BB: Hate sites?
Lina
very unpopular site so that people ... I don't know.
I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes people really piss me off
and I can't think of anything else to do but *something*!!
SO... how does one go about being rid of a hateful site?
--
Lina
EDD July 28th, 2003
Jan
<< how does one go about being rid of a hateful site?>>
IMO, you just exit and give thanks for free speech.
Jan
The TheatrElf
You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
that balances the twisted content.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.attbi.com/~xjahn
Snow and adolescence are the only problems that go away if
ignored long enough.
To reply: chrisjahn AT MyRealBox.com
Lina
"The TheatrElf" <thea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns931CEEE...@attbi.com...
> And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
>
> > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at
> > least making it a very unpopular site so that people ... I
> > don't know. I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes
> > people really piss me off and I can't think of anything
> > else to do but *something*!! SO... how does one go about
> > being rid of a hateful site?
> >
>
> You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
>
> Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
> that balances the twisted content.
>
>
I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good anymore.
Dreamstalker
> "The TheatrElf" <thea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns931CEEE...@attbi.com...
> > And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
> >
> > > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at
> > > least making it a very unpopular site so that people ... I
> > > don't know. I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes
> > > people really piss me off and I can't think of anything
> > > else to do but *something*!! SO... how does one go about
> > > being rid of a hateful site?
> >
> > You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
> >
> > Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
> > that balances the twisted content.
> >
> Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
> I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
> there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good anymore.
Just out of morbid curiousity (and I'm probably going to be sorry I asked),
what's the site?
--
"By the way, if one day you happen to wake up and find yourself in an
existential quandary full of loathing and self doubt and racked with the pain
and isolation of your pitiful meaningless existence, at least you can take a
small bit of comfort in knowing that somewhere out there in this crazy old
mixed up universe of ours there's still a little place
called...Albuquerque!" --Weird Al Yankovic, "Albuquerque"
Visit my ebay page http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/raystantz
Noah Singman
> Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
"Everyone can sympathize at times, but it's supposed to be annoying. We
don't have 'freedom of speech' to protect expression whose content we all
find pleasant (postulating the existence of such a thing). Rather, it's to
protect that speech and expression which offends or irritates us - like
performance art, or disco." <G>
Noah
Lee S. Billings
jennife...@rogers.com says...
Unless the site is making concrete, credible threats of physical violence
against the victims, there's really nothing you can do. Even if they are, how
much can be done depends a lot on the attitude of the people who have
jurisdiction (the cops, the ISP, whoever).
Celine
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Lina
"Dreamstalker" <ista...@csf.edu> wrote in message
news:3E45F36E...@csf.edu...
> Lina wrote:
>
> > "The TheatrElf" <thea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns931CEEE...@attbi.com...
> > > And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
> > >
> > > > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at
> > > > least making it a very unpopular site so that people ... I
> > > > don't know. I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes
> > > > people really piss me off and I can't think of anything
> > > > else to do but *something*!! SO... how does one go about
> > > > being rid of a hateful site?
> > >
> > > You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
> > >
> > > Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
> > > that balances the twisted content.
> > >
> > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
> > I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
> > there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good
anymore.
>
> Just out of morbid curiousity (and I'm probably going to be sorry I
asked),
> what's the site?
>
www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
Lina
"Noah Singman" <no...@singman.net> wrote in message
news:b25ube$ll1$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a Canadian were to
make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I guess
I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech because of the horrible things
it allows people to get away with.
M Blaze Miskulin
In and of itself, there is nothing you can do about a hate site, per
se. However... there are some extenuating circumstances. If the site
is promoting harmful action (inciting to commit a crime) it may be
advantageous to report it to law enforcement. A major anti-abortion
website was brought down for showing "wanted dead or alive" posters of
doctors with those who had been killed labeled as "no longer a threat".
The courts decided that this was promoting murder, and could be
considered a credible threat.
Second option: find out what ISP is hosting the site. They may have
terms of service which disallow sites which promote hate. If this is
so, bringing the site to the attention of the ISP may result in the
customer being cut off and the site pulled down.
It may also help to remember that, in general, the devil you can see is
less dangerous than the devil you can't.
A friend of mine once said (to paraphrase): He didn't fear the Klan
putting on white robes and marching down the street to burn a cross.
He feared the Klan putting on 3-piece suits and talking quietly.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
The TheatrElf
Like saying the President Bush is going to destroy this country:
without freedom of speech, the G.O.P. could have me arrested to
silence me.
I'd rather tolerate hate than stifle opposing viewpoints.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.attbi.com/~xjahn
Despite the high cost of living, it remains a popular item.
Sagittaria
news:pVv1a.306935$pDv.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
Just consider that the people who made this site would consider your
site a hate site, and ask yourself how much you'd like them to be
able to do against you.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Delirious Daniel
> "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of speech
> because in Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a
> Canadian were to make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for
> breaking laws. I guess I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech
> because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
Daniel Rejoins, "Well, gee, Lina, I'm not a big advocate of life
because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
"Okay, seriously, as a Candian, I think our approach to free speech
sucks; if we really believed in it, we'd be able to let idiots be
idiots and calmly rebuff them with reality."
--
Daniel 'Delirious' Sauve
http://deleriousraven.livejournal.com/
http://thedobd.blogdot.org/
http://www.topica.com/lists/thedobd/
Prophet Marcus Says:
Adversity breeds philosophy.
Dreamstalker
> "Dreamstalker" <ista...@csf.edu> wrote in message
> news:3E45F36E...@csf.edu...
> > Lina wrote:
> >
> > > "The TheatrElf" <thea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns931CEEE...@attbi.com...
> > > > And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at
> > > > > least making it a very unpopular site so that people ... I
> > > > > don't know. I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes
> > > > > people really piss me off and I can't think of anything
> > > > > else to do but *something*!! SO... how does one go about
> > > > > being rid of a hateful site?
> > > >
> > > > You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
> > > >
> > > > Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
> > > > that balances the twisted content.
> > > >
> > > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
> > > I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
> > > there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good anymore.
>
> >
> > Just out of morbid curiousity (and I'm probably going to be sorry I asked),
>
> > what's the site?
>
> www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
> homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
Ugh. Yes, I know that site well. I've been spammed by them a few times (could
that be cause for getting it shut down?).
Lina
"Delirious Daniel" <deliri...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:d6m1wb...@rogers.com...
> "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> writes:
>
> > "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of speech
> > because in Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a
> > Canadian were to make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for
> > breaking laws. I guess I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech
> > because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
> Daniel Rejoins, "Well, gee, Lina, I'm not a big advocate of life
> because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
>
> "Okay, seriously, as a Candian, I think our approach to free speech
> sucks; if we really believed in it, we'd be able to let idiots be
> idiots and calmly rebuff them with reality."
See, but there are good things to our free speech policy. People can't walk
around saying things like "I hate gays and think they would be better off
straight." They would get into shit for being hurtful. I think that's
great.
On a more important point, we can't publish things that are known to be
wrong. We couldn't publish a pamphlet that says the holocaust never
happened; we all know it did happen. Unfortunately, the same pamphlet is
legal in the states. (Sadly, I was given one in Chicago. It was really full
of crap and made no sense whatsoever, but I'm sure that a lot of people
were offended by it. I know I was.)
Lina
"M Blaze Miskulin" <brb...@winterborne-ss.com> wrote in message
news:3E468C76...@winterborne-ss.com...
> Lina wrote:
> > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at least making it
a
> > very unpopular site so that people ... I don't know.
> > I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes people really piss me
off
> > and I can't think of anything else to do but *something*!!
> > SO... how does one go about being rid of a hateful site?
>
> In and of itself, there is nothing you can do about a hate site, per
> se. However... there are some extenuating circumstances. If the site
> is promoting harmful action (inciting to commit a crime) it may be
> advantageous to report it to law enforcement. A major anti-abortion
> website was brought down for showing "wanted dead or alive" posters of
> doctors with those who had been killed labeled as "no longer a threat".
> The courts decided that this was promoting murder, and could be
> considered a credible threat.
I'll have to go through the site with a fine toothed comb. There are some
things on there that I wouldn't know if it's breaking American laws or not.
(This doesn't mean I won't, just that it might take me longer.)
>
> Second option: find out what ISP is hosting the site. They may have
> terms of service which disallow sites which promote hate. If this is
> so, bringing the site to the attention of the ISP may result in the
> customer being cut off and the site pulled down.
How can I find this out?
>
> It may also help to remember that, in general, the devil you can see is
> less dangerous than the devil you can't.
>
> A friend of mine once said (to paraphrase): He didn't fear the Klan
> putting on white robes and marching down the street to burn a cross.
> He feared the Klan putting on 3-piece suits and talking quietly.
>
That is a really scary prospect... If I'm reading this correctly, you're
saying that if it's plain as day, you know what's going to happen and
something can be done to stop it (or at least prevent human lives being
lost) but if it's hidden as general populous, it's harder to do something
about it?
>
> --
> M Blaze Miskulin
>
Pat Kight
>>Second option: find out what ISP is hosting the site. They may have
>>terms of service which disallow sites which promote hate. If this is
>>so, bringing the site to the attention of the ISP may result in the
>>customer being cut off and the site pulled down.
