Be Very Afraid Blacks - New Face Of The Civil Rights Movement
TowNIN
How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
Lokari
><Snips Bullshit Zeal>
>How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
One of the side effects of a system that allows any complete moron to
create a newsgroup is that sooner or later, a complete moron *will*
create a newsgroup.
Creating an alt group requires a certain amount of technical
knowledge, but it doesn't require any intelligence at all.
Obviously.
--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
Lokari's Tailoring Guide
www.lokari.net
Rastus
"TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> <Snips Bullshit Zeal>
>
> How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
>
same crossposting.
Remember folks, if you must feed the trolls, snip the crosspost addresses.
Sebastian
"TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
>
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
I didn't mean to cap that, it came that way cause I pasted it from some
other site. But that should answer your question.
--
-=Sebastian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World is not my home, I'm just passing through.
-Tom Waits
---------
aim: noformation
TowNIN
news:3d2d3a43$1...@nopics.sjc...
>
> "TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > <Snips Bullshit Zeal>
> >
> > How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
> >
> CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
> OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
> PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
>
I'm not talking about whether or not it's legal, I'm talking about the fact
that there is a certain process to go through to make a newsgroup. I
remember awhile back the guys in charge of NGs wouldn't let some other guy
make a Fear Factory group, so how in the hell did an "alt.flame.niggers"
group slip through the crack?
ArtieMan
Daniel Walker
news:3d2d3a43$1...@nopics.sjc:
>
> "TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> <Snips Bullshit Zeal>
>>
>> How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
>>
> CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
> SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
> ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
>
> I didn't mean to cap that, it came that way cause I pasted it from
> some other site. But that should answer your question.
This is US law. I, along with many other people, do not live under the
US legal system. Please come up with a better explanation. :P
--
Daniel Walker says "Rawk On!" \m/Ź
http://www.rootshell.be/~dwalker/
Richard
news:agjbsj$22m$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
And when you do, please make sure that alt.games.everquest is one of the
ones you snip out. Thank you.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Mystic of 54 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 28 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 14 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 14 seasons, Erollisi Marr
Richard
news:Xns9248863962671dw...@130.133.1.4...
The alt hierarchy of newsgroups is pretty much free for all, you can create
a new one whenever you want by whatever name you want. Whether or not it is
propogated is a different question, and would be up to the individual
administrators to decide on in whatever fashion they decide.
sanjian
news:Xns9248863962671dw...@130.133.1.4...
True, it is possible this group sprouted up outside the U.S. Now, what I
wonder is... what the hell does it say about an ISP that they would carry
it?
Extra note: Before I hit send, I did a search of Cox. Four such groups are
carried by Cox. It's time to write them.
Faned
Sometimes I wonder why everyone in the world doesn't rise up and force their
governments to give them some of the rights that are constitutionally
guaranteed in the United States. Then I see a few posts like this that make
me realize a lot of people only believe in freedom of speech when they agree
with what is being said.
Sad. Truly.
Sebastian
"Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnairrv2...@wyld.qx.net...
That's very true. People want to be able to express their opinions
indefinitely, but don't want to hear those that they, subjectively, deem to
be offensive. It's a very hypocritical. But there are those people out
there that truly believe in all forms of freedom of speech. I personally
believe that no form of speech should be restricted at all.
Empty
news:V6jX8.89394$DB.25...@news1.east.cox.net:
> True, it is possible this group sprouted up outside the U.S. Now,
> what I wonder is... what the hell does it say about an ISP that they
> would carry it?
It says "We don't censor your internet access". A pretty good
reccomendation in my opinion.
> Extra note: Before I hit send, I did a search of Cox. Four such
> groups are carried by Cox. It's time to write them.
Why? What the hell do you care if they carry a group like this? Just
because you find something "distasteful" it should be censored?
Perhaps you should move to China- all the internet access there is heavily
filtered, so you probably won't see anything like that group there. You
also won't see any of those annoying posts disagreeing with government
policy or anything like that, either.
~Empty
--
"I'm constantly forgetting my own phone number. Quite simply,
it's because I never call myself. (I used to, but I was never
home. I just gave up after a while. I figure if I want to talk
to me, I'll just have to do it in person.)" -Walker
warren peugh
one black.....
"Zolgius" <Zol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agja9s$8ia$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> Take a seat Jesse Jackson, and well, just shut up Al Sharpton.
>
> The Civil Rights movement has a new face. It's a brown hair pale skinned
> girl in her young twenties name Jennifer Gratz. The image is that of your
> daughter, younger sister, or maybe the girl down the street. The kind of
> person that lives life without malice or contempt, that often speaks words
> of calm and open mindedness.
>
> Gratz is the victim of 21st century racism. She is the victim of
> institutional racism called Affirmative Action. Her assailants are not
> blind and ignorant bigots, they are cold calculating, racial engineers,
> bent on the destruction of what they perceive as a dominant European
> American civilization. Openly touting anti white racism, these 21st
century
> racists will not stop until the concept of a national identity is
destroyed
> and it is considered a crime to be white.
>
> Gratz, with help from the Center For Individual Rights, has a case against
> the University of Michigan's purposely anti white admissions policy. An
> excerpt from a letter from Gratz asking for funds reads; "I cannot put
into
> words the way I felt the day that I received the rejection letter from the
> University of Michigan; it changed my entire outlook on life; it made me
> think that my accomplishments were not good enough. The University made me
> re evaluate my dreams and question whether my goals were really
> attainable."
>
> It was a touching plea for help that would make even the most radical
> liberal consider the reality that Affirmative Action is not a victimless
> crime, and that discrimination by the government and quasi government
> institutions is wrong. Simply changing the victim does not change the
> crime.
>
> In an attempt to create what it believes to be the proper racial mix of
> students, the University is accused of creating tougher standards for
> European Americans. According to the Center for individual Rights even a
> liberal university of Michigan professor named Carl Cohen said, "It is
> evil". He goes on to say that "we should treat all races without
> discriminating on the basis of skin color".
>
> How long can a situation continue to exist where European Americans are
> subsidizing through their tax dollars, the discrimination of their own
> children? What will happen when minority groups gain political and
economic
> power as a result of subsidized racism? Will anti white policies just
> discontinue? If immigration is not halted, in 2050, European Americans
will
> become a minority, what then? Will America in 2050 emulate South Africa
and
> Zimbabwe of today, with an open season on Whites that equates to genocide?
>
> If anti white racism is allowed to foster, it may turn violent. Arguably
it
> already has, as whites are disproportionately the victims of violent
crimes
> committed by minorities. Even so, what if anti white violence in the
future
> was directed with the same malice as subsidized anti white racism is
today?
>
> The point is that now is the time to stand behind people like Jennifer
> Gratz and organizations like the Center For Individual Rights. It is time
> to question, challenge and expose anti White racism in Colleges and
> Universities, the public schools system, corporate America, and in
> government.
>
> Many Baby boomers have realized some of the ill effects that that their
> generation has had on America, especially with regard to government
> mandated racism, still other Baby Boomers may be laden with guilt for
being
> what they perceive as the recipients of unfair advantages over non Whites.
> They may remember the days when racial discrimination toward non Whites
was
> the norm. Those days are over, as are the days of social dominance by Baby
> Boomers. Boomers will remain an important political segment of the
> population but they like all generations must pass on the torch.
>
> Generation X and beyond does not have the same memories that the Boomers
> do. They have instead experienced racial discrimination in a different
way.
> They have been the victims. They have grown up and lived in a society
where
> discrimination toward European Americans has not only been condoned, it
has
> been mandated by the government.
>
> The new face of the civil rights movement is not only White, it is right.
> While anti White discrimination may be considered politically correct, it
> is not morally correct.
>
> And this is why we too shall overcome...
>
>
> PS Hazel Dean Rulz 0wnz ya
dstep
The new face of the civil rights movement is off topic posts? I'm
afraid and I'm not even black!
dstephenatcoxdotnet
(using the @ and . for email)
Hazel Dean Rulz
>PS Hazel Dean Rulz 0wnz ya
WAY TO GO BUDDY
http://www.geocities.com/hazelldean2000/
MDS confesses to his stupidity and trolling "I may be stupid by posting a lot of off-topic material"
MDS' pro-terror stance on Europe "A 9/11 is just what Europe needs."
