Vote against Nazi usegroup
Nathan Culwell-Kanarek
The Nazis have the right to say what they want on the Internet, but we
shouldn't give them their own usegroup!
-----Begin forwarded message-----
This is an important message which requires your urgent attention. This
is NOT a HOAX. Please take it entirely seriously.
A group of neo-nazis are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called
rec.music.white-power, so that they can get their message of hate out to
young people using the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussion areas
on the Internet and their formation requires enough support from the
Internet community.
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS ONE VOTE when it comes to creating a
new Usenet group. I hope you will vote NO and thereby tell these Nazis
you
don't want their stuff on the net. Below is the procedure, please repost
my plea and get the NO vote out. This is my personal opinion. If you
want to see the official call for votes, you can read in news.group or
ask
me for a copy of the notice calling for votes.
Do _not_ vote twice - that would constitute voting fraud.
HOW TO VOTE:
Send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to:
This is an impartial, third-party vote taker.
Do not REPLY to THIS message, if you are trying to vote. Please do not
assume that just replying to this message will work. Check the address
before you mail your vote. Your mail message should contain only one
statement:
I vote NO on rec.music.white-power
I REALLY HOPE YOU VOTE NO!
Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may
mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote
is registered correctly.
Here's what Canada's George Burdi, of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front, had
to
say about this vote, on February 21, on his RESISTANCE mailing list:
"There is a call for votes
coming on rec.music.white-power in the next week
or so, and you will be notified in a special issue of
RREN exactly what to do. FOLLOW THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER. Let me be
perfectly blunt and state that we have more than
enough "net-nazis" to win this thing hands-down.
But every one of you must vote YES! And just
voting yes means nothing unless you do it properly.
So you have been forewarned. The instructions
are coming to your email box soon, and they
are not complicated. Just follow them as told,
and we will have a WP music newsgroup finally!"
If Mr. Burdi's confidence disturbs you, please give this letter the
_widest_ possible distribution, and help us deliver the largest NO vote
in
the history of UseNet.
If you would like more detailed information on why you should vote no,
check out http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca - although it should be noted that
the Nizkor Project has no connection to this personal plea.
Thank you for reading this.
+======================================
| David J Segall a.k.a. Scuttle
| Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
+======================================
If the odds are a million to one against something occuring...
chances are 50-50 it will.
-----End forwarded message-----
Robert
are nearly allways incorrect or outdated.
The vote for the Newsgroup rec.music.white-power ended the 18. of March,
but the count is not yet finished because the votetakers are being
mailbombed with prefilled ballots even several weeks after the vote is
finished.
Using prefilled ballots are considered a scam. If you are genuinly
interested in the creation of new newsgroups you should read the group
news.groups. Then you could have voted against groups like rec.drugs.*
or soc.org.kkk.
Yes, I voted agains rec.music.white-power.
No, I dont spread chainmail.
No, I don't keep sending in votes after the vote is finished.
Robert-
--
*------------------------- rob...@unik.no ---------------------------*
| Robert Lundemo Aas *<[:) [Will make HTML for food.] |
|A ka Robert HTML la pi bel. http://www.unik.no/~robert/ (3.5 mill.acc.)
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
David Casseres
<bern...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
> This is absolutely absurd. OF COURSE they should be allowed to have their own
> newsgroup.
> All four of my grandparents died in Hitler's concentration camps, under a
> regime that censored free speech.
> I vote YES--to this and EVERY other newsgroup that ANYONE EVER wants to have!
> I urge everyone else to oppose censorship on the Internet, whether by the
> vicious censorship inclined Clinton/Gore government or by this self-appointed
> private censors!
> Internet Censorship GOTTA GO!
> NOW!
> We should absolutely not, at this point in time, when free speech on the
> Internet is being opposed by the vicious Clinton/Gore regime, be ourselves
> censoring others. People should be able to talk here about anything they
> want. ANYTHING!
> These private moralistic censors make me MAD! ANGRY! Censors, religious
> fanatics, idiots!