> How can I find this out?
"Easy as pie. Use the WHOIS lookup service at
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois
(just enter the last two levels of the domain name - the parts on either
side of the final "dot" - for www.offensivestuff.com, that would be
"offensivestuff.com", for instance).
"You'll find out who owns the site, and - assuming they aren't hosting
it themselves, who hosts it.
"Be aware, though, that most ISPs won't shut down a site based only on
distasteful content - nor, in my opinion, should they, because that
would mean somebody who thought (for instance) that homosexuality was an
Abomination Unto the Lord could get a gay site shut down ...
>>It may also help to remember that, in general, the devil you can see is
>>less dangerous than the devil you can't.
>>
>>A friend of mine once said (to paraphrase): He didn't fear the Klan
>>putting on white robes and marching down the street to burn a cross.
>>He feared the Klan putting on 3-piece suits and talking quietly.
> That is a really scary prospect... If I'm reading this correctly, you're
> saying that if it's plain as day, you know what's going to happen and
> something can be done to stop it (or at least prevent human lives being
> lost) but if it's hidden as general populous, it's harder to do something
> about it?
"I'm not Blaze, but that's certainly how I see things."
--
Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
The TheatrElf
>
> "Delirious Daniel" <deliri...@rogers.com> wrote in
> message news:d6m1wb...@rogers.com...
>> "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> writes:
>>
>> > "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of
>> > speech because in Canada, we have it, but only to a
>> > minimal degree. If a Canadian were to make a site like
>> > this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I
>> > guess I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech
>> > because of the horrible things it allows people to get
>> > away with.
>> Daniel Rejoins, "Well, gee, Lina, I'm not a big advocate
>> of life because of the horrible things it allows people to
>> get away with.
>>
>> "Okay, seriously, as a Candian, I think our approach to
>> free speech sucks; if we really believed in it, we'd be
>> able to let idiots be idiots and calmly rebuff them with
>> reality."
>
> See, but there are good things to our free speech policy.
> People can't walk around saying things like "I hate gays
> and think they would be better off straight." They would
> get into shit for being hurtful. I think that's great.
But who gets to decide what's hurtful and what's not? What if
someone decides it's hurtful to say that people should practice
safe sex, or eat healthy diets? "Telling me I should eat fruits
and vegetables instead of meat is painful for me!"
> On a more important point, we can't publish things that are
> known to be wrong. We couldn't publish a pamphlet that says
> the holocaust never happened; we all know it did happen.
Does that mean you can't print the Bible? After all, you can't
prove much of that, either. How about Dune? None of that ever
happened; shouldn't you go arrest the estate of Frank Herbert?
"Known to be wrong". You've just jusified the excommunication
of Galileo; after all, his views that the earth was not the
center of the universe was "known to be wrong". YOu've also
justified the death sentence of Socrates; his view were "known
to be wrong", too.
But the only true way we can learn is to compare "truths"; and
the only way we can compare is to be exposed to them.
> Unfortunately, the same pamphlet is legal in the states.
I don't think that's unfortunate at all. Because I can print a
pamphlet that contradicts the first one, and I have actual facts
to back me up, where they can only grunt "nuh- uh".
> (Sadly, I was given one in Chicago. It was really full of
> crap and made no sense whatsoever, but I'm sure that a lot
> of people were offended by it. I know I was.)
I'd rather be offended than ignorant, and that's the choice
you're offering.
I want to know what they beleive: it's the only way I can
know how to counter it.
Another thing to be aware of: by forcing a hate groups' views
underground, you give them the gift of martyrhood. "Our views
must have merit, because they are afraid to listen to us! They
persecute us, so they must be evil."
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.attbi.com/~xjahn
"Strike the show, my ass. I'm outta here when the curtain
drops."
Clive Mitchell
Lina
Sadly no. Spam is another one of those things that is not yet illegal in
the U.S. (AFAIK)
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>Lina wrote:
>
>>
>> www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
>> homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
>
>Ugh. Yes, I know that site well. I've been spammed by them a few times (could
>that be cause for getting it shut down?).
Well, (and it's probably been pointed out already by others, you might
get it shut down for spam, but that would be about the only reason
(and much as I personally abhore such sites, that would be almost the
ONLY reason one could bring up to shut it down.)
--
Carpe Dementem! (grab the wacko)
Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
strueb@<nonono>carpedementem.org
home page: www.carpedementem.org
Sencenich
computer name is a default name for a home server setup and not a
rented service.
this usually means that they guy is underfulded and has only hearsay
or fantacy for his articles.
Take comfort that this site is just a bunch of hot air. not anything
that is a sweeping reputable source. lots may be spammed by them, but
that is an easy and inexpensive thing to do.
as best as i can gather, from the info that i got, the computer is
connected to an ISP in Europe and the ISP allows for Spamming. and
remains anonymous in Tracerout. (try sending an e-mail to 100 people
on your isp... they mostly dont allow it.)
i hope this is a small comfort and some help.
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 17:06:12 GMT, "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com>
Spoketh Unto us:
Patrick
"Death Can not stop true love, All it can do is delay it for a while"
http://patrick.sencenich.us
http://www.archers.org
Lee S. Billings
>
>Lina wrote:
>> www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
>> homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
>
>Ugh. Yes, I know that site well. I've been spammed by them a few times
>(could that be cause for getting it shut down?).
It depends. The next time you get one, save the headers and send them over
here. It's possible that either their ISP, or the ISP's connectivity provider,
might have a no-spam clause in their contract. If that *is* the case, then,
yes, spamming can get them shut down. The bad news is that they may not *stay*
down for long -- all they'd have to do is start getting connectivity from one
of the known spam-haven ISPs.
Note that this is NOT equivalent to censorship. You're not getting them shut
down because of what's on the site, but for contract violation.
Margaret Whittleton
I must diagree with your statement about freedom of speech. It is
enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights and as such is part of our
constitution. I'm very much in favour of freedom of speech - we have
other laws which can deal with such things as hate crimes.
Our freedom of speech is much less restrictive than in some other
countries (c.f. the case against Yahoo in France), but is different from
the United States (not better or worse - just different). And for all
it's faults, I believe the policy of multiculturalism has built a more
tolerant society, where Canadians are more accepting of other peoples'
opinions.
Interestingly, I would say (and I realize this is a broad generalization
and is a result of my own - albeit limited - exposure to US journalism
through TV and some print) that the mainstream Canadian press is more
varied than in the US. Our national broadcaster, the CBC, has often
been accused of being leftwing; we now have Global and Izzy Asper's
rightist news empire; we have the reactionary tabs in the form of the
Toronto, Ottawa, and Calgary Suns; and lots of other good papers
(Toronto actually has for strong dailies).
I lived through the abrogation of my civil rights in 1970 during the
imposition of the "War Measures Act" (for non Canadians - the Quebec
Crisis). At that time there was possibility (real or otherwise) of a
violent revolution breaking out in Quebec. Cross was kidnapped and
Pierre Laporte was murdered. Friends of mine were seriously worried
they would be arrested. We survived, and history will be the judge of
whether Pierre Trudeau over-reacted.
So when you talk about freedom of speech, I believe that we don't have
to apologize to anyone - afterall where else does the Prime Minister get
hit with a pie in the face!
Marg
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Noah Singman" <no...@singman.net> wrote...
> > "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
> >
> > "Everyone can sympathize at times, but it's supposed to be annoying. We
> > don't have 'freedom of speech' to protect expression whose content we all
> > find pleasant (postulating the existence of such a thing). Rather, it's
> to
> > protect that speech and expression which offends or irritates us - like
> > performance art, or disco." <G>
> >
> Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a Canadian were to
> make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I guess
> I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech because of the horrible things
> it allows people to get away with.
The orange fellow steps forward:
"Whereas I'm a *fanatic* about it, because at one time or another most
of the things I hold dearest have been deemed among "the horrible
things... people... get away with"; and I don't want anybody to have the
power to decide which things are horrible, because they could be wrong.
Letting those who are wrongheaded get away with it, and putting the
truth out, is more effective in terms of protecting freedom.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
LePheaux
"Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:2dk1a.615154$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
so we can shut down alt.support childfree first off.
Marten Kemp
Now, now. The rhetoric in a.s.c does become a little, ah, extreme
at times but the group provides a place for us who are not enamored
of children a place to vent our frustrations.
-- Marten Kemp
Calishar
wrote:
>"Everyone can sympathize at times, but it's supposed to be annoying. We
>don't have 'freedom of speech' to protect expression whose content we all
>find pleasant (postulating the existence of such a thing).
Actually Noah, I think that freedom of speech is designed to protect
expression we agree with. It protects it against being shut down by
those who disagree with us.
Unfortunately there are people who either by ignorance, early
training, or frustration with perceived (and in some cases real)
inequities, believe themselves to be downtrodden, and held back. And,
of course, it is so much easier to talk about that which we dislike,
than it is to try to change it.