MDS advocating Nazi-like genocide "For every 1 Israeli killed they should kill 1000 (innocent) Palestinians"
Hazel Dean Rulz
<invalid_em...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Daniel Walker says "Rawk On!" \m/¬
>http://www.rootshell.be/~dwalker/
I AGREE WITH THIS POST
Hazel Dean Rulz
wrote:
><Snips Bullshit Zeal>
>
>How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
>
>
IT WAS CREATED BY A POSTER CALLED DBURN...@AOL.COM
EMAIL HIM TO TELL HIM WHAT YOU THINK.
James B. Ross
"Hazel Dean Rulz" <zytonore...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3d2dff95...@news.ukf.net...
> On 11 Jul 2002 12:11:41 GMT, Daniel Walker
> <invalid_em...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Sebastian" <noformation(at)subdimension.com> wrote in
> >news:3d2d3a43$1...@nopics.sjc:
> >
> >>
> >> "TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>> <Snips Bullshit Zeal>
> >>>
> >>> How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
> >>>
> >
> >This is US law. I, along with many other people, do not live under the
> >US legal system. Please come up with a better explanation. :P
> >
> >--
> >Daniel Walker says "Rawk On!" \m/¬
> >http://www.rootshell.be/~dwalker/
>
> I AGREE WITH THIS POST
Is a better explanation needed? If it was made in the US then US Law
applies to its creation. Then if it is not specifically illegal where you
are, or not well censored, then that would be all the explanation needed.
For the record, the very title offends my values, but it is better IMHO to
let idiots speak in public, the better to know who they are and how idiotic.
Further, censorship is a proverbial slippery slope: if we allow someone to
start, how will we know what we are missing?
Lawmaking is a subtle art; often outlawing an activity will make it happen
more often. In the US, many drugs are contraband. This lowers supply to
people who would kill to get the drug. Addicts convert more addicts to sell
drugs to. As price goes up, people make a year's wage in a few minutes.
Meanwhile, well intentioned police departments spend millions eliminating
the dealer's competition, raising the price still higher.
Tim Bruening
Frisettes wrote:
> A lot of countries do have freedom of speech with certain conditions.
> The United States has laws against slander, defamation, and also
> regarding employment confidentiality, and official secrets. I find it
> strange that it does not have laws against hate speech, as many other
> respectable countries do. It's not a question of agreeing or
> disagreeing (I don't like Newt Gingrich, but he's allowed to speak his
> mind), but the propagation of hate serves no purpose and is
> essentially ademocratic considering they promote the idea some people
> are not entitled to liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In one of those other nations, could I say "I believe that we should allow hate
speech" without fear of arrest, as long as I didn't say anything hateful?
rhtreh
[snip]
>
> That's very true. People want to be able to express their opinions
> indefinitely, but don't want to hear those that they, subjectively, deem to
> be offensive. It's a very hypocritical. But there are those people out
> there that truly believe in all forms of freedom of speech. I personally
> believe that no form of speech should be restricted at all.
Same shit happens in Australia. Us White Men are not allowed to make
negative comments about the Australian KKKoon for rear of being
labelled as racists. A couple of years back a White Woman politician
made true statements on the issue of blacKKKs drinking and then
bashing shit out of their women. Naturally the left wing media wankers
and abos labelled her a racist.
Just in the last few monts official govenment reports and reports from
the taxpayer funded boong organisations have made exactly the same
comments. Interesting that when a blacKKK makes comments about
blacKKKs and alcohol and violence that all is quiet from the left wing
media wankers.
Now why is it that I have this feeling that somehow, somewhere in this
great land of mine there are some people who need to relearn the
definition of racist?
warren peugh
> The United States has laws against slander, defamation, and also
> regarding employment confidentiality, and official secrets. I find it
> strange that it does not have laws against hate speech, as many other
> respectable countries do. It's not a question of agreeing or
> disagreeing (I don't like Newt Gingrich, but he's allowed to speak his
> mind), but the propagation of hate serves no purpose and is
> essentially ademocratic considering they promote the idea some people
> are not entitled to liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
everyone should be alowed to say what ever you want... when every thay want
... if you read the 1st post you would see one of the things it was trying
to say "is stop the Hate". we should stop Affirmative Action. some of you
might not know what that is. it where two people apply at the same school
and B/C i'm a white American who dosen't play sports i'm the last in line to
get in. even someone with a lower grades then me is in front of me B/c there
of a another race other then white. Warren Taylor
sanjian
news:slrnairrv2...@wyld.qx.net...
> Sometimes I wonder why everyone in the world doesn't rise up and force
their
> governments to give them some of the rights that are constitutionally
> guaranteed in the United States. Then I see a few posts like this that
make
> me realize a lot of people only believe in freedom of speech when they
agree
> with what is being said.
>
> Sad. Truly.
What, that I find the existance of such groups to be offensive? Or that I
would go to the company and ask them to remove them? Gee, sorry that I feel
it's my right to petition a company for the redress of grievances. If they
choose, they can remove the groups, if they choose not to, I can choose to
remove myself. Those are the rights I am given. It's not a matter of
"freedom of speech." It's a matter of the fact that I have no desire to be
a part of a group that would include such racism. The fact that you think
that's so wrong is what is truely sad.
Michael Cargill
> would go to the company and ask them to remove them? Gee, sorry that I
feel
> it's my right to petition a company for the redress of grievances. If
they
> choose, they can remove the groups, if they choose not to, I can choose to
> remove myself. Those are the rights I am given. It's not a matter of
> "freedom of speech." It's a matter of the fact that I have no desire to
be
> a part of a group that would include such racism. The fact that you think
> that's so wrong is what is truely sad.
Is it really that hard for you NOT TO READ IT, if it offends you?
sanjian
news:eorsiu877rsfkrvi6...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:51:47 GMT, Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
> A lot of countries do have freedom of speech with certain conditions.
> The United States has laws against slander, defamation, and also
> regarding employment confidentiality, and official secrets. I find it
> strange that it does not have laws against hate speech, as many other
> respectable countries do. It's not a question of agreeing or
> disagreeing (I don't like Newt Gingrich, but he's allowed to speak his
> mind), but the propagation of hate serves no purpose and is
Considering the number of people who claimed that Newt's Contract With
America was "hateful," can you imagine what would have happened if there was
hate-speech legislation in place? It's best not to go down that road. I
can see a time when suggesting that we spend too much on welfare will be
considered "hateful" towards homeless.
Also, there is no such thing as a right not to be offended.
> essentially ademocratic considering they promote the idea some people
> are not entitled to liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
They have a right to suggest that. That is political speach. It's also
bunk, but that's neither here nor there.
Oh, and there are also many (myself included) that consider anything the
U.N. spews to be highly suspect, though I imagine that's hateful speach, and
I'll probably be arrested on-sight, the very next time I step foot outside
the U.S.
sanjian
news:Xns92489788ED0...@216.168.3.50...
> Why? What the hell do you care if they carry a group like this? Just
> because you find something "distasteful" it should be censored?
Because I do not wish to be a part of such a thing. It reflects poorly on
Cox and their users.
> Perhaps you should move to China- all the internet access there is heavily
> filtered, so you probably won't see anything like that group there. You
> also won't see any of those annoying posts disagreeing with government
> policy or anything like that, either.
For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts, you'll
notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I petition the
government, as they have no business in this affair. Do I no longer have a
right to petition a company for change and improvement? Sounds kinda
Fascist to me.
sanjian
news:agnjeb$ngtvo$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own? Do I
not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what Cox is
selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
Faned
It's that beautiful freedom of speech thing that does in fact give you the
right to petition the company, and even the government, for them to erode
said freedom.
Faned
That would be the better course I would think. Surely you don't think
*your* morals are the ones everyone else should live by and therefore you
should impose your will on anyone who might have such "wrong" beliefs.
Suppressing speech does not suppress thought. It is therefore pointless at
best, and at worst antagonistic and amounts to no more than hiding your
head in the sand. On top of that, paraphrased from someone else in this
thread, "I want to know who hates me."
warren peugh
> > Is it really that hard for you NOT TO READ IT, if it offends you?
>
> Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
> between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own? Do
I
> not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what Cox
is
> selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
do you read playboy? i don't it offends me... but i still shop at 7-11 and
many other stores that sell it.... i just chose not to read (look at) it
sanjian
> <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> > For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts,
you'll
> > notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I petition
the
> > government, as they have no business in this affair. Do I no longer
have a
> > right to petition a company for change and improvement? Sounds kinda
> > Fascist to me.
