National Public Radio covers rec.music.white-power vote
Russ Allbery
> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
> group that has had so much opposition.
Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Rich Graves
Followups set.
I don't have time to transcribe anything, and of course my choices of
quotes would be biased, but NPR's interview with David Lawrence
concerning the rec.music.white-power CFV (which is *over*) is available
in RealAudio format at:
http://www.realaudio.com/contentp/npr/nc6m18.html
Some highlights:
* Robert Siegel refers to the proponent as "John Kleim." Since when has
he used his middle name?
* Milton's affiliations are not mentioned.
* David Lawrence says that despite the campaigning from both sides, he
does not expect voter turnout to set any records.
* Censorship is not an issue; accurate group labeling is.
- -rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMU9mfY3DXUbM57SdAQGnXAP+O10h9uqR3zRZiD7QvQvyn1RzjOp8PlX1
owMewyNnRpPO6eS3IWUl1IkHLWb1kC4M03B+IZCKp5olvQltZyQjEYynDfc5DrUl
TWPXyHWsqovN1JKsgd2/y2+cIATgXI7xiqhtTxTuM8VxlgjRgcpVXF3r55Y49fXQ
UZvQttNCHlQ=
=TjuK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Graves
>Milton Kleim <bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>
>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>> group that has had so much opposition.
>
>Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
The aforementioned Mr. Lawrence cited soc.culture.kashmir and so on.
I have *no idea* what the numbers will look like. I'm starting to think it
might have won, not because of serious interest but because most of my
friends voted YES out of an anti-censorship impulse, while folks who
had been urged to vote NO abstained because nobody likes spam. The only
thing I'm sure about is that I'll be surprised.
-rich
http://www.c2.org/~rich/
--
-rich
llurch@networking
Milton Kleim
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) writes:
>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>> group that has had so much opposition.
> Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
What about a single group?
Modemac
: With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
: against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
: group that has had so much opposition.
How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
your group.
You have failed to show that there is *any* reasonable discussion of
so-called "white-power" music, anywhere on the Internet.
You have failed to show that there is a groundswell of support for this
newsgroup.
You have refused to answer innumerable requests for PROOF to back your
claims that this newsgroup is "needed."
You have failed to demonstrate that the newsgroup will not degenerate
into another home for the Eternal Floating Flame War over racism.
That's why I voted NO for your proposal, and that's why I opposed it.
--
Reverend Modemac (mod...@netcom.com)
First Online Church of "Bob" "There is no black and white."
PGP Key Fingerprint: 47 90 41 70 B4 5B 06 90 7B 38 4E 11 8A ED 80 DF
URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/
(FINGER mod...@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!)
Russ Allbery
> What about a single group?
I doubt you'll beat sci.aquaria, but you might. I frankly wouldn't be
surprised to see a fair number of forged votes on both sides.
I'm pretty much absolutely certain that you won't even come close to
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir.
F Andrew McMichael
: Milton Kleim <bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
: > What about a single group?
: I doubt you'll beat sci.aquaria, but you might. I frankly wouldn't be
: surprised to see a fair number of forged votes on both sides.
What about the whole comp.dcom.telecom RFDs/CFVs?
Those were fun.
Paul Kneisel
rec.music.white-power vote>, 'bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim)'
wrote:
> The campaign against our group is UNPRECEDENTED.
--tallpaul
John Stone
one of these News section but which one?
Richard Charles Graves
>Just because there are legitimate reasons to oppose the group does not mean
>that everybody who opposes it does so for those reasons.
This is true, of course, as all of the opponents* acknowledge.
To take this one step further, though, just because there are
illegitimate reasons to oppose the group, this does not mean that there
is *even one* legitimate reason to support the group.
* - with the possible exception of Chris Stone
-rich
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq
MK>What about a single group?
soc.support.zoophilia ?
--
Zoli fek...@bc.edu, keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>
<'finger hungarian-...@hix.mit.edu'>
NOTE: spamsters and bulk emailers see 'X-Policy*:' in the
header for the charges to be imposed for net abuse!
KC2: Dudley+ (Grubor+)*2 (Fomin+++)/3 (cjames++)*3
Iatskovski- (Petersen--)/2
SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
Milton Kleim
> Followups set.
> I don't have time to transcribe anything, and of course my choices of
> quotes would be biased, but NPR's interview with David Lawrence
> concerning the rec.music.white-power CFV (which is *over*) is available
> in RealAudio format at:
> http://www.realaudio.com/contentp/npr/nc6m18.html
> Some highlights:
> * Robert Siegel refers to the proponent as "John Kleim." Since when has
> he used his middle name?
Curious. I'm not offended, certainly, but I can't understand why. He
talked to me directly, and I said my full name slowly and clearly. And he
said he read my name in the CFV and other vote tallies, so who knows what
he was thinking. At least he got the last name right. :-)
> * Milton's affiliations are not mentioned.
He didn't ask. He only asked if I was affiliated with Aryan Nations,
which I said quite bluntly I had nothing to do with.
> * David Lawrence says that despite the campaigning from both sides, he
> does not expect voter turnout to set any records.
With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
group that has had so much opposition.
> * Censorship is not an issue; accurate group labeling is.
Censorship IS an issue, as is demonstrated by the MASSIVE opposition
campaign, as stated above, on an unprecedented scale. Certain people
don't want us to have a forum for expression of our thoughts.
Lee S. Bumgarner
> > With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
> > against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
> > group that has had so much opposition.
> Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
Why, oh why is this the case? I think us.* is a great, and long over due
idea. Its like how England doesn't have a government within the UK. If
only Furr hadn't gotten fed up and taken all his toys with him...
-l
---
----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <------
See also : http://breeze.jmu.edu/ and http://breeze.jmu.edu/curio/
"Out of college, money spent/See no future/pay no rent/"-The Beatles
| REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? |
* Flood'96: http://breeze.jmu.edu/breeze/special/flood96/pic/floodfront.html
Richard Charles Graves
>Rich Graves (ri...@c2.org) writes:
>
>>>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>>>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>>>> group that has had so much opposition.
>
>>>Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
>
>
>newsgroup proposal alert" type mass mailings. I didn't see any spams to
>dozens of newsgroups and mailing lists.
Er, he was referring to vote tallies... he estimate the Kashmir stuff at
over 20,000 votes.
>> I have *no idea* what the numbers will look like. I'm starting to think it
>> might have won, not because of serious interest but because most of my
>> friends voted YES out of an anti-censorship impulse, while folks who
>> had been urged to vote NO abstained because nobody likes spam. The only
>> thing I'm sure about is that I'll be surprised.
>
>As will I. I don't know how many supporters voted, but we're hoping for
>at least 300 YES votes just from our people. If not, I'll be disappointed
>in my own side.
Yes, the Stormfront-L Neo-Nazi mailing list has 285 members right now.
None of them have ever discussed white-power music, but they all love
anything that's racist, especially if it gives the impression that Nazis
are somehow being "censored."
-rich
Milton Kleim
> : With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
> : against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
> : group that has had so much opposition.
> How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
> The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
> adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
> your group.
You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
I believe the latter is most likely the case. You know damn well that
most of the opposition has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the alleged
lack of need or namespace arguments: it has ALL to do with "anti-racism."
YOU may have voted against it on the grounds of YOUR opinion that it is
unnecessary or is wrongly named, but MOST people voted against it based
upon the topic of the proposed group. Your's may not have been, but
their's was a matter of censorship.
Want proof? I have it. Several "anti-racist" morons accidentally thought
I was the OPPONENT of the group, and asked me how to vote against it. They
made clear their reasons for voting NO, which had NOTHING to do with
lack of need or namespace.
> You have failed to show that there is a groundswell of support for this
> newsgroup.
We shall see when Mr. Handler posts the results.
> You have refused to answer innumerable requests for PROOF to back your
> claims that this newsgroup is "needed."
No amount of "proof" would be good enough for you.
> That's why I voted NO for your proposal, and that's why I opposed it.
That may be true for you, but MOST people voted against "racism." They
don't even understand your arguments, let alone share them.
Lee S. Bumgarner
> Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote:
> : Milton Kleim <bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
> : > What about a single group?
> : I doubt you'll beat sci.aquaria, but you might. I frankly wouldn't be
> : surprised to see a fair number of forged votes on both sides.
> What about the whole comp.dcom.telecom RFDs/CFVs?
> Those were fun.
I think sci.aquaria is supposed to be the vote with the most suspected
forged votes. It caused a change in the voting rules.
-l
--
firebug
>Milton Kleim (bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>: against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>: group that has had so much opposition.
>
>How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
>
>The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
>adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
>your group.
As much as some people would like to believe otherwise, much of the
opposition to rmw-p is by people who want to "censor the Nazis". The lack of
interest in white power music and the lack of any past discussion of white
power music on Usenet is either secondary or irrelevant to those people.
Milton Kleim
>>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>>> group that has had so much opposition.
>>Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
> The aforementioned Mr. Lawrence cited soc.culture.kashmir and so on.
I watched the soc.culture.kashmir vote, and I didn't see any "Racist
newsgroup proposal alert" type mass mailings. I didn't see any spams to
dozens of newsgroups and mailing lists.
> I have *no idea* what the numbers will look like. I'm starting to think it
Lee S. Bumgarner
> > * David Lawrence says that despite the campaigning from both sides, he
> > does not expect voter turnout to set any records.
Woah, this is getting entirely too surreal. Why would anyone in Real Life
give a crap about this particular net mole hill? I find it interesting how
the press has started to do more stories on Usenet.
Does anybody know how new whatever-you-call'ems on AOL are created? Do
they have a vote system or does Steve Case have to turn on the switch? I
think Usenet has just started to see Eggheads start to take notice of the
poli sci/socialogical (sp) experiment that is Usenet. More than one person
is going to get their doctorate out of poking and proding Usenet culture.
-l
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote:
>> Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
> Why, oh why is this the case? I think us.* is a great, and long over due
> idea.
When it gets into the high NO vote numbers, the voting rarely has much if
anything to do with whether the group is a good idea. As I recall, the
issue with the us.* groups was some bizarre conspiracy theory about gun
control.
Of course, I wasn't paying a tremendous amount of attention at the time;
it was during the period where I wasn't reading news.groups.
Stephanie Smith
bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim) wrote:
> Want proof? I have it. Several "anti-racist" morons accidentally
> thought I was the OPPONENT of the group, and asked me how to vote
> against it. They made clear their reasons for voting NO, which
> had NOTHING to do with lack of need or namespace.
Several anti-racists voting for political reasons = proof that most people
voted no for political reasons? When, presumably, hundreds of people
voted?
Good lord. No wonder you didn't provide traffic numbers -- you can't count.
--
Stephanie Smith ------ st...@wimsey.com ------ mspo...@mtcc.com
"Crossposting, as an issue, is a Feminist red-herring."