Calishar
Remove *SPAMFREE* to email me.
my domain name matches my user-name... imagine that
Kenora Sorgenfrie
<mwhi...@nospam.com> wrote:
[lots of good stuff - go read it :) ]
>So when you talk about freedom of speech, I believe that we don't have
>to apologize to anyone - afterall where else does the Prime Minister get
>hit with a pie in the face!
>Marg
Marg,
Thank you for saying this so eloquently. I, too, believe in freedom
of speech, and you said why better than I could have said.
Kenora
Andreas Schaefer
>this is run out of someones home. I did a trace and a whois. the
>computer name is a default name for a home server setup and not a
>rented service.
>
>this usually means that they guy is underfulded and has only hearsay
>or fantacy for his articles.
>
>Take comfort that this site is just a bunch of hot air. not anything
>that is a sweeping reputable source. lots may be spammed by them, but
>that is an easy and inexpensive thing to do.
>
>as best as i can gather, from the info that i got, the computer is
>connected to an ISP in Europe and the ISP allows for Spamming. and
>remains anonymous in Tracerout. (try sending an e-mail to 100 people
>on your isp... they mostly dont allow it.)
>
Actually since rightly or wrongly freedom of speech does not aply
outside the US to the same extend.
If the ISP is really in Europe there may be a way to shut the site
down . Some countries here have laws that exept hate-sppech from the
general freedom . ( That said when I look up missionamerica.com I ens
up with US only addresses )
WareWolf
> Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
Democracy is not for wimps. Sometimes it takes a strong stomach. Not to
mention a big mouth.
Dusty
--
This Week's column: The Burden of Proof
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0203.html
Pat Kight
> Lina wrote in alt.callahans :
>
>
>>Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
>
>
> Democracy is not for wimps. Sometimes it takes a strong stomach. Not to
> mention a big mouth.
"Oooh, if I were in the habit of using .sig lines, Dusty, you'd have
just earned a place in mine! Buy you a drink instead?"
--
Jezebel
rather more worried than usual about freedom of speech in her own
particular Democracy, having read the articles here:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3641222.html
kig...@peak.org
WareWolf
Sure, it's close enough to 5:00 PM where I am...
M Blaze Miskulin
> That is a really scary prospect... If I'm reading this correctly, you're
> saying that if it's plain as day, you know what's going to happen and
> something can be done to stop it (or at least prevent human lives being
> lost) but if it's hidden as general populous, it's harder to do something
> about it?
Partly, yes.
The other part is that when you allow someone to rant and rave their
views in public, they tend to think they're doing something and it
doesn't go much beyond that. If they're not allowed to scream out
their hatred, they find other ways to make their point.
It's the quiet ones who are building bombs in Ryder trucks that you
have to worry about.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
LePheaux
"Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E4745D4...@earthlink.net...
All I have seen is hate, and more hate,
mixed in with a lot of bias. and more hate.
The TheatrElf
> WareWolf wrote:
>> Lina wrote in alt.callahans :
>>
>>
>>>Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
>>
>>
>> Democracy is not for wimps. Sometimes it takes a strong
>> stomach. Not to mention a big mouth.
>
> "Oooh, if I were in the habit of using .sig lines, Dusty,
> you'd have just earned a place in mine!
But *I* do, and he does!
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.attbi.com/~xjahn
Democracy is not for wimps. Sometimes it takes a strong stomach.
Not to mention a big mouth. - Jerry D. Rhoades, Jr.
David Harden
: "Dreamstalker" <ista...@csf.edu> wrote in message
: news:3E45F36E...@csf.edu...
: > Lina wrote:
: >
: > > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
: > > I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
: > > there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good anymore.
: >
: > Just out of morbid curiousity (and I'm probably going to be sorry I asked),
: > what's the site?
: >
: www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
: homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
<SIGH> "It's yet another group that appears to believe that only
people who believe as they do are Real True Christians, and definitely
believes that the Real True Christians are discriminated against
and/or being shown intolerance if those they disapprove of are not.
For all I can tell, it could be a small, fairly local group trying to
make itself look larger and more influential than it is."
--
A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson
David Harden
: So when you talk about freedom of speech, I believe that we don't have
: to apologize to anyone - afterall where else does the Prime Minister get
: hit with a pie in the face!
"If you don't mind telling about it, I'd like to hear how and why."
Marten Kemp
And why, exactly, do you lurk there?
Go away and stay away and all of us will be happier.
-- Marten Kemp
Margaret Whittleton
Hi David:
Here are some links:
http://www.entartistes.ca/cmna4.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/canada000816.html
And even a couple of communiques from the Pie Brigade itself
http://www.asis.com/~agit-prop/bbb/communique011601.html
Our dear P.M. has a bit of a temper - he even once tried to strangle a
anti-poverty protester who got in his face too much (not that I really
blamed him - the guy is known as a bit of a nuisance), but can you
imagine the Secret Service allowing anyone to get that close to a US
president?
Marg
tluton
"David Harden" <dha...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3e485fb3$1...@news.iglou.com...
> In <3E471266...@sympatico.ca>, Margaret Whittleton wrote:
>
> : So when you talk about freedom of speech, I believe that we don't have
> : to apologize to anyone - afterall where else does the Prime Minister get
> : hit with a pie in the face!
>
> "If you don't mind telling about it, I'd like to hear how and why."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/canada000816.html
Aug. 16 (2000) — Oh, the indignity of it all.
Canadian Prime Minister Prime Minister Jean Chretien was creamed in the
face with a pie as he tried to enter a building in Charlottetown, capital of
the province of Prince Edward Island.
The pastry was thrown by a protester said to be with PEI Pie Brigade. He
was soon hustled away by a host of Mounties.
Just Desserts?
The man said Chretien was merely meeting his just desserts for committing
“crimes against Canadians,” such as cutting welfare payments and allowing
the sale of genetically modified food, according to reporter Joy Malbon of
CTV News.
The activist was not immediately identified and it was not clear what
charges he may face. The flavour of the pie was also unknown.
A pie in the face used to be a staple of stage comedy. Chretien,
however, did not appear amused as he continued into the building, his face
covered with cream.
“[Chretien] walked right by me and as he was being taken away … I could
just see in his eyes how angry he was,” Malbon said. “His mouth was
clenched, he was taken away and we haven’t seen him since.”
The prime minister can take heart from the knowledge that he’s in good
company. Members of the Biotic Baking Brigade and other protesters have pied
the likes of San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Nobel Prize-winning economist
Milton Friedman and designer Oscar de la Renta. In February 1998, during a
visit to Belgium, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was greeted by a pie in the
kisser.
Miche
<VsY1a.46011$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"LePheaux" <Cel...@war.com> wrote:
> "Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3E4745D4...@earthlink.net...
> > Now, now. The rhetoric in a.s.c does become a little, ah, extreme
> > at times but the group provides a place for us who are not enamored
> > of children a place to vent our frustrations.
> <M<>>
> All I have seen is hate, and more hate,
> mixed in with a lot of bias. and more hate.
Then you haven't been looking very hard, imo.
Miche
--
So what if the universe is a pointless mass of hydrogen refuse powered
by entropy. I'm spreading ketchup on a rubber duck, and after that I'm
going to brush its teeth. So there.
-- Rob Landley
Andreas Schaefer
>
>"Dreamstalker" <ista...@csf.edu> wrote in message
>news:3E45F36E...@csf.edu...
>> Lina wrote:
>>
>> > "The TheatrElf" <thea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns931CEEE...@attbi.com...
>> > > And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at
>> > > > least making it a very unpopular site so that people ... I
>> > > > don't know. I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes
>> > > > people really piss me off and I can't think of anything
>> > > > else to do but *something*!! SO... how does one go about
>> > > > being rid of a hateful site?
>> > >
>> > > You don't, as that is a clear violation of freedom of speech.
>> > >
>> > > Don't visit or reference the site, and set up an opposing site
>> > > that balances the twisted content.
>> > >
>> > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
>> > I wish an opposing site would do the trick. There are so many sites out
>> > there that are like this, I don't know that it would do any good
>anymore.
>>
>> Just out of morbid curiousity (and I'm probably going to be sorry I
>asked),
>> what's the site?
>>
>
>www.missionamerica.com I'm sorry for anyone who goes there that might be
>homosexual, pagan, a feminist...
>
>> --
or just a human being.
A pointer to an interesting fact: should you know an enterprising
hacker would be the directory
http://www.missionamerica.com/scripts/
( and since that is unprotected other things on that server may be
unprotected <grin>) and in that case one might be doing better things
with it than shutting it down. (adding ones own texts, adding links to
porn sites, adding hidden comments praisin Bin Laden ... )
yes I am evil , no I don't know how to do it because if I did I just
might do it to that site for fun
Andreas
Larisa
> "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> don't have 'freedom of speech' to protect expression whose content we all
> protect that speech and expression which offends or irritates us - like
> performance art, or disco." <G>
>
Ah, but do we actually have freedom of speech, or have we ever had it?
Sure, the Powers That Be will let us play with our little toys and
say "I don't like the president!" or "I don't like <fitb>!" - but say
anything more dangerous (to the aforementioned Powers) than that, and
you wind up in jail, or worse. Our "freedom of speech" is about the
same as our "democracy" - and we all know what happened in Nov.2000,
right?
