > > > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > * > >
> > > * > > (Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > * > >
> > > * > > > > > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take
> > > * > > > > > > cronies tried that.
> > > * > > > > >
> > > * > > > * > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls
> > > * > > > * > that an attack on free speech.
> > > * > > > * >
> > > * > > > * > Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says
> > > * > > > * > he hasn't attacked free speech.
> > > * > > > * >
> > > * > > > * > Go figure.
> > > * > >
> > > * > > (Guano's text butchery undone.)
> > > * > >
> > > * > > ----snip----
> > > * > >
> > > * > > > > As for Seppo, I am not aware of ever having seen an RFD to
> > > * > > > > remove a.c.t-b as a viable open NG, except the one from you
> > > * > > > > and Lisa of course, but if you provide a citation, so people
> > > * > > > > can ascertain if you are not lying as usual, I will be happy
> > > * > > > > to condemn it.
> > > * > > >
> > > * > > > No, no RFD issued or requested to be issued. Merely open
> > > * > >
> > > * > > Dysfunctional, adj: any newsgroup Renfors wants closed down.
> > > * > >
> > > * > > ----snip----
> > > * > >
> > > * > > > SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
> > > * > >
> > > * > > Says Seppo Renfors, the fool who's too stupid to refrain from
> > > * > > exposing his malice.
> > > * >
> > > * > If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
> > > * > stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
> > > *
> > > > Have you worked out why you're a social outcast yet, Renfors?
> >
> > (Text restored so Hancock's treatment of the issues is plain.)
> >
> > > Is that what you true blues do to people who don't subscribe to your
> > > views, wannabe moderator?
> >
> > No, it's what I do to slimy dobbing little cowards who are too gutless
> > to do their own snitching.
> >
> > > Sorry, no bone pointing powers for you Ned.
> >
> > You get no say in that, wanker.
> >
> > ----snip----
>
> stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
Have you worked out yet why you're a social outcast, Renfors?
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, Pontifex Peccabilissimus.
Ned
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
> >
> > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> > attack on free speech.
> *
> * Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> * attacked free speech.
> *
> * Renfors has benn harassing my ISP since October 2000 to get me kicked
> * off the net and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> *
> * Renfors has, in the last six weeks, posted over 200 times soliciting
> * complaints against me, and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> *
> * ----snip----
> *
> * > I don't have to agree with Seppo, but will defend his right to speak!
> *
> * Not to mention his and your "right" to abuse, stalk, harass, vilify and
> * defame those who have the effrontery to counter your crud with the truth,
> * hey Guano?
(Surreptitiously snipped text restored.)
> The very website you quote in your sig agrees with me!
>
> "True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
> hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
That was the original position, yes. Then the differences between
freedom of speech, practiced by True Blues, and licence to abuse,
stalk, harass, vilify and defame, practiced by you and your gang
of thugs, became apparent.
----snip----
> Logically;
>
> a) you don't believe in free speech hence you wanted the NG moderated
Wrong again, liar. There are plenty of other newsgroups available for
you filthmongering thugs to spew your bile into without befouling
newsgroups that are intended for rational and informative discussion.
At no point is free speech threatened by moderation.
> b) you are not a True Blue.
So says the dummy-spitting reject.
BTW, your effort to confuse threads with the fraudulent use of a
different post's Subject and References headers pointed me to that
different post, which was one of Renfors' sooky little solitication
efforts that I'd missed (thanks for that: like you, he's a busy
little sociopath), but failed to conceal from me which post you
were "responding" to. It was:
Subject: Peter Wicks ("fasgnadh"), hypocritical accuser - 0007.
Message-ID: <slrnadv04b...@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>
I have, of course, now dealt with that Renfors post. See message
<slrnae1443...@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>, and compare the
indentation levels in that post and this to see how obvious your
forgery is.