-- Peter Zohrab
R. T. Wurth
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Milton Kleim <bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>
>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>> group that has had so much opposition.
>
Or, the (former Yugoslav province of) Macedonia vote that the Greeks
quashed for political reasons with masses of last-minute votes sent
from a host set up for the sole purpose of collecting NO votes.
--
R. T. Wurth / (w) Holmdel, NJ / (h) Rumson, NJ
r...@servo.att.com
esq...@primenet.com
>Modemac (mod...@netcom.com) writes:
>
>> : With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>> : against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>> : group that has had so much opposition.
>
>> How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
>
>> The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
>> adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
>> your group.
>
>You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
>
>I believe the latter is most likely the case. You know damn well that
>most of the opposition has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the alleged
>lack of need or namespace arguments: it has ALL to do with "anti-racism."
>YOU may have voted against it on the grounds of YOUR opinion that it is
>unnecessary or is wrongly named, but MOST people voted against it based
>upon the topic of the proposed group. Your's may not have been, but
>their's was a matter of censorship.
>
>Want proof? I have it. Several "anti-racist" morons accidentally thought
>I was the OPPONENT of the group, and asked me how to vote against it. They
>made clear their reasons for voting NO, which had NOTHING to do with
>lack of need or namespace.
>
>> You have failed to show that there is a groundswell of support for this
>> newsgroup.
>
>We shall see when Mr. Handler posts the results.
>
>> You have refused to answer innumerable requests for PROOF to back your
>> claims that this newsgroup is "needed."
>
>No amount of "proof" would be good enough for you.
>
>> That's why I voted NO for your proposal, and that's why I opposed it.
>
>That may be true for you, but MOST people voted against "racism." They
>don't even understand your arguments, let alone share them.
>
Forget it Milton. while the handful of people in here who voted
against the group may have had better motives than censorship, they
lack the ability to understand that they are not the heart, soul, and
mind of Usenet. Even when I repost material in here which that has
been posted on a daily basis--material which says the poster voted
"no" to silence the white-power aspect of it--the regulars in here
ignore it. They feel that because 10 of them, who are active in here,
voted based upon reason X, _most people_ also voted the same way for
reason X.
They actually believe that if you took 100 people who are active on
the Net, but had never heard of news.groups, more than four of them
would know that a reason to vote "no" is a lack of traffic. Or that
they knew the difference between the Big 1 (alt.*), and the others.
While it would be nice if everyone hung out here for a few weeks, and
became educated, it is more likely that Bob Dole will announce two
days before elections that he has a boy lover aged 13, and they are
engaged.
Brennan Tennesen Price
>: I doubt you'll beat sci.aquaria, but you might. I frankly wouldn't be
>: surprised to see a fair number of forged votes on both sides.
>What about the whole comp.dcom.telecom RFDs/CFVs?
Nothing beats soc.religion.islam.amahdiyya. Imagine getting your first
glimpse of Usenet during that debacle, as I did.
--
"I'm Brennan T. Price, and I'm right, 'cause I'm the ref."
"Those who cry laissez-faire the loudest are precisely those who benefit
most from governmental intervention."--Lester Frank Ward
Carl Thomas
>I think sci.aquaria is supposed to be the vote with the most suspected
>forged votes. It caused a change in the voting rules.
What rules changed because of the sci.aquaria votes?
Rich Graves
impersonating bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>Further, Aryan Corps Counterintelligence reports that several
>infiltrated "multicultural" and leftist mailing lists also had NO vote
>instructions posted.
"Aryan Corps Counterintelligence"? Oh, please, John, this is too much.
Stop joking around. This is even funnier than your "j*w GRAVES" message,
or your ludicrous "surprise" threats. Sure I've said a few things that
appear similar, but the difference is, I was kidding.
For anyone not in the know, "Aryan Corps" is Mr. Kleim's fantasy world
where he and Les Griswold call each other "Combat Information Center"
and such, to do battle with the Usenet Cabal and thre real-life
Jewsmedia. Or so some message posted under Milton's name and saved on
several Neo-Nazi web sites said.
-rich
Jeffrey G. Brown
bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>Modemac (mod...@netcom.com) writes:
>
>> : With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>> : against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>> : group that has had so much opposition.
>
>> How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
>
>> The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
>> adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
>> your group.
>
>You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
For someone who advocates the use of lies, you certainly are quick to get
all huffy about it, Kleim:
> I have not lied about my beliefs, my research, or anything else of
> importance. But I _will_ use harmless deception (an acceptable
> tactic sanctioned by every sane political thinker since Plato) if it
> is to tactical advantage.
-- Milton John Kleim, 1/8/95
Simply put: Milton John Kleim, by his own admission, will lie when he
feels it is to his advantage to do so.
>I believe the latter is most likely the case. You know damn well that
>most of the opposition has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the alleged
>lack of need or namespace arguments: it has ALL to do with "anti-racism."
>YOU may have voted against it on the grounds of YOUR opinion that it is
>unnecessary or is wrongly named, but MOST people voted against it based
>upon the topic of the proposed group. Your's may not have been, but
>their's was a matter of censorship.
>
>Want proof? I have it. Several "anti-racist" morons accidentally thought
>I was the OPPONENT of the group, and asked me how to vote against it. They
>made clear their reasons for voting NO, which had NOTHING to do with
>lack of need or namespace.
"Several... morons" supposedly gave you their reasons, and this is "proof"
that "MOST people" had the same reasons? Mightly flimsy "proof", Kleim. Do
you contend that your sporadic contacts with "morons" constitutes a
scientific survey of some sort?