>
> --
> Bernard J. Farber, Chicago Attorney
> bern...@starnetinc.com
> http://home.aol.com/bernfarber
Bernard, I hate to tell you this but you're a horse's ass. If everybody
got every newsgroup they ever wanted the net would come to an instant,
complete, and permanent stop.
This has nothing to do with censorship, it is about allocating a scarce
resource. The net uses a democratic mechanism to decide such questions
and that is what the vote is about.
As for your emotional problem about the current adminsitration, I
recommend that you grow up.
--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Charles Owen
>
> Bernard, I hate to tell you this but you're a horse's ass. If everybody
> got every newsgroup they ever wanted the net would come to an instant,
> complete, and permanent stop.
>
My current .newsrc file has more than 5000 newsgroups listed. I've
heard there are more than 10,000.
The volume of net news is not going to be affected by a new news
group. Most people who might post there would just post somewhere
else, maybe somewhere no so appropriate (like maybe in this group).
The main waste is the newsgroups which don't get any traffic. They
waste name space on servers, but don't have a real use. Heck, my
.newsrc file is 200K, now. Anyway, the Usenet traffic is now tiny
compared to WWW traffic.
> This has nothing to do with censorship, it is about allocating a scarce
> resource. The net uses a democratic mechanism to decide such questions
> and that is what the vote is about.
>
Yes, the net uses a democratic mechanism to decide on new news
groups. But, the purpose of this mechanism is to determine if a
new group is necessary. Many groups exist which get next to no
traffic. This is the waste a vote is trying to prevent. The problem
here is that a campaign was launched against a new newsgroup by
someone who wishes to prevent them from expressing their opinions.
Now, I'll never look at this group, never post to it, and abhore
all it stands for. I'm also opposed to scientology. Should I
spam the net trying to prevent any new scientology newsgroups?
When it comes down to it, a group of people wishes to censor another
group and is going to use democracy to do so and everyone suddenly
seems to think that is okay. Hey, that's why the first amendment
says "make no law". Democracy is not always able to do the right
thing.
What I think is really bad here is the these people spamming the
net including just about every group I read, appropriate or not.
Oh, and to the previous poster who so hated the Clinton/Gore
participation in the recent censorship, I think he better realize
it was a republican congress which passed this bill. It couldn't
have made it through the previous congress.
--
Charles B. Owen
August Helmbright
>In article <316C42...@starnetinc.com>, "Bernard J. Farber"
><bern...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>> This is absolutely absurd. OF COURSE they should be allowed to have their own
>> newsgroup.
>> All four of my grandparents died in Hitler's concentration camps, under a
>> regime that censored free speech.
>> I vote YES--to this and EVERY other newsgroup that ANYONE EVER wants to have!
>> I urge everyone else to oppose censorship on the Internet, whether by the
>> vicious censorship inclined Clinton/Gore government or by this self-appointed
>> private censors!
>> Internet Censorship GOTTA GO!
>> NOW!
>> We should absolutely not, at this point in time, when free speech on the
>> Internet is being opposed by the vicious Clinton/Gore regime, be ourselves
>> censoring others. People should be able to talk here about anything they
>> want. ANYTHING!
>> These private moralistic censors make me MAD! ANGRY! Censors, religious
>> fanatics, idiots!
>>
>> --
>> Bernard J. Farber, Chicago Attorney
>> bern...@starnetinc.com
>> http://home.aol.com/bernfarber
>Bernard, I hate to tell you this but you're a horse's ass. If everybody
>got every newsgroup they ever wanted the net would come to an instant,
>complete, and permanent stop.
>This has nothing to do with censorship, it is about allocating a scarce
>resource. The net uses a democratic mechanism to decide such questions
>and that is what the vote is about.
>As for your emotional problem about the current adminsitration, I
>recommend that you grow up.
>--
>David Casseres
>Exclaimer: Hey!