LM
Dane Anderson
> Our "freedom of speech" is about the
> same as our "democracy" - and we all know what happened in Nov.2000,
> right?
Yes, Bush won the election, and crybaby Gore tried to get the Florida
SC to IGNORE state law and give it to him. Luckily the US SC overrulled
them.
--
Sometimes my wife wakes up grumpy.
The rest of the time she lets me sleep in.
Dane Anderson.
Lee S. Billings
duc...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com says...
>
>Larisa wrote:
>> Our "freedom of speech" is about the
>> same as our "democracy" - and we all know what happened in Nov.2000,
>> right?
>
>Yes, Bush won the election, and crybaby Gore tried to get the Florida
>SC to IGNORE state law and give it to him. Luckily the US SC overrulled
>them.
As usual, you got it 100% backwards. Why does this not surprise me?
LePheaux
"Miche" <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:micheinnz-B40DE...@news.itconsult.net...
> In article
> <VsY1a.46011$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "LePheaux" <Cel...@war.com> wrote:
>
> > "Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E4745D4...@earthlink.net...
>
> > > Now, now. The rhetoric in a.s.c does become a little, ah, extreme
> > > at times but the group provides a place for us who are not enamored
> > > of children a place to vent our frustrations.
> > <M<>>
> > All I have seen is hate, and more hate,
> > mixed in with a lot of bias. and more hate.
>
> Then you haven't been looking very hard, imo.
>
> Miche
<<>>
molestation.
child degradation. and a total hate towards family orientated people.
did I miss anything ?
BTW I have yet to see anything resembling support, UNLESS, all the
ramblings of over population.
cunt nuggets, and crotch fruit are what **YOU** call support.
Ya'll have a strange concept of support. < besides being just plain fucked
in the head>
your views are just plain fucked up.
do you see anyone in AC bashing opposing views just because they don't
coincide with their own ?
OK bad example, *BUT* AC holds true to refuting entropy, not the opposite
which ASCF does not.
for those of you who believe ASCF is for you, then AC is your opposite
polarity.
when someone I know needs support, the last thing I do is lash out at
others.
I'll give them a shoulder, a hand out..
or just a hand.
not more anger to feed on.
The TheatrElf
> Larisa wrote:
>> Our "freedom of speech" is about the
>> same as our "democracy" - and we all know what happened in
>> Nov.2000, right?
>
> Yes, Bush won the election, and crybaby Gore tried to get
> the Florida SC to IGNORE state law and give it to him.
> Luckily the US SC overrulled them.
>
Let's review the REAL facts, Dane:
The US SC found:
- Gore's request for a recount was legal.
- The FLSC did not have the authority to order the recount to
continue, but that the recount should not have been interrupted
in the first place.
- The manual recount was proper under the law and the
circumstances, but due to all the legal actions, there was no
longer any time to complete the manual recount, and ordered the
initial recount be used for that reason.
The USSC attached an order to their decision: that this decision
was not to be cited as precedent under any cirmcumstances. As
every decision by the USSC is supposed to set precedent by the
mandate of the Constitution, the Constitutional validity of this
decision should be seriously questioned. Unfortunately, the
Constitution relies on the USSC to make Constitutionally sound
decisions; there is no recourse when they fail to do so.
Basically, the manual recount was legal, the methods of the
manual recount were legal if sloppy, and if Bush and the GOP had
allowed it to be completed, no one could accuse them of doing
what they in fact did; using legal action to disrupt the vote
and get the questionable results to stand. And while studies
done since then indicate that the final results would still have
resulted in a Bush presidency, Bush's own actions, NOT Gore's,
have tainted his legitimacy.
After all, anyone truly interested in the rights of the
citizenry would have insisted that the votes be accurately
counted beyond any reasonable doubt; that Bush chose to prevent
that reveals him as the thug he is.
He could have won pretty; he chose to win brutally.
And as I said at the time, he is going to be the downfall of the
United States as a world power; his name will come to be more
reviled in history than Benedict Arnold's.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.attbi.com/~xjahn
Today is an excellent day to become a missing person.
Marten Kemp
>
> "Miche" <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:micheinnz-B40DE...@news.itconsult.net...
> > In article
> > <VsY1a.46011$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "LePheaux" <Cel...@war.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E4745D4...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > > > Now, now. The rhetoric in a.s.c does become a little, ah, extreme
> > > > at times but the group provides a place for us who are not enamored
> > > > of children a place to vent our frustrations.
> > > <M<>>
> > > All I have seen is hate, and more hate,
> > > mixed in with a lot of bias. and more hate.
> >
> > Then you haven't been looking very hard, imo.
> >
> > Miche
> <<>>
> Ahh, so if I look a little harder, I will find stories of child
> molestation.
> child degradation. and a total hate towards family orientated people.
> did I miss anything ?
They spell better, for one thing. "Orientated?" Seriously, all the
stories about people doing hateful things to children are there to
remind us that not everyone should have children and to make us feel
superior because we realized that we wouldn't make good parents and
wisely refrained from having any.
<<drivel snipped>>
>
> when someone I know needs support, the last thing I do is lash out at
> others.
> I'll give them a shoulder, a hand out..
> or just a hand.
> not more anger to feed on.
The support in a.s.c is from one childfree person to another. Parents
looking for support need not apply.
-- Marten Kemp
Miche
Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
What he said. In spades.
Sarah
> "M Blaze Miskulin" <brb...@winterborne-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:3E468C76...@winterborne-ss.com...
> > Lina wrote:
> > > How does one go about shutting down a hate site? Or at least making it
> a
> > > very unpopular site so that people ... I don't know.
> > > I guess I should leave it alone, but sometimes people really piss me
> off
> > > and I can't think of anything else to do but *something*!!
> > > SO... how does one go about being rid of a hateful site?
> >
> > se. However... there are some extenuating circumstances. If the site
> > is promoting harmful action (inciting to commit a crime) it may be
> > advantageous to report it to law enforcement. A major anti-abortion
> > website was brought down for showing "wanted dead or alive" posters of
> > doctors with those who had been killed labeled as "no longer a threat".
> > The courts decided that this was promoting murder, and could be
> > considered a credible threat.
>
> I'll have to go through the site with a fine toothed comb. There are some
> things on there that I wouldn't know if it's breaking American laws or not.
> (This doesn't mean I won't, just that it might take me longer.)
It's not a bad idea to do this anyway - know thy enemy and all that.
Now I've been through most of the first section -homosexuality in
schools- or something like that, and there's nothing really new there.
Nothing that hasn't been refuted time and time again. So familiarise
yourself with the arguments and the refutations, make sure your
presentation is impeccably educated, and debate away until you get
exhausted and then someone else will take up the fight.
Another thing you might want to do is look at the authorship of the
articles - In the first section there are three - the ubiquitous Linda
Harvey, Allyson Smith, undercover operative (1 article), and HS Junior
Hans Zeigler(1 article). Honestly, this net-ministry looks like a one
woman operation to me. There's no
feedback or chat section, which is where I'd go to ascertain the tone
of the audience. Wonder what the bible says about women running
ministries, when they should be cleaning or cooking or something, eh
Linda?
> > It may also help to remember that, in general, the devil you can see is
> > less dangerous than the devil you can't.
> >
> > A friend of mine once said (to paraphrase): He didn't fear the Klan
> > putting on white robes and marching down the street to burn a cross.
> > He feared the Klan putting on 3-piece suits and talking quietly.
Oh yes - its when they seem reasonable that they're the most
dangerous.
Cheers
Sarah
LePheaux
"Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> They spell better, for one thing.
<<>>
Really
I hadn't noticed through all the hate spewage.
<<>>
" Seriously, all the
> stories about people doing hateful things to children are there to
> remind us that not everyone should have children and to make us feel
> superior because we realized that we wouldn't make good parents and
> wisely refrained from having any.
> <<>>
So you feel superior over the relazation of the acceptance of an
inadequecy.
odd people.
damn those of us who can deal with it, and yet can't deal with the
criticism of being unable
to do what we can do, then call your selves superior.
delusional maybe.
inadequete for sure.
Marten Kemp
>
> "Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > They spell better, for one thing.
> <<>>
> Really
> I hadn't noticed through all the hate spewage.
> <<>>
> " Seriously, all the
> > stories about people doing hateful things to children are there to
> > remind us that not everyone should have children and to make us feel
> > superior because we realized that we wouldn't make good parents and
> > wisely refrained from having any.
> > <<>>
> So you feel superior over the relazation of the acceptance of an
> inadequecy.
> odd people.
> damn those of us who can deal with it, and yet can't deal with the
> criticism of being unable
> to do what we can do, then call your selves superior.
> delusional maybe.
> inadequete for sure.
Yeah, I accept that I'd be an inadequate parent and therefore
decline to have children. There are very large numbers of other
inadequate parents who aren't that smart.
A.s.c posters are smart enough to use capitals to start all of their
sentences, too.
>
> > <<drivel snipped>>
Lots42 bomb vice president
>"See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of speech because in
>Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a Canadian were to
>make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I guess
>I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech because of the horrible things
>it allows people to get away with.