>
> It's that beautiful freedom of speech thing that does in fact give you the
> right to petition the company, and even the government, for them to erode
> said freedom.
If I petition the government, the feedom is eroded. If I petition the
company, nothing is eroded. Cox is not obligated to carry their crap. I'm
a customer of Cox, so I have a right to ask them not to carry it.
sanjian
> <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> > Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
> > between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own?
Do I
> > not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what
Cox is
> > selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
>
> That would be the better course I would think. Surely you don't think
> *your* morals are the ones everyone else should live by and therefore you
> should impose your will on anyone who might have such "wrong" beliefs.
>
> Suppressing speech does not suppress thought. It is therefore pointless
at
> best, and at worst antagonistic and amounts to no more than hiding your
> head in the sand. On top of that, paraphrased from someone else in this
> thread, "I want to know who hates me."
Of course it dosn't suppress the thought. Consider this, I am at a party,
and there is someone swearing loudly, and making a scene. Would I be out of
line talking to the host or hostess and asking them to remove the rabble
rouser? That's all I'm doing here.
sanjian
news:ETKX8.9158$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
That's fine, that's your choice. I also shop at 7-11. I also don't read
the playboys. In this case, though, I choose to ask Cox not to carry the
groups. I think it refects poorly on Cox users, and I don't want to be
associated with it. I know I can "just leave," but I think I have a right
to see about getting a satisfactory resolution before I go that road.
Sebastian
"sanjian" <san...@widomaker.com> wrote in message
news:f6LX8.98726$DB.30...@news1.east.cox.net...
Fine, I don't agree with your opinions, can you please stop posting them? I
think it reflects poorly on the other people in this NG and I don't want to
be associated with it, I know that I can "just not read it", but I think I
have a right to see about getting a satisfactory resolution before I go that
road.
If you can do it to one person because you can disagree with his opinion,
then anyone else can do it to you. Where does it end?
Charles Doane
Oh my gawd. I'm going to have to side with Michael Cargill on this one.
I'm not actually supposed to agree with him.
You do have rights, certainly. However, there is no right to be free from
being offended. You will be offended. It's a part of life. Deal with it
or die. I am sick and tired of candy asses saying "I'm offended!" like it
means something. So what if you're offended? I'm offended that you'd put
your own ivory tower over anything that might offend you. Your shit stinks
just as bad as anyone elses, so playing all high and mighty doesn't fly.
I hate to break this news to you, but if Cox drops it, then that doesn't
end it's existence. What it will accomplish is that fewer people who are
actually offended (not you, you're a candy ass ostrich putting your head
in the sand) will see it and maybe do something about it. I can't think
of one problem that was ever solved by people pretending it didn't exist.
Well, maybe the sitcom "Joanie Loves Chachi", but no other problems.
All evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Offended people
are the kind of people who do something. Therefore, offensiveness is a
tool for good. If you aren't ever offended, then you will never do good.
By masking this problem, pretending it doesn't exist, and preserving
yourself from being (gasp!) offended, you'll never do anything about the
evil which offends you. You find yourself motivated to do something,
and maybe something good, but your answer is to remove the motivation.
That's pitiful. Sad. No wonder there's an increasing evil in the world.
Good men shouldn't like to pretend that there's nothing worth fighting for.
--
"His instinct teaches him to keep out of the way of the tyrant of the
creation, *man*, for if he were to be got at, some wealthy glutton
would devour him, though there were no more in the world."
- Alexander Ross, explaining why no one has ever seen the Phoenix.
Hazel Dean Rulz
<jot...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Hazel Dean Rulz" <zytonore...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:3d2dff95...@news.ukf.net...
>> On 11 Jul 2002 12:11:41 GMT, Daniel Walker
>> <invalid_em...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Sebastian" <noformation(at)subdimension.com> wrote in
>> >news:3d2d3a43$1...@nopics.sjc:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "TowNIN" <mor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:V8aX8.5467$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >>> <Snips Bullshit Zeal>
>> >>>
>> >>> How in God's name was a group called "alt.flame.niggers" created?
>> >>>
><Snip First Amendment of US constitution and comment.>
>> >
>> >This is US law. I, along with many other people, do not live under the
>> >US legal system. Please come up with a better explanation. :P
>> >
>> >--
>> >Daniel Walker says "Rawk On!" \m/Ź
>> >http://www.rootshell.be/~dwalker/
>>
>> I AGREE WITH THIS POST
>
>Is a better explanation needed? If it was made in the US then US Law
>applies to its creation. Then if it is not specifically illegal where you
>are, or not well censored, then that would be all the explanation needed.
>
>For the record, the very title offends my values, but it is better IMHO to
>let idiots speak in public, the better to know who they are and how idiotic.
>Further, censorship is a proverbial slippery slope: if we allow someone to
>start, how will we know what we are missing?
>
>Lawmaking is a subtle art; often outlawing an activity will make it happen
>more often. In the US, many drugs are contraband. This lowers supply to
>people who would kill to get the drug. Addicts convert more addicts to sell
>drugs to. As price goes up, people make a year's wage in a few minutes.
>Meanwhile, well intentioned police departments spend millions eliminating
>the dealer's competition, raising the price still higher.
>
>
I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS POST
Michael Cargill
> between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own? Do
I
> not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what Cox
is
> selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
See, now your 'Guess you're going to have to live with it' attitude is no
better.
Because YOU dont like it, no one else can have it.
If you see something on TV you dont like, do you complain, thus ruining it
for people who DID like it, or turn the TV over?
Michael Cargill
> and there is someone swearing loudly, and making a scene. Would I be out
of
> line talking to the host or hostess and asking them to remove the rabble
> rouser? That's all I'm doing here.
No, because someone making a scene is different. Its not as if you can
merely stop listening to them. Anyway, if everyone else at the party WANTED
to listen this person making a scene, then yes you would be out of line at
asking for them to be evicted.
Michael Cargill
> I'm not actually supposed to agree with him.
Cripes. Perhaps we should meet up for lunch.
I will bring some homosexuals, and we can listen to the songs on their MP3
players and discuss which techno tune is the best of all time. Then we can
go to a PC LAN party and play a 16 way deathmatch on Quake 3.
> Your shit stinks
> just as bad as anyone elses, so playing all high and mighty doesn't fly.
I like that - thats good!
Brian Hance
>It's that beautiful freedom of speech thing that does in fact give you the
>right to petition the company, and even the government, for them to erode
>said freedom.
I feel the need to point out here that the first amendment has fuck
all to do with private business arrangements. San is paying for a
service. He feels that is a degradation in his service that Cox
carries these groups. Whether or not you or I agree with this point
is irrelevant. He is in the right to request that Cox stop carrying
these groups. Cox is in no way obligated to comply with the request
if they don't feel like it though. And push comes to shove, Cox's
feelings on the matter will come down to money. Where will they lose
more: Sanjain taking his business elsewhere or the revenue generated
by the users who are accessing the groups in contention.
At no point in this are anybodies first amendment rights being
trampled on. Nobody has the RIGHT to access any newsgroups from Cox's
servers and Cox is not required to carry particular groups just so
people can access them from a Cox account. If you don't like the way
Cox runs their business (like me, but for different reasons) you can
take your business elsewhere. And I can guarantee that someone
somewhere will be more than happy to take your money for said service.
--
Brian Hance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
Humphrey Bogart from THE BIG SLEEP
Mark Evans
> A lot of countries do have freedom of speech with certain conditions.
> The United States has laws against slander, defamation, and also
> regarding employment confidentiality, and official secrets. I find it
> strange that it does not have laws against hate speech, as many other
Quite often laws against "hate speach" are anything but impartial
allowing some kinds of "hate speach" but prohibiting others. The
latter to the extent possibly creating a class of people which
are beyond critisism. (Which in the US would be a constitutional
violation.)
> respectable countries do. It's not a question of agreeing or
Plenty of disrespectable countries have (or have had) laws against
"hate speach", typically where the definition of "hate speach"
corresponds well with that of "political opposition".
> disagreeing (I don't like Newt Gingrich, but he's allowed to speak his
> mind), but the propagation of hate serves no purpose and is
Can you define "hate" in a way which is objective? Unless you
can do that it's rather difficult to produce a decent law.
> essentially ademocratic considering they promote the idea some people
> are not entitled to liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What's worst that these people can speak or that they be
silenced and then claim to be some kind of "opressed
minority"?