It should go without saying that when there are a multitude of
newsgroups devoted to binary postings of pornographic images (I of
course expect some flaming from my lack of political correctness in
that the word "pornographic" evidences a value judgement on my part),
that there is either an almost limitless amount of "bandwidth" to
waste.
I can't make any argument from a personal frame of reference like Mr.
Farber did, but I'd just as soon let a few neo-Nazi pinheads have
their newsgroup and exercise my right to not read any of their
nonsense.
Our society is not in danger from letting a few lunatics talk. It is
in danger if we give in to the impulse to shout down or otherwise
attempt to silence everyone we disagree with. Nazi "philisophy" is
sufficiently weak-minded to wither under the light of scrutiny.
August
Kim Dyer
>participation in the recent censorship, I think he better realize
>it was a republican congress which passed this bill. It couldn't
>have made it through the previous congress.
hard to put a gag order on clinics receiving federal funding regarding
certain legal medical procedures they found distasteful. A ruling which
was overturned early in the Clinton administration if I remember correctly.
Clinton signed the CDA stating openly that he expected it to be challenged
and overturned immediately by the court.
Deborah Kapell
>David Casseres wrote:
>Yes, the net uses a democratic mechanism to decide on new news
>groups. But, the purpose of this mechanism is to determine if a
>new group is necessary. Many groups exist which get next to no
>traffic. This is the waste a vote is trying to prevent. The problem
>here is that a campaign was launched against a new newsgroup by
>someone who wishes to prevent them from expressing their opinions.
>Now, I'll never look at this group, never post to it, and abhore
>all it stands for. I'm also opposed to scientology. Should I
>spam the net trying to prevent any new scientology newsgroups?
>When it comes down to it, a group of people wishes to censor another
>group and is going to use democracy to do so and everyone suddenly
>seems to think that is okay. Hey, that's why the first amendment
>says "make no law". Democracy is not always able to do the right
>thing.
Hi-
I really wish that people who make pronouncements about why
people voted 'no' on r.m.w-p had actually read the discussion on
news.groups. There seemed to be at least two distinct reasons-
1) people don't like cybernazi's, and 2) the cybernazi's never proved that
there was a need for the group. Had they printed the numbers of
people who read their many mailing lists, or the numbers who read their
alt. groups, many of us would have been glad to give them their group.
However, they refused, and then threatened to post to all of the
rec.music groups if they don't get their way. I don't like being threatened.
If the cybernazis, or the scientologists, or the martians, or who ever
can prove that there is an audience for a group, then fine. If they
won't live by the rules of the rest of the internet community, then
screw 'em.
Deborah Kapell <><> d...@tink.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MacDonald Matthew P
alt.rocknroll.white.power which would be much easier to have. I don't
think the people in charge are looking as much for forum for discussion
as a chance of legitimizing their race views.
ovni
into the open". There are web pages that offer links to hate web pages
for the sole purpose of exposing. If hate in any form is pushed
underground, even if that's where it belongs, it doesn't solve anything.
Don't resist the demand these people have to publicize their views. If
they really are so horrible, then what lives in the darkness will burn in
the daylight. Censorship is just like gun control, to make a rash
generalization. If someone buys a gun and murders someone, the gun is the
means but not the reason. The gun was how the victim was murdered, but the
murderer had murderous intent. in a similar, if someone hooks onto the
internet and posts something hateful, the internet is the means but not the
reason. The internet was how the hate was spread, bu the poster had a hateful
intent. Although censorship of internet halts this action, as gun control
halts a murder, the murderer still wants to murder and the hater still
wants to hate. Then their desires are expressed in other ways. the
solution is to counter these anti-productive emotions by bringing them
under public and intellectual scrutiny. IMO, let anyone have their
freedom of speech if they obtain it legally. If someone has a desire to
argue against it, so be it. Censorship is the tool of oppressive regimes.
It helps nothing except keeping tired old ideologies in power. Society
must remain dynamic and even though the censoring of something known to
be wrong may be desirable, it is ultimately the wrong solution. Let us
shed ignorance and counter these things with matters of the mind and not
matters of the fist, for it will all be worthwhile in the end, IMO.