>
Therin, lies the rub. What if the next administration decides that YOUR views
are as bad as a psycho-racist and you get imprisoned for YOUR website?
I consider -that- pretty damn horrible.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>See, but there are good things to our free speech policy. People can't walk
>around saying things like "I hate gays and think they would be better off
>straight." They would get into shit for being hurtful. I think that's
>great.
Same here in the US Of A. It just wouldn't be the police who were giving them
shit.
>On a more important point, we can't publish things that are known to be
>wrong. We couldn't publish a pamphlet that says the holocaust never
>happened;
I know it happened, you know it happend....but what if the goverment decides it
never happened? Then you're in trouble for what you just typed.
>(Sadly, I was given one in Chicago. It was really full
>of crap and made no sense whatsoever, but I'm sure that a lot of people
>were offended by it. I know I was.)
Yes. And you had every right to be offended and shove the phamplet into the
next garbage can where it belongs.
Lots42 bomb vice president
><mwhi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>So when you talk about freedom of speech, I believe that we don't have
>>to apologize to anyone - afterall where else does the Prime Minister get
>>hit with a pie in the face!
>>Marg
I'm worried about your security...I hope the PM fired all his security dudes.
Denny Wheeler
Marten:
> " Seriously, all the
>> stories about people doing hateful things to children are there to
>> remind us that not everyone should have children and to make us feel
>> superior because we realized that we wouldn't make good parents and
>> wisely refrained from having any.
>> <<>>
> So you feel superior over the relazation of the acceptance of an
>inadequecy.
Tell me, if you care to, who's smarter (and withal, has treated a
child better): the person who *knows* he wouldn't be a good parent and
then declines to have children, or the person who *knows* he wouldn't
be a good parent, and then has children. And who then indeed is NOT a
good parent to those children.
Which?
Or--to take the emotional loading of 'children' out of it.
Who's smarter: a person with epilepsy who gets a driver's license and
drives a car (knowing that he/she may have a seizure while at the
wheel), or one who also has epilepsy and realizes that this
'inadequacy' means he/she should NOT drive?
I think it's fairly obvious.
Make it 'has had 4 beers and drives' vs 'has had 4 beers and doesn't
drive' if you will. What makes it bad to realize/accept an
'inadequacy'?
Note: I do not accept the theorem that 'would be a bad parent' is an
inadequacy in a person.
--
-denny-
"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.
Marten Kemp
Well said, sir. Thank you.
-- Marten Kemp
Lots42 bomb vice president
>> Ahh, so if I look a little harder, I will find stories of child
>> molestation.
>> child degradation. and a total hate towards family orientated people.
>> did I miss anything ?
I don't know. I haven't been in alt.support.childfree in a loooong time. No
matter what it is, if you find it offensive, don't read it and stop being so
hysterical, ok? We all know you're trolling.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>> >inadequecy.
>>
Damn right proud thing to be proud of.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Tell me, if you care to, who's smarter (and withal, has treated a
>child better): the person who *knows* he wouldn't be a good parent and
>then declines to have children, or the person who *knows* he wouldn't
>be a good parent, and then has children.
I'd probably be a good parent. I just don't wanna.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Our dear P.M. has a bit of a temper - he even once tried to strangle a
>anti-poverty protester who got in his face too much (not that I really
>blamed him - the guy is known as a bit of a nuisance), but can you
>imagine the Secret Service allowing anyone to get that close to a US
>president?
>
Sadly enough, it's happened.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Ah, but do we actually have freedom of speech, or have we ever had it?
> Sure, the Powers That Be will let us play with our little toys and
>say "I don't like the president!" or "I don't like <fitb>!" - but say
>anything more dangerous (to the aforementioned Powers) than that, and
>you wind up in jail, or worse.
Example?
P.S.: Dear John Ashcroft. You're a blithering psycho and I hope you are fired
for the good of the country.
Marten Kemp
Precisely.
-- Marten Kemp
saavik
The last time it happened to a US President, he got shot! So why are you worried
about _our_ security?
Margo ;>D
Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
LePheaux
> LePheaux wrote:
> >
> > "Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > They spell better, for one thing.
> > <<>>
> > Really
> > I hadn't noticed through all the hate spewage.
> > <<>>
> > " Seriously, all the
> > > stories about people doing hateful things to children are there to
> > > remind us that not everyone should have children and to make us feel
> > > superior because we realized that we wouldn't make good parents and
> > > wisely refrained from having any.
> > > <<>>
> > So you feel superior over the relazation of the acceptance of an
> > inadequecy.
> > odd people.
> > damn those of us who can deal with it, and yet can't deal with the
> > criticism of being unable
> > to do what we can do, then call your selves superior.
> > delusional maybe.
> > inadequete for sure.
>
> Yeah, I accept that I'd be an inadequate parent and therefore
> decline to have children. There are very large numbers of other
> inadequate parents who aren't that smart.
> <<>>
<<>>
> A.s.c posters are smart enough to use capitals to start all of their
> sentences, too.
> >
<<>>
You'll note here in AC we don't worry a whole hell of allot with
punctuation,
capitalization YADA YAD bla bla.
BTW punctuation doesn't have a damn thing to do with smarts.
My 9 YO honor role daughter, can punctuate better then most of you hate
spewers in ASCF
And still can't understand the reason you all hate her.
is that her short coming on intelligence, even though she can punctuate ?
LePheaux
"Lots42 bomb vice president" <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote in message
news:20030213183516...@mb-fx.aol.com...
your retarded and superior, hmmmmm.
strange people indeed
must be the Iraq gene pool at work.
ankle deep.
LePheaux
hysterics is ASCF
saavik
Lots42 bomb vice president wrote:
That scenario may be more likely in the USA than it would be here. Yes, both our
countries have a constitution, but the USA has a long history of constitutional
amendments whereas we have a very strict amending formula and aloooong history of
a legal system based on common law and precedent. (Said looong history
incorporates relevant precedents based on British Common Law, going back a _very_
long time).
So, I would suggest that although Lina used the adjective "minimal", she might
really have been alluding to the "protections" spelled out in the Canadian Bill
of Rights that go along with the "freedoms" specified in our constitution. We may
say whatever we like, but we had better be able to back it up with facts!
And before we go down the path of dissecting what constitutes "facts", let me
just say that I have never run across any restrictions regarding what and where I
could enquire when looking for "facts". That's not to say that organizations and
interest groups and government bureaucracies can't be obstructive, but I've never
heard of anyone being threatened or being targeted by a Canadian gov't agency for
asking questions.
Margo
Norville
wrote:
> Tell me, if you care to, who's smarter (and withal, has treated a
> child better): the person who *knows* he wouldn't be a good parent and
> then declines to have children, or the person who *knows* he wouldn't
> be a good parent, and then has children. And who then indeed is NOT a
> good parent to those children.
> Which?
You're right on target here. I have absolutely no desire to have children;
I can't remember a time that I ever did have babylust. I know that I would
be an unfit mother. I have no time, money, or energy for children, never
married, and refuse to be a single parent. If you met me and were around
me for any length of time, you'd know that I've made the right decision.
Unless you're the type of person who insists that all women must breed,
and I have a lot more of a problem with that than with the people who hang
out on the childfree group. (Like the cow at a bookstore who wanted my
help with pregnancy books -- I told her I couldn't recommend from personal
experience. She started in on me immediately about how I'd have kids. No,
I told her, I'm mid-30s and decided not to long ago. Oh look, the cow went
on, here are books on how to get pregnant after 30! At that point, I had
to walk away from her, and so much for customer service. What part of 'no'
did this slime not understand?)
> Note: I do not accept the theorem that 'would be a bad parent' is an
> inadequacy in a person.
Frankly, there are other things to do in life, and one can still have a
perfectly good life without kids around, sorry to inform certain people...
--
...ten.cinos@ellivron...
"...To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
<*> "Ulysses" by Tennyson <*>
Salute Space Shuttle COLUMBIA, 1981-2003
saavik
LePheaux wrote:
Aha! That's the crux of your problem with a.s.c. You "can't understand the
reason [they]all hate her". But that's an attitude that _you_ are projecting
on a.s.c. and perhaps everyone who is childless by choice. And although it is
understandable that you fear there are people who may hate your child, from
whom your every instinct is to protect her, you are jumping to an unwarranted
conclusion. Not everyone who is childless hates children. In fact, not
everyone who doesn't want to have children, for whatever reason, hates
children.
Speaking for myself and my husband, we did not have children because it did
not seem to be an urgent need in our life. However, we have both been involved
with the children of our friends in positive, timely and nurturing ways. At
least 2 of these kids, when they were in their mid teens _chose_ to have
their parents appoint us as guardians in case anything happened to their
parents (when their parents were preparing their wills, as responsible parents
do). This caught us entirely by surprise and we had some serious discusions
with the children and their parents to make sure we all understood what it
would mean. I mean, raising children is tough enough under the best of
circumstances, but trying to finish raising teens who would have lost both
parents would be an even more difficult proposition. In the end, we accepted
the responsibility. Fortunately, all was well for the next several years, and
now those children are in their 20s. Soon they will be deciding whether or not
to have their own kids. Whatever they decide, we will be there for them, just
as we always have been. We are not ogres, we are not even childless exactly-
we do not have children of our flesh, but children of our spirits. You might
say we are passing on our memes instead of our genes. Some people do that.