Mark Evans
> Perhaps you should move to China- all the internet access there is heavily
> filtered, so you probably won't see anything like that group there. You
Are you sure, why should the Chinese much care about something
nasty said about non Chinese people?
> also won't see any of those annoying posts disagreeing with government
> policy or anything like that, either.
Quite probably will will still see plenty of potentially offensive
material. The Chinese government is only interested in censoring
certain things, like all censors they are highly selective.
They'd have little reason to censor one group of non
Chinese having a go at another group of non Chinese.
Indeed they might use it as an example of why the
Chinese are a better people.
Empty
news:YnIX8.97376$DB.29...@news1.east.cox.net:
> "Empty" <emptyCA...@emptiedout.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92489788ED0...@216.168.3.50...
>> Why? What the hell do you care if they carry a group like this? Just
>> because you find something "distasteful" it should be censored?
>
> Because I do not wish to be a part of such a thing. It reflects
> poorly on Cox and their users.
So don't participate in the group. Is that a hard concept? The world does
not revolve around you.
> For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts,
Ah! We're slinging insults now?
That was pretty mature of you.
> you'll notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I
> petition the government, as they have no business in this affair. Do
> I no longer have a right to petition a company for change and
> improvement? Sounds kinda Fascist to me.
You certainly have that right. I just fail to see:
A) what would make that an "improvement"
B) why you would care about the existence of a group you have no intention
of participating in
C) why you think your personal subjective opinion should be shoved down
others throats
~Empty
--
"I'm constantly forgetting my own phone number. Quite simply,
it's because I never call myself. (I used to, but I was never
home. I just gave up after a while. I figure if I want to talk
to me, I'll just have to do it in person.)" -Walker
sanjian
> Fine, I don't agree with your opinions, can you please stop posting them?
I
> think it reflects poorly on the other people in this NG and I don't want
to
> be associated with it, I know that I can "just not read it", but I think I
> have a right to see about getting a satisfactory resolution before I go
that
> road.
> If you can do it to one person because you can disagree with his opinion,
> then anyone else can do it to you. Where does it end?
And, just as Cox has, I've got a right to tell you to get bent. See how it
works? Cox is not obligated to listen to me, nor am I obligated to use Cox.
Your right to free speach doesn't prevent me from telling you to shut up.
sanjian
news:3D2FACE9...@mindspring.com...
> sanjian wrote:
> Oh my gawd. I'm going to have to side with Michael Cargill on this one.
> I'm not actually supposed to agree with him.
>
> You do have rights, certainly. However, there is no right to be free from
> being offended. You will be offended. It's a part of life. Deal with it
I've accepted that long ago. Again, you'll notice, I'm not even suggesting
pansy shit like lawsuits and stuff. All I'm doing is asking Cox to take
care of something that's f'sked up.
> or die. I am sick and tired of candy asses saying "I'm offended!" like it
> means something. So what if you're offended? I'm offended that you'd put
> your own ivory tower over anything that might offend you. Your shit
stinks
> just as bad as anyone elses, so playing all high and mighty doesn't fly.
I'm well aware of my shortcomings, thank you. Now, did that trite little
bit have a point? Do you mean to say we're not all perfect? Ooooh, gasp,
what a concept.
> I hate to break this news to you, but if Cox drops it, then that doesn't
> end it's existence. What it will accomplish is that fewer people who are
> actually offended (not you, you're a candy ass ostrich putting your head
Ah, showing your vast intellect with personal assaults. Always the sign of
the mentally bankrupt.
> in the sand) will see it and maybe do something about it. I can't think
> of one problem that was ever solved by people pretending it didn't exist.
I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I'm saying "get this shit out of here."
I know it's still out there, and I don't care, as long as it's not here.
> Well, maybe the sitcom "Joanie Loves Chachi", but no other problems.
>
> All evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Offended people
> are the kind of people who do something. Therefore, offensiveness is a
> tool for good. If you aren't ever offended, then you will never do good.
So, you say I'm wrong for trying to get that group off the server I use, and
in the same breath say that I should do something. What would you have me
do? Car bomb the creator of the group? Petition the government? You are a
thoroughly confused person.
> By masking this problem, pretending it doesn't exist, and preserving
> yourself from being (gasp!) offended, you'll never do anything about the
> evil which offends you. You find yourself motivated to do something,
> and maybe something good, but your answer is to remove the motivation.
> That's pitiful. Sad. No wonder there's an increasing evil in the world.
> Good men shouldn't like to pretend that there's nothing worth fighting
for.
I am doing the only thing I have a right to do. Anything above this would
be either illegal, or of Jessie Jackson quality. They have a right to free
speech, but they don't have a right to say it everywhere they want. If Cox
decides that the group violates their standards, then Cox has every right to
tell them to get lost.
sanjian
And if I were at the party, and didn't want to associate with that type of
people, I could just leave.
sanjian
> > Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
> > between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own?
Do I
> > not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what
Cox is
> > selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
>
> See, now your 'Guess you're going to have to live with it' attitude is no
> better.
No better? No better than what? Constructs like that are meaningless.
> Because YOU dont like it, no one else can have it.
> If you see something on TV you dont like, do you complain, thus ruining it
> for people who DID like it, or turn the TV over?
What is on TV does not refect apon me, as a viewer. What Cox chooses to
tolerate does reflect on Cox customers. Just ask AoLers how the reputation
of an ISP reflects on the users.
sanjian
news:ulcpga...@anacon.freeserve.co.uk...
> Frisettes <dontb...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> > A lot of countries do have freedom of speech with certain conditions.
> > The United States has laws against slander, defamation, and also
> > regarding employment confidentiality, and official secrets. I find it
> > strange that it does not have laws against hate speech, as many other
>
> Quite often laws against "hate speach" are anything but impartial
> allowing some kinds of "hate speach" but prohibiting others. The
> latter to the extent possibly creating a class of people which
> are beyond critisism. (Which in the US would be a constitutional
> violation.)
That is the true essence of the problem. "Hate speech" is a backdoor to
abuse for whatever party is in power (or whatever party controls the
appropriate agency via unelected officials). Whether it's the religious
right, or the statist left that abuses the power is immaterial.
Michael Cargill
> people, I could just leave.
Of course you could.
But that is far more inconvenient than merely changing the channel on the
TV, or not reading someones post on Usenet.
Michael Cargill
You are no better than the person who wants to spout racist guff on a
newsgroup. You are being just as selfish as they are by wanting it off your
news server, whereas other may want it on their.
> What is on TV does not refect apon me, as a viewer. What Cox chooses to
> tolerate does reflect on Cox customers. Just ask AoLers how the
reputation
> of an ISP reflects on the users.
No, the newsgroups that Cox chooses to carry doesnt reflect on the users of
the ISP at all. That is absurd.
AOL users have got their reputation because they are a bunch of clueless
idiots - it has nothing to do with the ISP itself, or the services it
provides.
EQ
Reminds me of a debate I got into with a cousin of mine that ended up
involving 50% of the family at a family reunion...
This was at the time when some family group was advocating a boycott
of McDonalds because they were a sponsor of MARRIED WITH CHILDREN..
Now, I thought the show was hilarious. My cousin is one of those prim
and proper easily offended types (Love ya, cuz... :^) hehehehe)
She supported the show being pulled. I felt it violated the rights of
those who DID enjoy the show.
It was on late enough that kids watching it really wasn't an issue..
But we debated that til 4AM and STILL didn't resolve the issue...
EQ
Although it could be argued that the simplicity of "clueless"ness of
the service attacks the simple and clueless to it...
Ghandi@yahoo.com | GHANDI
You sound like you were concerned with the show being on late enough that the
kids wouldn't see it. Now that's really funny since you invited couples to your
house for swinger parties and TOLD THEM to bring the kids. Want me to repost
the info?
EQ <mic...@pln.cc> wrote in article
<5891ju41a5e1nkl2d...@4ax.com>...
Remington Stone
}> > > I would go to the company and ask them to remove them?
}> Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
}> between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own? Do I
}> not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what Cox is
}> selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
}Oh my gawd. I'm going to have to side with Michael Cargill on this one.
}I'm not actually supposed to agree with him.
No! You don't have to!
}You do have rights, certainly. However, there is no right to be free from
}being offended.
This is true. But he -does- have a right to be offended and do something
about it, which I rather think he is.
}I hate to break this news to you, but if Cox drops it, then that doesn't
}end it's existence. What it will accomplish is that fewer people who are
}actually offended (not you, you're a candy ass ostrich putting your head
}in the sand) will see it and maybe do something about it.