Ned
--
The aus.culture.true-blue Website
http://www.aussie-culture.net
Seppo Renfors
Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote in <3CB59FB6...@not.ollis.net>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Tony Hancock wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > * Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > > * > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > * > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > > * > > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > > > * > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > * > > > > > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > > * > >
[..]
> > >
> > > > Sorry, no bone pointing powers for you Ned.
> > >
> > > You get no say in that, wanker.
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> >
> > If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
> > stalking with his petty hatreds send complaints to:
>
> Have you worked out yet why you're a social outcast, Renfors?
>
> ----snip----
>
> > SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
>
> Says Seppo Renfors, Pontifex Peccabilissimus.
>
> Ned
> --
If people are sick of seeing Ned clutter up the group with his
lunatic stalking and his petty hatreds send complaints to:
n...@aussie-culture.net
n...@apex.net.au
secu...@connect.com.au
geo...@apex.net.au
rob...@apex.net.au
twa...@apex.net.au
rob...@ns1.apex.net.au
ab...@apex.net.au
Seppo Renfors
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
> >
> > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> > attack on free speech.
> *
> * Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> * attacked free speech.
> *
> * Renfors has benn harassing my ISP since October 2000 to get me kicked
> * off the net and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> *
> * Renfors has, in the last six weeks, posted over 200 times soliciting
> * complaints against me, and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> *
> * ----snip----
> *
> * > I don't have to agree with Seppo, but will defend his right to speak!
> *
> * Not to mention his and your "right" to abuse, stalk, harass, vilify and
> * defame those who have the effrontery to counter your crud with the truth,
> * hey Guano?
(Surreptitiously snipped text restored.)
> The very website you quote in your sig agrees with me!
>
> "True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
> hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
That was the original position, yes. Then the differences between
freedom of speech, practiced by True Blues, and licence to abuse,
stalk, harass, vilify and defame, practiced by you and your gang
of thugs, became apparent.
----snip----
> Logically;
>
> a) you don't believe in free speech hence you wanted the NG moderated
Wrong again, liar. There are plenty of other newsgroups available for
you filthmongering thugs to spew your bile into without befouling
newsgroups that are intended for rational and informative discussion.
At no point is free speech threatened by moderation.
> b) you are not a True Blue.
So says the dummy-spitting reject.
BTW, your effort to confuse threads with the fraudulent use of a
different post's Subject and References headers pointed me to that
different post, which was one of Renfors' sooky little solitication
efforts that I'd missed (thanks for that: like you, he's a busy
little sociopath), but failed to conceal from me which post you
were "responding" to. It was:
Subject: Peter Wicks ("fasgnadh"), hypocritical accuser - 0007.
Message-ID: <slrnadv04b...@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>
I have, of course, now dealt with that Renfors post. See message
<slrnae1443...@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>, and compare the
indentation levels in that post and this to see how obvious your
forgery is.
Ned
--
To reply, cut out my nose * Democracy means "the people rule". *
and make the met a net. * Fight for the power of assent. *
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> > (Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> >
> > > > > No matter what Ned says, Seppo has never tried to take away
> > > > > our right to post our views, only Ned and his cronies tried that.
> > > >
> > > > I supported the proposal to moderate act-b, and Guano calls that an
> > > > attack on free speech.
> > > *
> > > * Renfors twice proposed the removal of act-b, and Guano says he hasn't
> > > * attacked free speech.
> > > *
> > > * Renfors has benn harassing my ISP since October 2000 to get me kicked
> > > * off the net and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> > > *
> > > * Renfors has, in the last six weeks, posted over 200 times soliciting
> > > * complaints against me, and Guano says he hasn't attacked free speech.
> > > *
> > > * ----snip----
> > > *
> > > * > I don't have to agree with Seppo, but will defend his right to speak!
> > > *
> > > * Not to mention his and your "right" to abuse, stalk, harass, vilify
> > > * the truth, hey Guano?
> lunatic stalking and his petty hatreds send complaints to:
Have you worked out yet why you're a social outcast, Renfors?
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, Pontifex Peccabilissimus.
Ned