Margo
Jean Hoehn
> Oh look, the cow went
> on, here are books on how to get pregnant after 30! At that point, I had
> to walk away from her, and so much for customer service. What part of 'no'
> did this slime not understand?)
Probably the idea that there are women out there (I should know, I'm one of
'em) who have no maternal instincts and no desire to give birth. They think
everyone with female genitalia should want children, but if you checked I'll
bet you'll find a lot of them don't have kids for one reason or another and
are trying to pass their bad vibes to the rest of us :P . Don't get me
wrong, I like kids just fine,
--
Jean
Nothing is impossible. Improbable, unlikely, but never impossible.
as long as they belong to someone else. I have enough trouble keeping a
husband and cat in line :) .
Calishar
I thihnk I see a disconnect here... LePheaux (in his inimitable style)
is attacking the way that ASCF is at the moment. Others are defending
the idea behind ASCF, which as I understand it is that people
(especially women) who choose not to have children feel pressured by
society at large (strangers at work, family, friends) to change their
minds and become "a complete person".
LePheaux, since you are a parent (and I am guessing a reasonably good
one) you are likely never going to understand the feelings expressed
in ASCF, it isn't that _your_ children are hated, it's that they have
chosen a life without children for themselves.
ASCF isn't a discussion group (like AC) it's an advocacy group (only
people of our stripe welcome, others will be insulted gratuitously
until they change their mind <--- my impression of many advocacy
groups, mostly computer oriented.)
Calishar
Hoping he has expressed explained his point clearly.
Remove *SPAMFREE* to email me.
my domain name matches my user-name... imagine that
Marten Kemp
Exactly. Thank you.
-- Marten Kemp
Lots42 bomb vice president
>face.
>The last time it happened to a US President, he got shot! So why are you
>worried
>about _our_ security?
>
>Margo ;>D
>
Hey, Canada is important. Where else would we get Smarties from?
And Presidental Secret Service Security has been violated many times.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>ASCF isn't a discussion group (like AC) it's an advocacy group (only
>people of our stripe welcome, others will be insulted gratuitously
>until they change their mind <--- my impression of many advocacy
>groups, mostly computer oriented.)
ASCF is (or was) a -support- group. You wouldn't believe the kinds of shit
people get for daring to not want to have kids and / or not liking them.
Larisa
> Unless you're the type of person who insists that all women must breed,
> and I have a lot more of a problem with that than with the people who hang
> out on the childfree group. (Like the cow at a bookstore who wanted my
> help with pregnancy books -- I told her I couldn't recommend from personal
> experience. She started in on me immediately about how I'd have kids. No,
> I told her, I'm mid-30s and decided not to long ago. Oh look, the cow went
> on, here are books on how to get pregnant after 30! At that point, I had
> to walk away from her, and so much for customer service. What part of 'no'
> did this slime not understand?)
Umm, and this, in a nutshell, is my problem with the childfree
"support" group. First of all, if you work at a bookstore, as it
seems from the above, your *job* is to provide customer service, not
to talk about your personal life and personal choices. If a woman
(not "cow") wanted help with pregnancy books, your job is to say "Let
me show you where they are, ma'am", and then to show her. If you
insist on talking about your personal choices to her, do not be
surprised when she expresses her own opinion of said choices, and when
it differs from yours. But really, I wish bookstore clerks and other
people in service professions kept their personal lives private. If
you have that much of a problem with a) keeping your personal life
private when you're at work, and b) treating customers with respect,
you should not be in customer service of any kind.
Oh, and btw, I am childfree. I have never had a problem with anyone
telling me to breed. Why? Because I *don't* *talk* *about* *it* to
strangers in the street. It's none of their business why I don't want
children, and I do not want to discuss it with them.
LM
Jette Goldie
We generally use eggs in the UK - and occasionally the
politician who gets egged hits back. (quite a respectable
punch that one throws <g>)
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
WareWolf
Well, I've seen ascf on several occasions and I'm with LePheaux...to a
point. I don't want to see it shut down, any more than I want to see
alt.flame.niggers or any of the other racist newsgroups shut down. As I
said elsethread, democracy requires a strong stomach.
But I don't see any real difference between some of the names I've seen
parents and children called on ASCF ("Moos", "Duuuhdies", "Crotchfruit",
"Sprogs," "Shrieklings", ad nauseum) and references to "niggers".
"baboons" and other charming epithets in the racist groups. ASCF even
shares the technique of reprinting news stories featuring crimes or
outrages committed by teenagers and children, just as the racist groups
reprint every story about a crime or outrage by an African American or a
Jew.
By the way, I am completely understanding of anyone who doesn't want to
have kids. Believe me, in my line of work, I see a hell of a lot of parents
that I devoutly wish had NOT made that choice. But that doesn't excuse
bigotry.
I know that probably hurts some people's feelings; the last time we had
this discussion, a lot of people felt wounded becuse ASCF was "a place
where they felt welcome, like someone understood." A lot of KKK members
report the same phenomenon when they joined. Doesn't mean I think it's an
okay organization to belong to.
Dusty
--
"I come very briefly to this place.
I watch it move,
I watch it......shake."
Laurie Anderson, "Kokoku"
Calishar
says...
You're right. I apologize for using the word advocacy, it was the wrong word. I
do feel that people who have children sometimes receive an un-necessarily harsh
reception (which I can understand the reasons for). And that is what I was
trying to say.
Calishar
WareWolf
> >From: Calishar calishar@*SPAMFREE*calishar.com
>
> >ASCF isn't a discussion group (like AC) it's an advocacy group (only
> >people of our stripe welcome, others will be insulted gratuitously
> >until they change their mind <--- my impression of many advocacy
> >groups, mostly computer oriented.)
>
> ASCF is (or was) a -support- group.
At one point, that may have been true, which would explain some people's
unfathomable (to me) attachemtn to it.
> You wouldn't believe the kinds of shit
> people get for daring to not want to have kids and / or not liking them.
Oh, yeah, I would, and it sucks that people act that way.
Again, my distaste for ASCF should not be in any way construed as an
endorsement of the attitude that "everyone should have children". As I'm
fond of saying, "you gotta have a license to cut hair, but any damn foool
can have kids, and some days it seems that most of the damn fools in the
world have."
Dusty
--
I'm goin' to hell! Who's comin' with me!?
-Eminem
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Calishar wrote in alt.callahans :
>> I thihnk I see a disconnect here... LePheaux (in his inimitable style)
>> is attacking the way that ASCF is at the moment. Others are defending
>> the idea behind ASCF, which as I understand it is that people
>> (especially women) who choose not to have children feel pressured by
>> society at large (strangers at work, family, friends) to change their
>> minds and become "a complete person".
>Well, I've seen ascf on several occasions and I'm with LePheaux...to a
>point. I don't want to see it shut down, any more than I want to see
>alt.flame.niggers or any of the other racist newsgroups shut down. As I
>said elsethread, democracy requires a strong stomach.
>
>But I don't see any real difference between some of the names I've seen
>parents and children called on ASCF ("Moos", "Duuuhdies", "Crotchfruit",
>"Sprogs," "Shrieklings", ad nauseum) and references to "niggers".
>"baboons" and other charming epithets in the racist groups. ASCF even
>shares the technique of reprinting news stories featuring crimes or
>outrages committed by teenagers and children, just as the racist groups
>reprint every story about a crime or outrage by an African American or a
>Jew.
And I'm with Dusty... and I AM childfree. I wandered thru that group briefly a
year or so ago, and I was *appalled*. They are exhibiting the same kind of
behavior that they complain about being directed at them, only WORSE. I wonder
how many people like me they lose because they've allowed themselves to become
a haven for bigots. I also dislike them because they're PART of the problems I
have -- people look at them, and they think *every* childfree person is like
that. <nauseous shudder>
Support group, my ass.
Celine
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Gessika Rovario-Cole
> And it came to pass that Lina wrote:
>
> >
> > "Delirious Daniel" <deliri...@rogers.com> wrote in
> > message news:d6m1wb...@rogers.com...
> >> "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of
> >> > speech because in Canada, we have it, but only to a
> >> > minimal degree. If a Canadian were to make a site like
> >> > this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I
> >> > guess I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech
> >> > because of the horrible things it allows people to get
> >> > away with.
> >> of life because of the horrible things it allows people to
> >> get away with.
> >>
> >> "Okay, seriously, as a Candian, I think our approach to
> >> free speech sucks; if we really believed in it, we'd be
> >> able to let idiots be idiots and calmly rebuff them with
> >> reality."
> >
> > See, but there are good things to our free speech policy.
> > People can't walk around saying things like "I hate gays
> > and think they would be better off straight." They would
> > get into shit for being hurtful. I think that's great.
>
> But who gets to decide what's hurtful and what's not? What if
> someone decides it's hurtful to say that people should practice
> safe sex, or eat healthy diets? "Telling me I should eat fruits
> and vegetables instead of meat is painful for me!"