You're missing the other side. If Cox (whoever they are) dros it, then
fewer people who might -not- be offended by it, and may find its
commentary persuasive, will see it either. One way to fight memes that
bother you is to inhibit their propagation.
The other thing to note here is that Cox may not be aware they're carrying
these groups, and may be more than happy to remove them if they are told.
Just because someone wants to say something, the press is not -required-
to enable that. What if your favorite magazine got offered a large amount
of money to add a 27-page color advertisement for the bigoted group of
your choice in their August issue? Would you -expect- them to print it?
Would you even want them to print it? Would you find the moral choice of
their editorial staff a bit suspect if they took the offer? Of course,
you don't -have- to read it, but there it is.
}I can't think of one problem that was ever solved by people pretending it
}didn't exist. Well, maybe the sitcom "Joanie Loves Chachi", but no other
}problems.
Hey! I actualy liked "Joanie Loves Chachi". I'm offended by that!
Hmm... I don't think it's really worth doing anything about it, though.
}By masking this problem, pretending it doesn't exist, and preserving
}yourself from being (gasp!) offended, you'll never do anything about the
}evil which offends you. You find yourself motivated to do something,
}and maybe something good, but your answer is to remove the motivation.
And that would, in fact, be doing something about it. What's your answer?
to do... nothing?
Personally, I enjoy a good dose of hate-filled rhetoric now and then. It
can be damn amusing to tear apart their arguments in my head and remind
myself exactly why I disagree with them. Somewhere, I have stashed away a
little collection of printed things that deeply offend me. Once in a
while, someone perusing my library will come across these and give me The
Hairy Eyeball. And then I have the positive joy of entirely agreeing with
them, and it can prompt a discussion of exactly why these things are -so-
wrong, and what's wrong with them, and what we can do about it.
But what's even better... is if some group I strongly disagree with is
producing flyers or pamphlets that actually cost them money to print, and
they're handing them out for free. Why, I'd be -more- than pleased to
help distribute a thousand copies or so. I know a recycling bin that's
very, very, interested in this sort of thing...
The only drawback is that then they think they have a larger subscriber
base. Sigh.
EQ
Still the ADH Terrorist....
Still an insufferable little boy, whining for attention... :^)
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:43:21 GMT, " | GHANDI" < | Gha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ghandi@yahoo.com | GHANDI
Unlike you I didn't see a reason to cross post to all the other newsgroups when
confronting someone as sorry as you but since you seem to think this is somehow
an admission of you bettering me I guess I will post it to all the
disinterested parties in the other newsgroups to read.
BTW, if anyone is interested in seeing the real eq just do a search on google
for alt.swingers or alt.dss.hack from a few months ago. He was busted by DTV
lawyers and sued for selling illegal hacking gear for satellite TV. It's
rumored he has given up his customer list to help come to an agreement and keep
him from losing everything he owns. Oh yeah he also brags about his wife
sleeping with other men in what he called the swing lifestyle. His fortune has
been diminished to the point he is having what would be considered garage sales
on alt.dss.hack.
If anyone thinks what I have said isn't true do the search and see for
yourself.
EQ <mic...@pln.cc> wrote in article
<kfi1jucav0knk9cvb...@4ax.com>...
heheheheheehehehehehehehhe
Everyone notices how Goondi takes out all the cross-postings when he
does his terroristic attacks, but leaves them in when he doesn't??
Guess he doesn't want everyone else to learn what everyone in ADH
already knows.
That Goondi is an infantile, immature little weasel who has been
bested, beaten and all around made insignificant
Can't ask for a better confirmation then that.. :^)
By bi, Goondi... :^) Enjoy your ignoble and obvious defeat at the
hand of your better. You have more then earned it.. :^)
sanjian
> > No better? No better than what? Constructs like that are meaningless.
>
> You are no better than the person who wants to spout racist guff on a
> newsgroup. You are being just as selfish as they are by wanting it off
your
> news server, whereas other may want it on their.
1) And you are no better than me for being selfish and wanting it on.
Oooh, what a concept. You can disagree with me, but bitching about me being
"no better" than a bunch of racist shitheads really doesn't gain you any
points.
2) Even if I was selfish for this (a point over which I strongly disagree),
that is not "just as bad" as being a racist. Your sense of proportion is
underwhelming.
> > What is on TV does not refect apon me, as a viewer. What Cox chooses to
> > tolerate does reflect on Cox customers. Just ask AoLers how the
> reputation
> > of an ISP reflects on the users.
>
> No, the newsgroups that Cox chooses to carry doesnt reflect on the users
of
> the ISP at all. That is absurd.
> AOL users have got their reputation because they are a bunch of clueless
> idiots - it has nothing to do with the ISP itself, or the services it
> provides.
And why do clueless idiots gather around AoL? The service earned it's
reputation.
sanjian
news:01c22ad6$ad922800$66db7cce@oemcomputer...
>
>
> Unlike you I didn't see a reason to cross post to all the other newsgroups
when
> confronting someone as sorry as you but since you seem to think this is
somehow
> an admission of you bettering me I guess I will post it to all the
> disinterested parties in the other newsgroups to read.
>
> BTW, if anyone is interested in seeing the real eq just do a search on
> for alt.swingers or alt.dss.hack from a few months ago. He was busted by
DTV
> lawyers and sued for selling illegal hacking gear for satellite TV. It's
> rumored he has given up his customer list to help come to an agreement and
keep
> him from losing everything he owns. Oh yeah he also brags about his wife
> sleeping with other men in what he called the swing lifestyle. His fortune
has
> been diminished to the point he is having what would be considered garage
sales
> on alt.dss.hack.
> If anyone thinks what I have said isn't true do the search and see for
> yourself.
Is that all you have to add to this conversation? It sounds like you've got
a grudge against EQ. Do yourself a favor and stop stalking him.
sanjian
news:agqaen$4gh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> Charles Doane said:
> }sanjian wrote:
> }> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> }> > > What, that I find the existance of such groups to be offensive? Or
that
> }> > > I would go to the company and ask them to remove them?
> }> > Is it really that hard for you NOT TO READ IT, if it offends you?
> }> Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the
difference
> }> between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own?
Do I
> }> not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what
Cox is
> }> selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of
it.
> }Oh my gawd. I'm going to have to side with Michael Cargill on this one.
> }I'm not actually supposed to agree with him.
>
> No! You don't have to!
>
> }You do have rights, certainly. However, there is no right to be free
from
> }being offended.
>
> This is true. But he -does- have a right to be offended and do something
> about it, which I rather think he is.
Thank you. I would like to point out that I am no more of a proponent of
censorship than anyone else here. If the government came in and said the
group had to go, I would strongly oppose the order. None the less, when it
comes to open markets like an ISP, I <Patrick Stewart voice> can certainly
uuuurge* </Patrick Stewart voice> them to not carry that forum. It's a
market place of ideas, if they can't find a hold for their idea, than it has
failed in the market. At the same time, I can understand if Cox doesn't
want to restrain any speech on their end. I don't have to agree with it,
and I don't have to stay with them.
What I find to be almost frightening is the response to the mere suggestion
that I was going to try to seek a peaceful solution with those responsible.
I can't quite describe why that fact is so disturbing, though....
EQ
wrote:
Would that he could, S.... Would that he could..
Michael Cargill
> Oooh, what a concept. You can disagree with me, but bitching about me
being
> "no better" than a bunch of racist shitheads really doesn't gain you any
> points.
No, I never said that I wanted it on. I dont read the group, so what
happens to it doesnt bother me.
However, you actually wanting it taken down IS selfish, because others want
it on. If you dont like what is going on in that group, then dont read it.
It is the same as the person who rallies for a violent programme on TV to be
banned, because THEY dont like it.
> 2) Even if I was selfish for this (a point over which I strongly
disagree),
> that is not "just as bad" as being a racist. Your sense of proportion is
> underwhelming.
Sorry, but someone being a racist in their own 'group' does no harm. You
have no right telling people what they can and cant say in their own group,
and wether that group is allowed to exist.
In that respect yes, you are 'just as bad'.
> And why do clueless idiots gather around AoL? The service earned it's
> reputation.
That makes no sense.
People dont think 'Ok I am a clueless idiot, and AOL is considered to be the
worst ISP available - therefore, I will sign up for it.'.