>> You have failed to show that there is a groundswell of support for this
>> newsgroup.
>
>We shall see when Mr. Handler posts the results.
>
>> You have refused to answer innumerable requests for PROOF to back your
>> claims that this newsgroup is "needed."
>
>No amount of "proof" would be good enough for you.
More of your famous evasion, Kleim. Whining that it wouldn't do any good
doesn't change the fact that you haven't posted the requested proof.
>> That's why I voted NO for your proposal, and that's why I opposed it.
>
>That may be true for you, but MOST people voted against "racism." They
>don't even understand your arguments, let alone share them.
This is your opinion only, Kleim; don't confuse it with any sort of "fact".
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@pol.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Milton Kleim
>> Want proof? I have it. Several "anti-racist" morons accidentally
>> thought I was the OPPONENT of the group, and asked me how to vote
>> against it. They made clear their reasons for voting NO, which
>> had NOTHING to do with lack of need or namespace.
> Several anti-racists voting for political reasons = proof that most people
> voted no for political reasons? When, presumably, hundreds of people
> voted?
No, doofus, I have proof that there was a concerted effort to generate no
votes from people who had no idea what the newsgroup creation process is
about.
These were list moderators, asking me if they should send out instructions
to vote no to their lists. They are a sampling of the type of opposition
we had. Further, Aryan Corps Counterintelligence reports that several
infiltrated "multicultural" and leftist mailing lists also had NO vote
instructions posted. I'd guess that 85% of the people who voted no did so
exclusively on political grounds.
esq...@primenet.com
>In article <4ipjeb$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>
>>Modemac (mod...@netcom.com) writes:
>>
>>> : With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>>> : against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>>> : group that has had so much opposition.
>>
>>> How many times do we have to tell you this, Kleim?
>>
>>> The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
>>> adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
>>> your group.
>>
>>You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
>
>For someone who advocates the use of lies, you certainly are quick to get
>all huffy about it, Kleim:
>
> > I have not lied about my beliefs, my research, or anything else of
> > importance. But I _will_ use harmless deception (an acceptable
> > tactic sanctioned by every sane political thinker since Plato) if it
> > is to tactical advantage.
> -- Milton John Kleim, 1/8/95
>
>Simply put: Milton John Kleim, by his own admission, will lie when he
>feels it is to his advantage to do so.
You need to study your history and political philosophy just a tad bit
more. A "harmless deception" can be anything from a polite "white" lie
(i.e. "I now yield the floor to my esteemed associate..." when you
hate the person's guts.) to allowing another to believe something
which is not correct but another has told them. (i.e. You don't
correct their mis-information on a trivial matter.)
Besides, why are you so huffy over this? The question isn't whether or
not someone will tell a lie when it is to their advantage. (A
redundant point, for sure. How many of us tell lies when it is to our
dis-advantage???) After all, we _all_ tell lies. ("No, honey, I like
your hair that way." or "No, I thought Tom was supposed to get that
done.") The question is whether or not the person has told a lie in
_this_ argument. Can you think of a single lie he has told here? None
spring to mind? Well how about those outlandish numbers he posted on
the traffic on white-power music...
No. Definitely no lies there.
His lies on...
Hmmm....
He hasn't presented anything in here other than opinion and belief...
Ergo--no lies.
And your "admission" he made is a moot point.
Russ Allbery
> What rules changed because of the sci.aquaria votes?
We went to two-thirds majority rather than simple majority.
Joel Rosenberg
Milton "Mortie" Kleim, admitted lazi, admitted liar, sore
loser writes:
>Further, Aryan Corps Counterintelligence
You misspelled "lack of intelligence". Counterintelligence means something
significant, honest; it doesn't mean you and Les Griswold pretending to be
important.
Honest.
Joel Rosenberg | jo...@winternet.com | http://www.winternet.com/~joelr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the
hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the
appalling silence of the good people.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Joel Rosenberg
Never let it be said that Mortie's not a sore loser...
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq
> exclusively on political grounds.
Whereas about 99% of the people voted yes ostensibly for the
non-existent music genre did so on political grounds...
--
Zoli, homo sapiens
Jay Maynard
> Whereas about 99% of the people voted yes ostensibly for the
>non-existent music genre did so on political grounds...
Sorry, but I disagree with this as much as I disagree with the contention
that most NO voters did so for reasons other than objection to racism. I
voted YES specifically in rejection of an organized "vote no!" email
campaign, and I suspect many others did so as well. Further, I also suspect
that many folks voted YES out of a desire to avoid censorship of even
hateful, controversial ideas.
Neither of those are "political grounds" that have anything to do with the
politics of racism, and lumping them in with it does not serve to enlighten.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope?" -- Pinky
"No, Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part." -- The Brain
Richard Charles Graves
>> I'd guess that 85% of the people who voted no did so
>> exclusively on political grounds.
>
>non-existent music genre did so on political grounds...
YOU ARE A CENSOR!!!
USA Today said so, so it must be true. See the "Shiny happy censor" post
on the cpunks list, where some copyright terrorist posted the whole
article. nntp://nntp.hks.net/hks.lists.cypherpunks. I'm too busy with real
work today to post comments now, but I'd guess that the editorial is 85%
inaccurate. It appears they only talked to the proponents.
-rich
Rich Graves
In article <slrn4l3hl0....@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 06:20:56 -0500, "Zoli Fekete, keeper of
>hungarian-faq" <fek...@chi3.bc.edu> wrote:
> > Whereas about 99% of the people voted yes ostensibly for the
> >non-existent music genre did so on political grounds...