*NOD* I had a friend who was offended by the sentence "Oh, honey, have
fun, just be sure to be safe." Hie jumped all over me and said I
shouldn't be allowed to say such things. *eyeroll*
Gessi
--
Let your soul do the singin'.
- Ma Rainey
Gessika Rovario-Cole
>
> "Delirious Daniel" <deliri...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:d6m1wb...@rogers.com...
> > "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> writes:
> >
> > > "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of speech
> > > because in Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a
> > > Canadian were to make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for
> > > breaking laws. I guess I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech
> > > because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
> > Daniel Rejoins, "Well, gee, Lina, I'm not a big advocate of life
> > because of the horrible things it allows people to get away with.
> >
> > "Okay, seriously, as a Candian, I think our approach to free speech
> > sucks; if we really believed in it, we'd be able to let idiots be
> > idiots and calmly rebuff them with reality."
>
> See, but there are good things to our free speech policy. People can't walk
> around saying things like "I hate gays and think they would be better off
> straight." They would get into shit for being hurtful. I think that's
> great.
So they think it, no one knows, no one ever gets the chance to go "That's
really fucked up, and here's why.", the homophobe keeps getting deeper
into hir hate and decides "Those people" don't deserve to live, so goes
out to find a few to take out. (No, I don't think all homophobes will
regress like that, but it isn't really that far out.)
Like I said...I prefer the people who hate me to not be hidden. Okay, I'd
really prefer if there were none, but that ain't gonna happen, so one of
the ways I can protect myself and those I love is with knowledge.
I think one of the most important parts of the first amendment is, you
don't have a right to not be offended. Jerry Fallwell has the right to
blame me for the attacks on 9/11, and I have the right to call him and
everyone who thinks like him a homophobic fuckhead.
Gessi
--
Admit there are limitless possibilities in relationships,
and love as many people as you can,
in whatever way you want,
and get rid of your inhibitions,
and we'll all be happy
- Sir Ian McKellen
Gessika Rovario-Cole
>
> "Noah Singman" <no...@singman.net> wrote in message
> news:b25ube$ll1$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
> > "Lina" <jennife...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > Sigh. Sometimes freedom of speech is annoying.
> >
> > "Everyone can sympathize at times, but it's supposed to be annoying. We
> > don't have 'freedom of speech' to protect expression whose content we all
> > find pleasant (postulating the existence of such a thing). Rather, it's
> to
> > protect that speech and expression which offends or irritates us - like
> > performance art, or disco." <G>
> >
> > Noah
> >
> "See, I have a hard time with the concept of freedom of speech because in
> Canada, we have it, but only to a minimal degree. If a Canadian were to
> make a site like this, they could be imprisoned for breaking laws. I guess
> I'm not a big advocate of freedom of speech because of the horrible things
> it allows people to get away with.
Better to have the assholes out there, visible, so we know who to watch
out for. Besides, it's harder to point and laugh if they're in hiding.
Gessi
--
Mom!
There's a singing moose in front of our house!
- Arthur
Lots42 bomb vice president
>bigotry.
Getting annoyed at a 'let's all have kids and non-parents are scum' attitude
that pervades today's society is not bigotry. Being pissed off when a rugrat
runs screaming up and down the aisles while you are trying to shop is not
bigotry. Seeing yet another friend expand and become unable to talk about
anything but kids kids and more kids is not bigotry.
--
"I think paint fumes just go straight to my brain." - Torg
PC1: Crap, I would have gotten some decent XP for killing Sam. - A LOTR rpg
game thought
PSA: Not all comic books are meant for kids, hot dammit!
Lots42 bomb vice president
>hey are exhibiting the same kind of
>behavior that they complain about being directed at them, only WORSE. I
>wonder
>how many people like me they lose because they've allowed themselves to
>become
>a haven for bigots.
Allowed? It's not a moderated group, Lee. It's public access. Any jerk with an
attitude can post to alt.support.childfree. And it looks like they are. Don't
blame the whole for the actions of a loud some.
Lots42 bomb vice president
>From: WareWolf dus...@nc.rr.com
>At one point, that may have been true, which would explain some people's
>unfathomable (to me) attachemtn to it.
ASC was one of the very few places you could actually complain about kids and
talk about not wanting them and not have most people around think you're some
sort of horrible monster. That's what I liked about it. I left when blithering,
anal-retentive psychos took over.
WareWolf
> >bigotry.
>
> Getting annoyed at a 'let's all have kids and non-parents are scum' attitude
> that pervades today's society is not bigotry. Being pissed off when a rugrat
> runs screaming up and down the aisles while you are trying to shop is not
> bigotry. Seeing yet another friend expand and become unable to talk about
> anything but kids kids and more kids is not bigotry.
>
No, it isn't. But that's not the behavior I'm talking about that I've seen
in ASCF.
David Harden
: no-...@sonic.net (Norville) wrote in message news:<no-spam-
: > Unless you're the type of person who insists that all women must breed,
: > and I have a lot more of a problem with that than with the people who hang
: > out on the childfree group. (Like the cow at a bookstore who wanted my
: > help with pregnancy books -- I told her I couldn't recommend from personal
: > experience. She started in on me immediately about how I'd have kids. No,
: > I told her, I'm mid-30s and decided not to long ago. Oh look, the cow went
: > on, here are books on how to get pregnant after 30! At that point, I had
: > to walk away from her, and so much for customer service. What part of 'no'
: > did this slime not understand?)
: Umm, and this, in a nutshell, is my problem with the childfree
: "support" group. First of all, if you work at a bookstore, as it
: seems from the above, your *job* is to provide customer service, not
: to talk about your personal life and personal choices. If a woman
: (not "cow") wanted help with pregnancy books, your job is to say "Let
: me show you where they are, ma'am", and then to show her. If you
"Ummm... It sounds to me as though they were already in that section.
From what was said, I can't rule out the possibility that the customer
was asking for specific, or even personal, recommendations, in which
case (IMO) stating a lack of personal experience would be appropriate.
('I'm not personally familiar with any of these books, but I can tell
you which ones get good reviews.')
"While I'm put off by the customer being called a 'cow' and 'slime',
nothing that was said about the incident that Norville was talking
about her personal choices before the customer raised the issue. I
suppose bookstore staffers get rather used to people asking them for
personal opinions of books they're unfamiliar with.
"In short, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
"I'll agree that the issue shouldn't have been raised at all, but my
initial opinion is that the customer is more at fault regardless of
who raised it first. She could have taken the initial statement of
not being able to recommend from personal experience at face value and
let it drop. She didn't."
: insist on talking about your personal choices to her, do not be
: surprised when she expresses her own opinion of said choices, and when
: it differs from yours. But really, I wish bookstore clerks and other
: people in service professions kept their personal lives private. If
: you have that much of a problem with a) keeping your personal life
: private when you're at work, and b) treating customers with respect,
: you should not be in customer service of any kind.
: Oh, and btw, I am childfree. I have never had a problem with anyone
: telling me to breed. Why? Because I *don't* *talk* *about* *it* to
: strangers in the street. It's none of their business why I don't want
: children, and I do not want to discuss it with them.
--
A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>>l
>>From: WareWolf dus...@nc.rr.com
>
>>At one point, that may have been true, which would explain some people's
>>unfathomable (to me) attachemtn to it.
>
>ASC was one of the very few places you could actually complain about kids and
>talk about not wanting them and not have most people around think you're some
>sort of horrible monster. That's what I liked about it. I left when
>blithering, anal-retentive psychos took over.
I think a.c. is a place where talking about not wanting kids won't get you
called a monster. (With one or two exceptions who are Not Decent People to
begin with, and whose opinions don't carry any weight. Naming no names, but I
don't think I need to.)
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>>From: stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings)
>
>>hey are exhibiting the same kind of
>>behavior that they complain about being directed at them, only WORSE. I
>>wonder how many people like me they lose because they've allowed themselves
>>to become a haven for bigots.
>
>Allowed? It's not a moderated group, Lee. It's public access. Any jerk with an
>attitude can post to alt.support.childfree. And it looks like they are. Don't
>blame the whole for the actions of a loud some.
And this changes my point how?
sfw
> In article <20030214153727...@mb-mn.aol.com>, lot...@aol.comaol.com
> says...
>>blame the whole for the actions of a loud some.
>
>
> And this changes my point how?
I've been staying out of this, because I got burned so badly last time.
But - it changes it in that a good killfile can keep you from seeing
the jerks and allow you to hang with the cool ones. Kinda like in any
group.
Sarah
Delirious Daniel
> I think one of the most important parts of the first amendment is, you
> don't have a right to not be offended. Jerry Fallwell has the right to
> blame me for the attacks on 9/11, and I have the right to call him and
> everyone who thinks like him a homophobic fuckhead.
Well said, my friend. Your next few are paid for. Cheers.
--
Daniel 'Delirious' Sauve
http://deleriousraven.livejournal.com/
http://thedobd.blogdot.org/
http://www.topica.com/lists/thedobd/
"IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!"-The Thing
Delirious Daniel
>>But that doesn't excuse
>>bigotry.