--
******************************
* adam *
* w_d...@alcor.concordia.ca *
******************************
George Hawes
<background snipped>
>It should go without saying that when there are a multitude of
>newsgroups devoted to binary postings of pornographic images
Only within the alt heirarchy, which can't be regulated . .
> there is an almost limitless amount of "bandwidth" to waste.
Totally untrue
>I can't make any argument from a personal frame of reference like Mr.
>Farber did,
He didn't. He used an emotive apeal to his background to try to
sustain his particular views - IMHO a rather distasteful action.
>but I'd just as soon let a few neo-Nazi pinheads have
>their newsgroup . . .
>Our society is not in danger from letting a few lunatics talk.
>It is in danger if we give in to the impulse to shout down . . .
Those three points represent something of your view of the world
- but I believe they seriously misrepresent both the extent and
the dangers of racism in the world today. Also, as has been
pointed out many times in this thread, a No vote was not
shouting down anybody, it was simply a personal statement of
believe that such a group should have no place in a decent
society (and neither should the pornographic images . .)
Regards
George
Irene Jackson
> [particular arguments not repeated, but reference made to prior post
>by me, and prior post by another person supporting my views in part, and
>then Mr. Hawes opposed my views]
>
> I said it before and I'll say it again:
> Censorship is bad and wrong. We should oppose censorship everywhere,
>particularly at a time when the government is trying to censor the
>Internet.
> Mr. Hawes essentially said that I made, in part, an emotional
>argument before.
> And that is true. Nothing wrong with emotion.
> I feel very emotional about free speech and censorship.
How can you defend hate "emotionally"...? Seems to me it is someone who
has distanced themselves emotionally who can believe that it is right or
just to allow people to express their utmost hate for others. No matter
what your credentials...
> I mentioned before, and I'll mention again: my four grandparents were
>all murdered in Hitler's concentration camps. So was my older sister.
This, I would assume, would give you even more insight as to what hate
can do. I have not had any family members murdered by Hitler's regime,
although my mother worked in the underground in Denmark, trying to get
the Jews out of that country before the Germans could find them. To have
a whole population in terror of another, how could you even think of
defending a discussion group geared towards more of the same?
So
>I've seen where regimes that engage in censorship and suppression of
>free speech lead to. For that reason, I get very emotional when people
>propose censorship.
People are opposing hate, not censorship. There has to be some way to
speak against it...how else would you propose to do that?
> I say: let anyone post anything they want, anywhere.
> Let everyone have every newsgroup they want, in any hierarchy.
> Let's end all this "voting" and just let people automatically create
>any newsgroup they want and post anything they want to it.
I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada, we DO have laws against hate
literature...is this not the same thing? Hate literature?
> Oppose censorship! Oppose regulation of the Internet. Support free
>speech. It was the Nazis who censored free speech. Let's not be like
>them, and sink to their level.
Being against hate would never be sinking "to their level"...
--
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
George Hawes
>George Hawes wrote:
<background snipped>
> I said it before and I'll say it again:
> Censorship is bad and wrong.
> Mr. Hawes essentially said that I made, in part, an emotional
>argument before.
No, perhaps I failed to make myself clear.
I suggested that your reference to your Grandparents was an
emotive effort to add legitimacy to your views. IMHO that
reference was not used (in any meaningful way) to advance or
contrbute to your argument, which was the essence of my
disagreement with, and distaste for, your reference to them.
Regards
George
George Hawes
been conducting an email correspondance with him - in addition
to the postings. Without (imho) breaking confidentiality of the
mail I can say I find him a strange guy, He is convinced that he
operates without - or outside - any moral code or framework and
thus that considerations of morality can not be applied to him.
I have been trying to find the basis on which he judges between
right and wrong (since he does make such judgements!) but
without success. I enclose a few quotes from him - beleive me,
these are NOT quoted in a way which misrepresents him:
"I wouldn't inject "morality" into a discussion, because I don't
have any beliefs concerning it."