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with this as much as I disagree with the contention
> that most NO voters did so for reasons other than objection to racism. I
> voted YES specifically in rejection of an organized "vote no!" email
> campaign, and I suspect many others did so as well. Further, I also
> suspect that many folks voted YES out of a desire to avoid censorship of
> even hateful, controversial ideas.
Yes, those pro-censorship Nazis (never mind Nazi book-burning; today, see
Milton's platform, http://www.natvan.com/WHAT/na2.html#aryan) really had a
field day with this one. I think it would be really ironic if the racists
WON because of such votes from people who think they're idiots.
It could happen. While there are probably more knee-jerk anti-racists on
the net, the knee-jerk anti-censorship libertarians are more motivated and
more intelligent, i.e., more likely to vote successfully.
> Neither of those are "political grounds" that have anything to do with the
> politics of racism, and lumping them in with it does not serve to
> enlighten.
Both of these are political grounds that should have nothing to do with
the group creation process. The questions were, is there a demand for this
group, and is it appropriately placed in the hierarchy? Besides, THE NAZIS
ARE NOT BEING CENSORED. THEY HAVE SEVERAL NEWSGROUPS, MAILING LISTS, AND
HUNDREDS OF WEB PAGES. YOUR KNEE-JERK ANTI-CENSORSHIP REACTION WAS SILLY.
- -rich
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMVJM7Y3DXUbM57SdAQGDRwQAp1Z2fotK0SM4/jNQFrZv+u/+8XRtwZy4
jNYgs6uO0tYByww9hzLv57j13RbdZYXAQ0tkTXepuExY/Ap+Rr36V+EzPo5ZcXoj
2//KY4gpBVEp2EzKlwFdgX6SruWnKVyLxNIoK71YDlmvZOpvY8Pp1ZMVKQ6GOpd0
yFo67yo+BuA=
=5ONu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq
On 21 Mar 1996, Richard Charles Graves wrote:
> YOU ARE A CENSOR!!!
>
> USA Today said so, so it must be true.
The WWW link is <http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/edtwof.htm>.
Since the guest editorial is an opinion piece I guess it's supposed to be
both snappy and one-sided, but it's still pretty amazing how unwashed a
journalist could remain of the issue he's writing about ;-<...
-- Zoli fek...@bc.edu, homo sapiens
Henry van Cleef
>
>Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) writes:
>
>>> With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>>> against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>>> group that has had so much opposition.
>
>
>
--
===================================================================
Hank van Cleef The Union Institute
E-mail vanc...@netcom.com or vanc...@tmn.com
===================================================================
Richard Gadsden
>
> > > http://www.realaudio.com/contentp/npr/nc6m18.html
>
> > > * David Lawrence says that despite the campaigning from both sides, he
> > > does not expect voter turnout to set any records.
>
> Woah, this is getting entirely too surreal. Why would anyone in Real Life
> give a crap about this particular net mole hill? I find it interesting how
> the press has started to do more stories on Usenet.
>
> Does anybody know how new whatever-you-call'ems on AOL are created? Do
> they have a vote system or does Steve Case have to turn on the switch? I
> think Usenet has just started to see Eggheads start to take notice of the
> poli sci/socialogical (sp) experiment that is Usenet. More than one person
> is going to get their doctorate out of poking and proding Usenet culture.
>
What do you think my Ph.D project is?
--
Richard Gadsden C.R.G...@politics.hull.ac.uk
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it" - Voltaire
fri...@uwyo.edu
>jeff_...@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) wrote:
>>In article <4ipjeb$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>>bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>>>
>>>> : With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
>>>> : against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
>>>> : group that has had so much opposition.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The opposition agaionst your proposal comes from the fact that you have
>>>> adamantly refused to provide us with ANY proof that a "need" exists for
>>>> your group.
>>>
>>>You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
>>
>>For someone who advocates the use of lies, you certainly are quick to get
>>all huffy about it, Kleim:
>>
>> > I have not lied about my beliefs, my research, or anything else of
>> > importance. But I _will_ use harmless deception (an acceptable
>> > tactic sanctioned by every sane political thinker since Plato) if it
>> > is to tactical advantage.
>> -- Milton John Kleim, 1/8/95
>>
>>Simply put: Milton John Kleim, by his own admission, will lie when he
>>feels it is to his advantage to do so.
>
>You need to study your history and political philosophy just a tad bit
>more. A "harmless deception" can be anything from a polite "white" lie
>(i.e. "I now yield the floor to my esteemed associate..." when you
>hate the person's guts.) to allowing another to believe something
>which is not correct but another has told them. (i.e. You don't
>correct their mis-information on a trivial matter.)
Since when has any "deception" (refusal to give traffic numbers, etc.)
harmless??
>Besides, why are you so huffy over this? The question isn't whether or
>not someone will tell a lie when it is to their advantage. (A
>redundant point, for sure. How many of us tell lies when it is to our
>dis-advantage???) After all, we _all_ tell lies. ("No, honey, I like
>your hair that way." or "No, I thought Tom was supposed to get that
>done.") The question is whether or not the person has told a lie in
>_this_ argument. Can you think of a single lie he has told here? None
>spring to mind? Well how about those outlandish numbers he posted on
>the traffic on white-power music...
>
>No. Definitely no lies there.
>
>His lies on...
>Hmmm....
>He hasn't presented anything in here other than opinion and belief...