>
> Getting annoyed at a 'let's all have kids and non-parents are scum' attitude
> that pervades today's society is not bigotry. Being pissed off when a rugrat
> runs screaming up and down the aisles while you are trying to shop is not
> bigotry. Seeing yet another friend expand and become unable to talk about
> anything but kids kids and more kids is not bigotry.
I missed the post you are responding to, and you snipped all but one
line... but I'm sorry, this is sounding like a straw man. You have
excluded any reference to what the prior poster means by bigotry, if
indeed they explained in detail. Even if that is the sum of their
post, you carry on to ascribe meanings to bigotry that the prior
poster may or may not have meant. Now, I'm giving you the benfit of
assuming this was not your intent-- I've seen childfree-by-choice
friends called bigots for the reasons you outline, and that was not
their motivation, so you have a valid point. I'm just saying that the
way it was presented may have damaged your case.
--
Daniel 'Delirious' Sauve
http://deleriousraven.livejournal.com/
http://thedobd.blogdot.org/
http://www.topica.com/lists/thedobd/
Prophet Marcus Says:
Find someone who is sad and cheer them up. You'll feel much better
after.
WareWolf
> Gessika Rovario-Cole <g...@flambe.org> writes:
>
> > I think one of the most important parts of the first amendment is, you
> > don't have a right to not be offended. Jerry Fallwell has the right to
> > blame me for the attacks on 9/11, and I have the right to call him and
> > everyone who thinks like him a homophobic fuckhead.
> Well said, my friend. Your next few are paid for. Cheers.
>
I got the ones after that.
Dusty
--
This Week's Column: The High Frontier
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0210.html
Wesley Struebing
<snip>
>
>> Note: I do not accept the theorem that 'would be a bad parent' is an
>> inadequacy in a person.
Neither do I - and I have 3 girls. (girls not a choice; making them
with my wife was...)
>
>Frankly, there are other things to do in life, and one can still have a
>perfectly good life without kids around, sorry to inform certain people...
Agreed. It IS a choice; it is NOT a requirement, despite what many
religions say.
Does this make me weird for agreeing with you? Hard to say - I'd say
no...as long as you're not objecting to ME having children.
--
Carpe Dementem! (grab the wacko)
Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
strueb@<nonono>carpedementem.org
home page: www.carpedementem.org
Lots42 bomb vice president
>Hard to say - I'd say
>no...as long as you're not objecting to ME having children.
>
I don't want people to have kids but I won't hate them just because they do.
LePheaux
"Lee S. Billings" <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> And I'm with Dusty... and I AM childfree. I wandered thru that group
briefly a
> year or so ago, and I was *appalled*. They are exhibiting the same kind of
> behavior that they complain about being directed at them, only WORSE. I
wonder
> how many people like me they lose because they've allowed themselves to
become
> a haven for bigots. I also dislike them because they're PART of the
problems I
> have -- people look at them, and they think *every* childfree person is
like
> that. <nauseous shudder>
>
> Support group, my ass.
>
<<>>
Once again we agree.
others have tried to make it sound like I think *all* the child free are
the bad eggs, or haters.
and then side track off in grammaticism.
but in reality all I have said is what you put bluntly, but eloquently as
well.
Foxx out>>> support group my ass <G>
Norville
> In <34e2d56d.03021...@posting.google.com>, Larisa wrote:
>> no-...@sonic.net (Norville) wrote in message news:<no-spam-
>>> Unless you're the type of person who insists that all women must breed,
>>> and I have a lot more of a problem with that than with the people who hang
>>> out on the childfree group. (Like the cow at a bookstore who wanted my
>>> help with pregnancy books -- I told her I couldn't recommend from personal
>>> experience. She started in on me immediately about how I'd have kids. No,
>>> I told her, I'm mid-30s and decided not to long ago. Oh look, the cow went
>>> on, here are books on how to get pregnant after 30! At that point, I had
>>> to walk away from her, and so much for customer service. What part of 'no'
>>> did this slime not understand?)
>
>> Umm, and this, in a nutshell, is my problem with the childfree
>> "support" group.
If it interests you at all, I've visited that childfree group, and posted
possibly once there, but have only ever stayed subscribed for several days
at a time, and then dumped it. I haven't visited it in a long time.
>> First of all, if you work at a bookstore, as it
>> seems from the above, your *job* is to provide customer service, not
>> to talk about your personal life and personal choices.
Ah, before you get on your high horse... that's exactly what I was
*doing*. She was, please pay attention, asking for what I could personally
recommend -- this would indicate through personal experience. She's the
one who brought it up, assuming I'm a parent. I was stupid enough to
respond that I could tell her what was popular, but not give her anything
much more personal.
You know, this may be surprising, but people do tend to ask "Have you read
this?" or assume that your personal taste is exactly the same as their
own, or that you watch as much Oprah as they do, or whatever.
>> If a woman (not "cow")
I'm afraid that I've long since reached the point where I'll refer to
women (or men) however I please in private. Sorry I mentioned it here, but
a cow is exactly what she was to me. Amusingly, I've been called a
"man-hating lesbian" in my life... uh, well, no, I'm just a thorough-going
misanthrope.
>> wanted help with pregnancy books, your job is to say "Let
>> me show you where they are, ma'am", and then to show her. If you
Oh, *please* get off your high horse, ma'am. I *was* helping her. She was
looking for books for someone else, actually -- she asked me, I tried to
help, she assumed I knew through experience, I casually remarked that I
wasn't a mother (so couldn't give personal advice), and she's the one who
escalated it. And I didn't leave her without any help at all -- I told the
children's specialist that someone needed her help.
> "Ummm... It sounds to me as though they were already in that section.
Oh, thanks, someone understands what I was talking about.
> From what was said, I can't rule out the possibility that the customer
> was asking for specific, or even personal, recommendations, in which
> case (IMO) stating a lack of personal experience would be appropriate.
Absolutely right, thank you. Someone has reading comprehension -- unless I
really don't speak the English that I think I do.
> ('I'm not personally familiar with any of these books, but I can tell
> you which ones get good reviews.')
Yes, yes, yes. Not anything else than that.
> "While I'm put off by the customer being called a 'cow' and 'slime',
I don't tell them that to their faces! <g> Just a comment -- do you really
think that everyone who serves the public adores the public without
reservation? I'm sorry, but with some of the library patron/bookstore
customer experiences in my life, it's either vent about it in private or
scream like a banshee when I least should do so. (Okay, so this isn't
"private" -- but the experience fit this thread beautifully.)
> nothing that was said about the incident that Norville was talking
> about her personal choices before the customer raised the issue.
Thank you. I wouldn't have bothered to say anything beyond not being able
to give personal recommendations (beyond what I knew was popular), but I'm
ashamed to admit that I fell for her bait.
> I suppose bookstore staffers get rather used to people asking them for
> personal opinions of books they're unfamiliar with.
In fact, I would say that the person chastising me has no
library/bookstore experience, and doesn't even know what such staffers
have to deal with in a day.
> "In short, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Yep.
> "I'll agree that the issue shouldn't have been raised at all, but my
> initial opinion is that the customer is more at fault regardless of
> who raised it first.
Well, I tried to explain why I couldn't help her more personally, and she
went on a path I didn't need to go. Unfortunately, I responded to it, and
walking away was the only thing I could do, to prevent further
embarrassment.
> She could have taken the initial statement of
> not being able to recommend from personal experience at face value and
> let it drop. She didn't."
She definitely didn't.
>> [...] But really, I wish bookstore clerks and other
>> people in service professions kept their personal lives private.
LOL! I wish that customers kept their personal lives private! What about
the woman who bought a "Playboy" issue and apologized profusely and
explained why in detail, as if I was going to attack her for it? That was
*definitely* TMI (Too Much Information).
So, why don't you just get off that high horse? You must be getting very
dizzy up there. :-)
>> Oh, and btw, I am childfree. I have never had a problem with anyone
>> telling me to breed. Why? Because I *don't* *talk* *about* *it* to
>> strangers in the street. It's none of their business why I don't want
>> children, and I do not want to discuss it with them.
Guess what, lady? That's exacly how I feel most of the time. That's
exactly what I do almost all of the time. I believe in keeping silent
about things that no one will understand. So I probably shouldn't have
written this post, because you show no sign of understanding why I said
what I said. G'day to you.
--
...ten.cinos@ellivron...
"...To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
<*> "Ulysses" by Tennyson <*>
Salute Space Shuttle COLUMBIA, 1981-2003
Norville
<str...@nospam.carpedementem.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:07:26 GMT, no-...@sonic.net (Norville) wrote:
>
>>Frankly, there are other things to do in life, and one can still have a
>>perfectly good life without kids around, sorry to inform certain people...
>
> Agreed. It IS a choice; it is NOT a requirement, despite what many
> religions say.
> Does this make me weird for agreeing with you? Hard to say - I'd say
> no...as long as you're not objecting to ME having children.
Wes, I know you well enough to have no problem with you; in fact, from my
experience, men with daughters can be rather special. :-) (As an example,
my father had daughters, no sons. He's great.)
I don't know your kids. I only object to the existence of kids when they
run screaming berserkly through places that should be quiet... :-o