Someone will join AOL because they know no better, they see the adverts on
TV and decide to use one of those nice 'AOL Platinum' CD's that come in
their Sunday papers.
sanjian
> > And why do clueless idiots gather around AoL? The service earned it's
> > reputation.
>
> That makes no sense.
> People dont think 'Ok I am a clueless idiot, and AOL is considered to be
the
> worst ISP available - therefore, I will sign up for it.'.
> Someone will join AOL because they know no better, they see the adverts on
> TV and decide to use one of those nice 'AOL Platinum' CD's that come in
> their Sunday papers.
You've made my point for me, then.
Faned
> "Faned" <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaiuu5e...@wyld.qx.net...
> > <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yep. Guess you're going to have to live with it. What's the difference
> > > between me asking Cox not to carry it, and Cox deciding on their own?
> Do I
> > > not have a right to move elsewhere if Cox refuses? I don't like what
> Cox is
> > > selling, in this case, and I will move my money elsewhere because of it.
> >
> > *your* morals are the ones everyone else should live by and therefore you
> > should impose your will on anyone who might have such "wrong" beliefs.
> >
> > Suppressing speech does not suppress thought. It is therefore pointless
> at
> > best, and at worst antagonistic and amounts to no more than hiding your
> > head in the sand. On top of that, paraphrased from someone else in this
> > thread, "I want to know who hates me."
>
> Of course it dosn't suppress the thought. Consider this, I am at a party,
> and there is someone swearing loudly, and making a scene. Would I be out of
> line talking to the host or hostess and asking them to remove the rabble
> rouser? That's all I'm doing here.
Excellent analogy. Let me expand it to completion for you. You are at a
party. You notice another party across the street and upon closer
inspection you see that they aren't your type of people at all, swearing
loudly, making scenes. Yes, you are out of line asking them to stop their
party. This is much closer to what you are doing here. :)
Faned
> > <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
> > > For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts,
> > > notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I petition
> the
> > > government, as they have no business in this affair. Do I no longer
> have a
> > > right to petition a company for change and improvement? Sounds kinda
> > > Fascist to me.
> >
> > right to petition the company, and even the government, for them to erode
> > said freedom.
>
> company, nothing is eroded. Cox is not obligated to carry their crap. I'm
> a customer of Cox, so I have a right to ask them not to carry it.
So, assuming for the sake of this that I am a Cox subscriber and want to
read the newsgroup, as I am sure there are at least *some* people out there
who fall into that category, you don't think you're eroding my freedom?
You eliminate my freedom to read the newsgroup. You eliminate my freedom to
post to the newsgroup. Government is not the sole grantor of freedoms.
Yeah, I guess erode was too light of a connotation.
Faned
Perhaps because you realize that you really are sticking your head in the
sand with such an action. Remove every Cox subscriber's freedom to post to
that group, and you won't have the warning and/or after-the-fact evidence of
someone's rant and decision to go on a killing spree, if they happen to be
on Cox.
I'm sure many people would thank you for that... I'm pretty sure it's the
people you dislike the most.
Faned
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:49:20 GMT, Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> >It's that beautiful freedom of speech thing that does in fact give you the
> >right to petition the company, and even the government, for them to erode
> >said freedom.
>
> all to do with private business arrangements. San is paying for a
> service. He feels that is a degradation in his service that Cox
> carries these groups. Whether or not you or I agree with this point
> is irrelevant. He is in the right to request that Cox stop carrying
> these groups. Cox is in no way obligated to comply with the request
> if they don't feel like it though. And push comes to shove, Cox's
> feelings on the matter will come down to money. Where will they lose
> more: Sanjain taking his business elsewhere or the revenue generated
> by the users who are accessing the groups in contention.
>
> At no point in this are anybodies first amendment rights being
> trampled on. Nobody has the RIGHT to access any newsgroups from Cox's
> servers
You've fallen into that trap of thinking that the only "rights" you have are
government-granted. I have many more rights than those given to me by the
government. If I were a Cox subscriber, obviously at this time I would have
the right to read whatever newsgroup is at issue here (long since lost in
the thread). It's not a government-granted right, it's a bought right by
subscribing to Cox's services, including providing access to newsgroups,
including that one.
Until you understand that, you will have zero grasp of the actual issue.
Graefaxe
>
> So, assuming for the sake of this that I am a Cox subscriber and want to
> read the newsgroup, as I am sure there are at least *some* people out
there
> who fall into that category, you don't think you're eroding my freedom?
No. Your freedom is not eroded. As a consumer, I have the right to ask
that offensive matter is not carried on networks that I pay to support. If
the corporation decides to carry the offensive material, I have the right to
move to a new provider. The content is still available on the net with out
being condoned by my provider. Your freedom would not be infringed (you may
have to work a little more for it) and I am appeased as a consumer,
>
> You eliminate my freedom to read the newsgroup. You eliminate my freedom
to
> post to the newsgroup. Government is not the sole grantor of freedoms.
No one "grants" freedoms, we sieze them and hold them jealously as a
society. When the government tries to revoke them, the outcry can be, and
should be, deafening. When corporations self censor, it is capitalism at
work. The corportation is doing what it can to try to keep as many
customers as possible.
EQ
Let's carry *your* analogy a bit further to make it closer to what I
believe sanjian is trying to say..
Let's say you live in a gated community and you are on the board of
directors for that gated community.
You don't want the cops coming out because it will reflect badly on
the community as a whole.
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to go over and ask them to change
their party to better conform with the community.
That is what Sanjin is trying to say, near as I can tell..
I don't agree with him in his position, but I see the logic in it...
Richard
If you are unhappy with their policies, you are also free to ask them to
change their policies. If they choose not to change them, you are free to
find a different newsservice that has policies more in line with what you
want. Much like Sanjian is free to choose to ask them to change their
policies, and if they don't, free to choose whether or not to remain a
customer of theirs.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Mystic of 54 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 28 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr
Faned
I'll take that analogy. So what Sanjin is trying to say is that he's been
elected to the board of directors for the gated community of life.
Gotcha.
EQ
No, but he feels that whatever his ISP does reflects on him.
There is a certain logic to that..
sanjian
> > If I petition the government, the feedom is eroded. If I petition the
> > company, nothing is eroded. Cox is not obligated to carry their crap.
I'm
> > a customer of Cox, so I have a right to ask them not to carry it.
>
> So, assuming for the sake of this that I am a Cox subscriber and want to
> read the newsgroup, as I am sure there are at least *some* people out
there
> who fall into that category, you don't think you're eroding my freedom?
You have the right to petition them to carry it.
> You eliminate my freedom to read the newsgroup. You eliminate my freedom
to
> post to the newsgroup. Government is not the sole grantor of freedoms.
Wrong. Government is not a grantor of feedoms at all. Anyways, since we're
talking about freedoms, what makes you any better for trying to condemn me
for excersising my right to protest?
sanjian
> > What I find to be almost frightening is the response to the mere
suggestion
> > that I was going to try to seek a peaceful solution with those
responsible.
> > I can't quite describe why that fact is so disturbing, though....
>
> Perhaps because you realize that you really are sticking your head in the
> sand with such an action. Remove every Cox subscriber's freedom to post
to
> that group, and you won't have the warning and/or after-the-fact evidence
of
> someone's rant and decision to go on a killing spree, if they happen to be
> on Cox.
Just because you choose to remove the trash from your street doesn't mean
you are ignoring the fact that there's trash elsewhere. It's just not on
your street anymore.
sanjian
> <bha...@net-prophet.com> wrote:
> You've fallen into that trap of thinking that the only "rights" you have
are
> government-granted. I have many more rights than those given to me by the
> government. If I were a Cox subscriber, obviously at this time I would
have
> the right to read whatever newsgroup is at issue here (long since lost in
> the thread). It's not a government-granted right, it's a bought right by
> subscribing to Cox's services, including providing access to newsgroups,
> including that one.
No, you do _not_ have a right to read any newsgroup you want. That is a
service carried by Cox, at their discretion, to entice more customers to
suscribe. Unless you have a contract with them that says they will provide
you with usenet service, you have not right to it. What you _do_ have a
right to, however, is to search the marketplace to find whatever product you
want (as long as it's legal). If it's not Cox, then so be it, if it is Cox,
very well.
I also have a right to search the market for what I want, which is an ISP
that doesn't carry racist groups. I'm asking Cox to provide me that
service. It is not my _right_ to recieve that service, however, and no one
is obligated to provide it.