Corrct, but then yet he hasn't presented any FACTS here either. Facts that we
all asked for, to help us to decide whether or not there was a valid NEED for
the group. Opinions and beliefs do NOT constitute PROOF. For example I
BELIEVE that your a stupid ASSHOLE- I have no PROOF of it other than your
assinine posts.
Rich Graves
This amazes you? You obviously haven't been around much.
Anyway, Miltie has resigned from the National Alliance. He hasn't
really been a racist for some time. This was his last troll. A really
good one, I might add. I'm proud to have been a part of it.
--
Rich Graves, Sub-Aryan Corps Uber-Ideologist and Spokesperson
ri...@c2.org, an27...@anon.penet.fi, rcgr...@ix.netcom.com
Founder and President, Institute for Ernst Zundel Revisionism
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
Richard Charles Graves
>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:47:42 -0800, Rich Graves <ri...@c2.org> wrote:
>>In article <slrn4l3hl0....@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
>>jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>>> I voted YES specifically in rejection of an organized "vote no!" email
>>> campaign,
>
>
>>Both of these are political grounds that should have nothing to do with
>>the group creation process.
>
>it's OK to drag anti-censorship into it, too.
You're not disagreeing with me; you're posing a conditional, which as
such is neither true nor false.
1. It is NOT ok to drag "anti-racism" into the process.
2. It is NOT ok to drag "anti-censorship" into the process.
>> The questions were, is there a demand for this
>>group, and is it appropriately placed in the hierarchy?
>
>The demand for the group will be established by the votes it receives. The
>constant calls for traffic counts are hypocritical, since that's not nearly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>a universally raised concern, and there's a fair amount of sentiment that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>low traffic in a newsgroup is a feature, not a bug.
Make up your mind.
>> Besides, THE NAZIS
>>ARE NOT BEING CENSORED. THEY HAVE SEVERAL NEWSGROUPS, MAILING LISTS, AND
>>HUNDREDS OF WEB PAGES. YOUR KNEE-JERK ANTI-CENSORSHIP REACTION WAS SILLY.
>
>1) Please stop shouting.
>2) Please name the newsgroups, especially those where discussion of white
>power music is relevant.
>not wish to wade into the several-hundred-message-per-day flood that is
>rec.music.misc.)
alt.music.white-power, alt.politics.white-power, rec.music.misc,
stormfront-l, and the resistance list.
>(I deliberately make no claims about the existence
>or non- of that genre of music; it's an identifiable genre, which makes it
>relevant to rec.music.*, and I have no trouble at all with someone who does
This is very interesting.
If I proposed rec.music.roseanne-barr, offered no evidence that such a
genre existed, and no evidence that anyone, even me, wanted to discuss
it, and whined that all the opposition was motivated by "censorship,"
would you vote yes?
>3) Opposing censorship is never silly, and the overwhelming majority of
>opposition to the group that I saw as a disinterested observer was based on
>opposition to racism.
San Jose Mercury News, February 8th, front page.
>4) See the part I pointed out at the top of this message? My vote was
>specifically in opposition to a massive "vote no!" email campaign. I take
>it as a matter of principle to ALWAYS vote the other way to such messages
>landing in my mailbox, unless the mail is demonstrably forged.
All such mail that has been posted publicly was demonstrably forged. If
your copy wasn't, please share.
-rich
owner-win...@lists.stanford.edu
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/mailing-lists/win95netbugs/
gopher://quixote.stanford.edu/1m/win95netbugs
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html
Jay Maynard
>In article <slrn4l3hl0....@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
>jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>> I voted YES specifically in rejection of an organized "vote no!" email
>> campaign,
Read this again...it'll be relevant later.
>Both of these are political grounds that should have nothing to do with
>the group creation process.
Sorry, but I must disagree: if it's OK to drag anti-racism into the process,
it's OK to drag anti-censorship into it, too.
> The questions were, is there a demand for this
>group, and is it appropriately placed in the hierarchy?
The demand for the group will be established by the votes it receives. The
constant calls for traffic counts are hypocritical, since that's not nearly
a universally raised concern, and there's a fair amount of sentiment that
low traffic in a newsgroup is a feature, not a bug.
> Besides, THE NAZIS
>ARE NOT BEING CENSORED. THEY HAVE SEVERAL NEWSGROUPS, MAILING LISTS, AND
>HUNDREDS OF WEB PAGES. YOUR KNEE-JERK ANTI-CENSORSHIP REACTION WAS SILLY.
1) Please stop shouting.
2) Please name the newsgroups, especially those where discussion of white
power music is relevant. (I deliberately make no claims about the existence
or non- of that genre of music; it's an identifiable genre, which makes it
relevant to rec.music.*, and I have no trouble at all with someone who does
not wish to wade into the several-hundred-message-per-day flood that is
rec.music.misc.)
3) Opposing censorship is never silly, and the overwhelming majority of
opposition to the group that I saw as a disinterested observer was based on
opposition to racism.
4) See the part I pointed out at the top of this message? My vote was
specifically in opposition to a massive "vote no!" email campaign. I take
it as a matter of principle to ALWAYS vote the other way to such messages
landing in my mailbox, unless the mail is demonstrably forged.
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq
On 21 Mar 1996, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > Whereas about 99% of the people voted yes ostensibly for the
> >non-existent music genre did so on political grounds...
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with this as much as I disagree with the contention
> that most NO voters did so for reasons other than objection to racism.
I didn't mean to seriously go into this game of making up percentages
out of unknown numbers, but apparently you did. So are you postulating
that there are so many PureThinking non-political voters like you out
there that they make up a significant portion besides the hundreds of
political followers counted on by Kleim, on the one hand? And on the
other hand there might not have been many like Russ who just didn't want
to buy publicity sham as valid reason for creating a Usenet group?
> I voted YES specifically in rejection of an organized "vote no!" email
> campaign, and I suspect many others did so as well.
By "organized" do you mean 'forged with ja...@aol.com'? In any case, my
remark was not referring to those who were voting as a reaction against
something, but to those who were voting for the group per se.
> Further, I also suspect
> that many folks voted YES out of a desire to avoid censorship of even
> hateful, controversial ideas.
Ah, like say supressing the science of pet fish ;-(!?
> Neither of those are "political grounds" that have anything to do with the
> politics of racism, and lumping them in with it does not serve to enlighten.
The desire to avoid "censoring" the politics of racism out of rec.music
sounds to me much like having to do with political grounds...
--
Zoli fek...@bc.edu, keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>
<'finger hungarian-...@hix.mit.edu'>
NOTE: spamsters and bulk emailers see 'X-Policy*:' in the
header for the charges to be imposed for net abuse!
KC2: Dudley+ (Grubor+)*2 (Fomin+++)/3 (cjames++)*3
Iatskovski- (Petersen--)/2
SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
Dave Weinstein
: Milton Kleim <bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
: > With all due respect to him, I think he is very mistaken. The campaign
: > against our group is UNPRECEDENTED. I ask Mr. Lawrence to cite another
: > group that has had so much opposition.
: Oh, I think the us.* hierarchy probably has you beat.
Or the soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya flame war, or the whole flame war
about Macedonia, etc etc etc...
(Sigh) They just don't make dweebs like they used to anymore...
--Dave
--
Dave Weinstein olo...@kesmai.com
Kesmai Corporation olo...@newscorp.com
---------------------
Unless otherwise noted, opinions and statements are those of the author alone
Modemac
: 1) Please stop shouting.
: 2) Please name the newsgroups, especially those where discussion of white
: power music is relevant. (I deliberately make no claims about the existence
Alt.music.white-power. Next question, please?
--
Reverend Modemac (mod...@netcom.com)
First Online Church of "Bob" "There is no black and white."
PGP Key Fingerprint: 47 90 41 70 B4 5B 06 90 7B 38 4E 11 8A ED 80 DF
URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/
(FINGER mod...@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!)
Lee S. Bumgarner
After much delay, I FINNALLY got to hear this off of realaudio. Of course,
I feel rather dirty now for having used it, but anyway.
> * Robert Siegel refers to the proponent as "John Kleim." Since when has
> he used his middle name?
> * Milton's affiliations are not mentioned.
> * David Lawrence says that despite the campaigning from both sides, he
> does not expect voter turnout to set any records.
I was shocked how _young_ tale sounds! Also, I wish he would have at least
_tryed_ to explain that Internet ! = Usenet. I mean, NPR people are supposed
to be fairly smart. They should be able to understand a quick explination.
As it is, the discription of Usenet was painfully mangled.
> * Censorship is not an issue; accurate group labeling is.
I wonder if the PEDinator is going to write about this for Time. The new
Ed recently of Pathfinder should let him do it. (I've noticed time has
a LOT more URL's in stories these days.) Tale sounded like he was trying
to choose his words very carefully. He probably knew a lot of Net.Heads
would be listening - eventually. I had NO idea that the India/Packistan(sic)
vote had gone up to 20K! That's amazing!
-l
--
---
----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <------
See also : http://breeze.jmu.edu/ and http://breeze.jmu.edu/curio/
"Out of college, money spent/See no future/pay no rent/"-The Beatles
| REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? |
* Flood'96: http://breeze.jmu.edu/breeze/special/flood96/pic/floodfront.html
Richard Charles Graves
>> * Censorship is not an issue; accurate group labeling is.
>
>I wonder if the PEDinator is going to write about this for Time. The new
>Ed recently of Pathfinder should let him do it. (I've noticed time has
>a LOT more URL's in stories these days.)
Maybe we'll see this in the Netly News.
>Tale sounded like he was trying
>to choose his words very carefully. He probably knew a lot of Net.Heads
>would be listening - eventually. I had NO idea that the India/Packistan(sic)
>vote had gone up to 20K! That's amazing!
Of course he was choosing his words carefully; I was actually surprised
how much he did say. I should note that he didn't actually *say* that
censorship wasn't an issue, but it was pretty implicit.
Michel Fingerhut
>Anyway, Miltie has resigned from the National Alliance. He hasn't
>really been a racist for some time.
He and Beowulf having some mixed blood...
--
WWW: http://www.ircam.fr (IRCAM)
http://www.cnac-gp.fr (Centre Georges-Pompidou)
http://www.videomuseum.fr (Videomuseum)
ftp: ftp.ircam.fr -- tel: +33 1 44 78 48 53 -- fax: +33 1 42 77 29 47
Bruce Baugh
be fraudulent? I'll be surprised if it's less than about half.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian and libertarian concerns hang out
See new SF by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Ken Arromdee
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>When it gets into the high NO vote numbers, the voting rarely has much if
>anything to do with whether the group is a good idea.
I would personally say the same about high YES vote numbers, including both
rec.arts.anime.* and the ultima-dragons group.
Actually, you can generalize that. The vote rarely has much if anything to do
with whether the group is a good idea, period.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"An alien invader has entered our galaxy! It has now entered our universe,
clearing Saturn... radial velocity KMS minus 8. It is now orbiting directly
for Earth." --Bad American Dubbing #2 (quoting ???)