Why is it you're trying to erode my rights?
Gary Croll
> how ture it is..... why is it still ok to say white but i can't call some
> one black.....
>
Obviously you're not involved with law enforcement or Emergency
Medical Services. Suspects or patient descriptions are always given as
"Black" and never as "African American". Many Blacks find the term
"African American" highly offensive, in addition to being inaccurate.
Even Whoppie Goldberg has stated this numerous times on her show
"Hollywood Squares". They had a contestant several months ago who was
White but born in Africa. He made the statement that technically, he
was "African American". Whoppie started yelling "See, that's what I've
been saying all along".
Remington Stone
}So, assuming for the sake of this that I am a Cox subscriber and want to
}read the newsgroup, as I am sure there are at least *some* people out there
}who fall into that category, you don't think you're eroding my freedom?
}You eliminate my freedom to read the newsgroup. You eliminate my freedom to
}post to the newsgroup. Government is not the sole grantor of freedoms.
If you -really- want to read that group, you could always petition Cox to
carry it for you. They're a private company, they may have some tendency
to cater to the whims of their subscribers, after all.
And if they refuse, perhaps you won't want to be a cox subscriber any
longer.
[56 Beguiler] Zinphandel Chianti <Ethereal Requiem> (Gnome) Ayonae Ro
Sean Connery
sanjian <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts, you'll
>notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I petition the
>government, as they have no business in this affair. Do I no longer have a
>right to petition a company for change and improvement? Sounds kinda
>Fascist to me.
1) Cox and Comcast *barely* pay attention when hundreds of customers have
serious access problems for their $40+/month. I think your "complaint"
will be a bit further down that ladder.
2) If your newbie buttocks don't like the model that the Internet at large
uses, and therefore "real" ISPs (yes, even Cox?), then feel free to join
AOL or some kind of filtered government/religious ISP instead. I don't
want you (or anyone else) telling me what I can or can not access on the
public Internet, whether I agree with it or not. If it's there, it's
there; the end. I don't need or want some whiny NetCop with nothing else
to do buggering it up. If you have a problem grasping this concept please
flee to some closed-gate ISP that makes all the "bad stuff" go away for
you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$ lynx http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html
$ rm -fr CBDTPA SSSCA 'Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC)'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slik
REMEMBER........DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:54:53 GMT, Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
sanjian
news:hL5Z8.236831$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> In article <YnIX8.97376$DB.29...@news1.east.cox.net>,
> sanjian <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
> >For those of you unable to think beyond single-step simple concepts,
you'll
> >notice I chose to write the -company-. I did not, nor will I petition
the
> >government, as they have no business in this affair. Do I no longer have
a
> >right to petition a company for change and improvement? Sounds kinda
> >Fascist to me.
>
> 1) Cox and Comcast *barely* pay attention when hundreds of customers have
> serious access problems for their $40+/month. I think your "complaint"
> will be a bit further down that ladder.
That is completely beside the point.
> 2) If your newbie buttocks don't like the model that the Internet at large
Ok, jackass, I hardly qualify as a newbie. Thank you for showing your
arrogant stupidity.
> uses, and therefore "real" ISPs (yes, even Cox?), then feel free to join
> AOL or some kind of filtered government/religious ISP instead. I don't
> want you (or anyone else) telling me what I can or can not access on the
Then feel free to petition to keep the group. It's you're right. Just
don't bitch when I excercise my right to petition to have it removed.
> public Internet, whether I agree with it or not. If it's there, it's
Hey, dipshit, it's not "public Internet," it's Cox, a business. It you want
some sort of public supported enteretainment, watch PBS or listen to NPR.
The rest of us will enjoy the net while you're gone.
> there; the end. I don't need or want some whiny NetCop with nothing else
> to do buggering it up. If you have a problem grasping this concept please
> flee to some closed-gate ISP that makes all the "bad stuff" go away for
> you.
Just out of curiosity, do you pay for your own access, or do you regard it
as your "right"?
Faned
I have no problems with vegetarians. I don't want them to try and get
burgers outlawed, though they certainly have the right to try.
Faned
Why can't you grasp that it's you who is trying to erode your rights?
Faned
Apparently they already carry it...
Richard
Yes, they do now, but that is subject to change at their whim. Whether
instigated by a customer request, or because the price of tea in china went
up.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Mystic of 54 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 28 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 16 seasons, Erollisi Marr
Sean Connery
sanjian <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>> 2) If your newbie buttocks don't like the model that the Internet at large
>
>Ok, jackass, I hardly qualify as a newbie. Thank you for showing your
>arrogant stupidity.
I disagree. You're one hell of an arrogant greenhorn if you have nothing
else to do but whine about Usenet groups you don't like. Don't foget to
look at the rest of the alt.flame.* hierarchy. I'm sure you'll find
something else. But once you start down you path, you'll also have to
petition to shut down alt.fan.adolf-hitler, or else you're nothing but a
pro-Black anti-Semite. Etc, etc, etc.
>Then feel free to petition to keep the group. It's you're right. Just
>don't bitch when I excercise my right to petition to have it removed.
I could give a flip about the group. But people like you always have a
problem with the big picture. Namely, you can't see it. See above for a
refresher.
>> public Internet, whether I agree with it or not. If it's there, it's
>
>Hey, dipshit, it's not "public Internet," it's Cox, a business. It you want
>some sort of public supported enteretainment, watch PBS or listen to NPR.
>The rest of us will enjoy the net while you're gone.
Usenet is the "public Internet". Or are you claiming Cox employees author
and publish it all? I don't work for Cox. Do you?
>Just out of curiosity, do you pay for your own access, or do you regard it
>as your "right"?
This smells like some passive aggressive P.C. way of asking my age. If
that's what you'd like to know, just hike up your gonads and ask so. In
any case. I've been posting to Usenet for over 10 years. And have been
paying to do so for over 10 years.
Richard
> >> public Internet, whether I agree with it or not. If it's there, it's
> >
> >Hey, dipshit, it's not "public Internet," it's Cox, a business. It you
want
> >some sort of public supported enteretainment, watch PBS or listen to NPR.
> >The rest of us will enjoy the net while you're gone.
>
> Usenet is the "public Internet". Or are you claiming Cox employees author
> and publish it all? I don't work for Cox. Do you?
>
>
You must have missed the part where he said that he would ask Cox to stop
carrying it, not that he would ask Cox to remove it from the internet. Cox,
as is the case with any other internet provider, has the option of picking
and choosing what content they will provide to their customers. He would
like to encourage Cox to make some specific choices in this regard. If you
are a Cox customer as well, and you are not happy with whatever choices Cox
makes in this regard, you are free to find another provider. The same is
true for Sanjian.
Personally, I prefer that my provider place no restrictions on the content,
but, I do understand that other people have other opinions in this regard,
and they have the option of finding a provider that caters to them, or of
asking their current provider to change it's policies.
Remington Stone
}I have no problems with vegetarians. I don't want them to try and get
}burgers outlawed, though they certainly have the right to try.
Would you have problems with them trying to convince the local Co op
grocery chain not to sell it?
sanjian
> <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> I have no problems with vegetarians. I don't want them to try and get
> burgers outlawed, though they certainly have the right to try.
I'm not asking for burgers to be outlawed, that's government intervention,
which I despise. I am, however, trying to convince my local Vegitarian food
store to not carry them.
sanjian
> In article <MSoZ8.137275$DB.44...@news1.east.cox.net>,
> sanjian <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2) If your newbie buttocks don't like the model that the Internet at
large
> >
> >Ok, jackass, I hardly qualify as a newbie. Thank you for showing your
> >arrogant stupidity.
>
> I disagree. You're one hell of an arrogant greenhorn if you have nothing
Apparently the english language is also difficult for you, as you don't
understand the meaning of the simple words like "newbie" or "greenhorn."
Here's some help, "newbie" does not mean "someone I disagree with." You
want to call me arrogant, feel free, I am a cocky son of a bitch. None the
less, if you insist on using words that you know don't mean what you're
using them for, I can only assume you have the intellect somewhere near the
moth that's bouncing around outside my window.
> else to do but whine about Usenet groups you don't like. Don't foget to
> look at the rest of the alt.flame.* hierarchy. I'm sure you'll find
> something else. But once you start down you path, you'll also have to
> petition to shut down alt.fan.adolf-hitler, or else you're nothing but a
> pro-Black anti-Semite. Etc, etc, etc.