Richard Charles Graves
>Anyone want to place a wager on what fraction of the votes cast prove to
>be fraudulent? I'll be surprised if it's less than about half.
We'd have to agree on the definition of "fraudulent," but I believe I'll
take this. I'll bet that at least 50% of the valid votes (no-bounce,
properly formatted) received at sub-rosa.com cannot be proven to be
fraudulent.
Dana Caro James
In article <4ipjeb$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Milton John Kleim,
bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA joined the discussion by writing...
>You, sir, are a fool. Or a fucking liar.
>I believe the latter is most likely the case. You know damn well that
>most of the opposition has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the
>alleged lack of need or namespace arguments: it has ALL to do with
>"anti-racism." YOU may have voted against it on the grounds of YOUR
>opinion that it is unnecessary or is wrongly named, but MOST people
>voted against it based upon the topic of the proposed group. Your's may
>not have been, but their's was a matter of censorship.
How soon we forget. About a month or so ago there was a long, long
discussion in this very group -- news.groups -- about Why People Vote No
on a proposal. The discussion, which began as a complaint about
excessive "No" voters who have no real interest in the proposals, evolved
into a spirited discussion about revising CFVs. Suggestions were made --
and strongly argued against -- about including "neutral" language in the
CFV to advise voters what NO votes should indicate. The overwhelming
majority of participants in these discussions made it very clear that one
does not need to comply with any idealistic definitions of Yes or No
votes; one may vote No for any reason, just as one may vote Yes for any
reason. That the hierarchy is wrong is one reason for a No vote, that
there's no apparent traffic is another, and so-called "censorship" may be
yet another. There's no precedent to exclude any motivation behind one's
vote.
-Caro
Steve Bonine
>
> Actually, you can generalize that. The vote rarely has much if anything to do
> with whether the group is a good idea, period.
That's nice. So what's your suggestion on how to fix the problem? Or perhaps
you prefer the "system" in alt.
--
Steve Bonine
s...@ntrs.com
Bruce Baugh
"Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq" <fek...@chi3.bc.edu> wrote:
: soc.support.zoophilia ?
s.s.z had a lot of _debate_ here, but a) very little mention anywhere
else and b) if memory serves, the total voting numbers were not huge.
Nor was there any particular suspicion of fraud, as nearly as I can
recall.
Jay Maynard
>Jay Maynard (jmay...@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
>: 2) Please name the newsgroups, especially those where discussion of white
>: power music is relevant. (I deliberately make no claims about the existence
>Alt.music.white-power. Next question, please?
You can do better than that...that group didn't exist when r.m.w-p was being
proposed.
(...and how come I haven't seen you around #watertower lately?)
Modemac
: You can do better than that...that group didn't exist when r.m.w-p was being
: proposed.
Okay, I'll see that and counter it: discussion of "white power" music
didn't exist on the Net when r.m.w-p was being proposed, either.
: (...and how come I haven't seen you around #watertower lately?)
I've been busy on FurryMUCK. :)
Rich Graves
opposition to "Nazis," then I suppose EVEN MORE going to vote no on the
talk.politics.socialism.national that was proposed today, right?
Usenet loves free speech, but prefers honesty, Mr. Kleim.
-rich
proponent, comp.archives.ms-windows.{announce,discuss}
proponent, talk.politics.socialism.national
Rich Graves
jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:58:38 GMT, Modemac <mod...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Okay, I'll see that and counter it: discussion of "white power" music
> >didn't exist on the Net when r.m.w-p was being proposed, either.
>
> Do you know that? How, if so?
DejaNews. AltaVista. First-hand reports from rec.music and alt.music readers.
> Bear in mind that demonstrated traffic is something that's only called for
> in rare cases; calling for it is often hypocritical.
Calling for demonstrated need is done when need is not self-evident and
when it is widely suspected that the RFD is bunk, as was true in this
case. Most RFDs are not bunk, so this is, indeed, rare. For example, I do
not expect anyone to ask for traffic numbers for
comp.archives.ms-windows.*, because the traffic is self-evident and easily
verified by a quick look into comp.archives.msdos.*. It was not easy to
verify, and in fact was never verified or even asserted, that there was a
serious desire to use rec.music.white-power to discuss music. A reasonable
interpretation is that there was no such desire.
-rich
proponent, comp.archives.ms-windows.{announce,discuss}
proponent, talk.policis.socialism.national
http://www.c2.org/~rich/
Jay Maynard
>Okay, I'll see that and counter it: discussion of "white power" music
>didn't exist on the Net when r.m.w-p was being proposed, either.
Do you know that? How, if so?
Bear in mind that demonstrated traffic is something that's only called for
in rare cases; calling for it is often hypocritical.
Bruce Baugh
jmay...@k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) wrote:
:On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:58:38 GMT, Modemac <mod...@netcom.com> wrote:
:>Okay, I'll see that and counter it: discussion of "white power" music
:>didn't exist on the Net when r.m.w-p was being proposed, either.
:
:Do you know that? How, if so?
I assume that I'm not the only one who _went looking_, checking out
newsgroups directly and with Alta Vista and Deja News, and not finding
any. In addition, we had postings from people who take various of the
mailing lists, who also described not finding any.
Further, some of us are very consistent about the traffic question. I
don't bring it up when I have first- or solid second-hand information to
the effect that it's there. And of course I don't bring it up when I'm
not involved in the thread at all. But other than that, I do.