So, what's it to you if I am? I also hate Japanese, Irish, Whites,
Mexicans, American Indians, Blacks, Theists, Agnostic, Athiests, the rich,
the poor, the middle class, all military, and all civillians, one eyed one
horned fine purple people eaters, tofu (especially in a nice miso soup), and
green eggs and ham. Who cares? I'm not starting news groups to advertise
my hatred of them.
> >Then feel free to petition to keep the group. It's you're right. Just
> >don't bitch when I excercise my right to petition to have it removed.
>
> I could give a flip about the group. But people like you always have a
> problem with the big picture. Namely, you can't see it. See above for a
> refresher.
Since your referesher only shows your lack of a grip, you may not want to
refer back to it.
> >> public Internet, whether I agree with it or not. If it's there, it's
> >
> >Hey, dipshit, it's not "public Internet," it's Cox, a business. It you
want
> >some sort of public supported enteretainment, watch PBS or listen to NPR.
> >The rest of us will enjoy the net while you're gone.
>
> Usenet is the "public Internet". Or are you claiming Cox employees author
> and publish it all? I don't work for Cox. Do you?
Usenet is public only if you have access to it. Cox, however, is a company,
and not the "public internet." It is Cox that I want to take action, not
the government. Oh, and I don't work for Cox.
> >Just out of curiosity, do you pay for your own access, or do you regard
it
> >as your "right"?
>
> This smells like some passive aggressive P.C. way of asking my age. If
> that's what you'd like to know, just hike up your gonads and ask so. In
> any case. I've been posting to Usenet for over 10 years. And have been
> paying to do so for over 10 years.
Oh, I had no intention of questioning your age. There are many who don't
pay for access besides kids. I'm just saying your sense of reality seems
distorted, as you think you're entitled to something you're not. But, hey,
don't let the fact that you're a moron keep you from making assumptions.
Sean Connery
sanjian <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>> >Ok, jackass, I hardly qualify as a newbie. Thank you for showing your
>> >arrogant stupidity.
>>
>> I disagree. You're one hell of an arrogant greenhorn if you have nothing
>
>Apparently the english language is also difficult for you, as you don't
>understand the meaning of the simple words like "newbie" or "greenhorn."
>Here's some help, "newbie" does not mean "someone I disagree with." You
>want to call me arrogant, feel free, I am a cocky son of a bitch. None the
>less, if you insist on using words that you know don't mean what you're
>using them for, I can only assume you have the intellect somewhere near the
>moth that's bouncing around outside my window.
Ken, I do disagree with you, and you are a newbie. OK, maybe not a newbie
newbie, but come on... It's the equiv of writing Mayor Bloomber because
you saw some grafitti you didn't like in the subway.
>So, what's it to you if I am? I also hate Japanese, Irish, Whites,
>Mexicans, American Indians, Blacks, Theists, Agnostic, Athiests, the rich,
>the poor, the middle class, all military, and all civillians, one eyed one
>horned fine purple people eaters, tofu (especially in a nice miso soup), and
>green eggs and ham. Who cares? I'm not starting news groups to advertise
>my hatred of them.
You sound an aweful lot like one Eugene Charles Doane. And you're both
Navy and have spent time in VA and AZ. Trolling blood brothers it would
seem.
>Usenet is public only if you have access to it. Cox, however, is a company,
>and not the "public internet." It is Cox that I want to take action, not
>the government. Oh, and I don't work for Cox.
You are confusing "public" with "free" or those with "technical knowhow".
Cox distributes the public Usenet groups, because they are more a common
carrier than anything else. They provide Internet (Usenet), bam, there it
is. Like it or not, take it or leave it. If you want to whine about
something there are far better things to whine about. Perhaps you could
spend your time more productively volunteering at a soup kitchen for the
Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints?
>Oh, I had no intention of questioning your age. There are many who don't
>pay for access besides kids. I'm just saying your sense of reality seems
>distorted, as you think you're entitled to something you're not. But, hey,
>don't let the fact that you're a moron keep you from making assumptions.
And what would that be that you think I'm entitled to? Huh? You're
making about as much sense as the Mormons who trespass on my property
spamming me.
Michael Cargill
> Mexicans, American Indians, Blacks, Theists, Agnostic, Athiests, the rich,
> the poor, the middle class, all military, and all civillians, one eyed one
> horned fine purple people eaters, tofu (especially in a nice miso soup),
and
> green eggs and ham. Who cares? I'm not starting news groups to advertise
> my hatred of them.
And so what if you DID start a newsgroup about your hatred of them? For
anyone to complain about them being available as opposed to just not reading
them is a pathetic fool.
> Usenet is public only if you have access to it. Cox, however, is a
company,
> and not the "public internet." It is Cox that I want to take action, not
> the government. Oh, and I don't work for Cox.
London Transport is only public if you are in London, but that doesnt make
it any less public.
Why dont you just take your own action, ie not reading the offending
newsgroup, as opposed to wanting Cox to take action and depriving other Cox
users of a newsgroup that they read?
> Oh, I had no intention of questioning your age. There are many who don't
> pay for access besides kids. I'm just saying your sense of reality seems
> distorted, as you think you're entitled to something you're not. But,
hey,
> don't let the fact that you're a moron keep you from making assumptions.
What is it you feel he thinks he is entitled to?
Richard
news:WRMZ8.144683$DB.47...@news1.east.cox.net...
> "Sean Connery" <bang...@comcast.netHORMEL> wrote in message
> news:asFZ8.160429$Bt1.8...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > else to do but whine about Usenet groups you don't like. Don't foget to
> > look at the rest of the alt.flame.* hierarchy. I'm sure you'll find
> > something else. But once you start down you path, you'll also have to
> > petition to shut down alt.fan.adolf-hitler, or else you're nothing but a
> > pro-Black anti-Semite. Etc, etc, etc.
>
> So, what's it to you if I am? I also hate Japanese, Irish, Whites,
> Mexicans, American Indians, Blacks, Theists, Agnostic, Athiests, the rich,
> the poor, the middle class, all military, and all civillians, one eyed one
> horned fine purple people eaters, tofu (especially in a nice miso soup),
and
> green eggs and ham. Who cares? I'm not starting news groups to advertise
> my hatred of them.
Hmm, now I have "National Brotherhood Week" going through my head here.
Guess I'll just have to break out the CD.
Geno
"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ah95ni$r8fcj$1...@ID-111521.news.dfncis.de...
This thread hawks the word *Afraid* but talks about hatred. Why is that?
The words are not synonymous.
Has anyone coined the word *negrophobia* yet and started calling critics of
the American negro culture *Negrophobes*?
--Geno<I think it's about time we filled that gap>Royer
Faned
> Faned said:
> }I have no problems with vegetarians. I don't want them to try and get
> }burgers outlawed, though they certainly have the right to try.
>
> Would you have problems with them trying to convince the local Co op
> grocery chain not to sell it?
Yes. That's kinda my point. They have the right to try to forcefully
impose their personal belief system on the rest of humanity, and I have the
right to think them overbearing, arrogant, ignorant, controlling without
sanction, and all around pricks.
Yep, that's my point in a nutshell.
Faned
Your local vegeterian food store carries burgers?
That explains much.
Richard
National Brotherhood Week
Tom Lehrer
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks;
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.
Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand,
You can tolerate him if you try!
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear;
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
Geno
And your point is?
Send up a flare when you find it.
--Geno
Richard
I wasn't quite sure what your point in replying to my previous post was
either.
And, it's really not the same without the prelude leading up to the song, so
here it is:
One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just
one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites
is National Make-Fun-Of-The-Handicapped Week, which Frank Fontaine and Jerry
Lewis are in charge of as you know. During National Brotherhood Week various
special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood -- this
year, for example, on the first day of the week, Malcolm X was killed, which
gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is. I'm sure we all agree
that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world
who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!
Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.
Geno
sanjian
> <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> > I'm not asking for burgers to be outlawed, that's government
intervention,
> > which I despise. I am, however, trying to convince my local Vegitarian
food
> > store to not carry them.
>
> Your local vegeterian food store carries burgers?
>
> That explains much.
Actually, I wouldn't know, since there's no way I'm giving up steak.
sanjian
news:ah95ni$r8fcj$1...@ID-111521.news.dfncis.de...
> Hmm, now I have "National Brotherhood Week" going through my head here.
> Guess I'll just have to break out the CD.
And for that, I humbly apologize.