"I believe law (and everything else possible) should be
'divorced from' morality, because I think 'morality'
is a bunch of nonsense, in my humble opinion."
"moral arguments have no personal interest to me, and
I really don't have a personal framework to address them."
"I personally just don't have any beliefs in that area, and
absolutely no interest in the subject."
and finally, in relation to whether or not he would have opposed
the Nazis in the last war:
"I would NOT have based my opposition on 'morality', but rather
on what those Nazi laws were doing to people."
Which, whatever he says, seems to me to be taking a moral
position.
Anyway, I CANNOT fathom these claims - but I thought you would
be interested in the background to his posts.
I found your post interesting and worthwhile, and have much
sympathy with it. I believe that free speech is one of many
competing "human rights" (such as the right to freedom from
intimidation and fear) which society has, in situations like
this, to make difficult choices beteen.
With very good wishes,
George
George Hawes
<article snipped to avoid compounding my offence>
This post was intended to be an email response to the previous
poster, and I am acutely embarrased by having pressed the wrong
button, and not checked my "To" field. Below is the apology I
have emailed to Bernard.
Sorry to anyone else my inappropriate posting may also have
offended.
George
Bernard,
I owe you a grovelling apology for this post, and this is it.
SORRY - this was supposed to be an email resposne and I must
have hit the wrong button. While I reckon you will agree that I
have not misrepresented you, I feel this post was quite
inappropriate for public display, and I am truely sorry for its
appearing in this way.
While I do not claim to understand how you base your decision
making between right and wrong, given your disbelief in
morality, our email correspondance had been interesting and I
have found it challenging. I can only hope that you will accept
this apology
Regards
George
George Hawes
>George Hawes wrote:
>>
>> "Bernard J. Farber" <bern...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
<snipped as this is getting very repetitous>
For the record:
a) I am of the opinion that Bernard failed to establish any
logical link between the views he was expressing and the fate of
his family, I still beleive he has failed to do so.
b) No, my quotes from Bernard to another poster were not
intended as a point scoring exercise, but as an indication of
the "philosophical basis" she was faced with. Which is a large
part of why - although they did not mis-represent Bernard - they
were not appropriate to a posting.
And I do not believe it is a question of not understanding one
another. I belive Bernard twists semantics to restrict argument
to an artificially narrow range within which he feels
comfortable, My contention is that anyone who makes choices,
judgements or whatever between "right" and "wrong" is doing so
by reference to a code of morality. Bernard makes such
judgements - thereore, by his actions, he recognises the
existence of morality - regardless of his claims to the
contrary.
I could expound this at much greater length; suffice it to say
that in some of his comments about songs/performers etc. Bernard
confirms what I have just said.
And sorry for boring all you folks out there! I am sure Bernard
will reply to this post, but IMHO this branch of the thread is
exhausted as a public forum. If anyone wants to continue it by
email that's fine by me.
Regards
George
bb1...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
No way. If you let them have their own group, it would be a GOOD IDEA.
Who cares? Then they can write to people who care. I'm sick of
censorship that doesn't work. Let them have their place in the
sun, and leave me out of it!
Eddie luhrs
Marc Lippman
give them their own group then they'll stop crossposting and polluting
all the other groups. Get the racism out of rec.music and soc.culture
and everywhere else.
--
Marc Lippman
p006...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Robert
The vote for rec.music.white-power was over over a month ago and still
people are spreading postings about it in newsgroups where it don't
belong and they are also spreading chainmail with prefilled ballots.
If anyone is interrested in the creation of new newsgroups they should
read news.groups and discuss the group there after the RFD(Request For
Discussion) and vote within the limited time when the CFV(Call For Votes)
is posted. To vote vithout reading the CFV is considered a scam and so is
spreading prefilled ballots.
If you read news.groups you could have voted against(as i did)
rec.music.white-power and other newsgroups that was far "worse". The
information in chainmail is nearly allways incorrect and outdated and
the chainmails about rec.music.white-power was no exception. Please
_never_ spread chainmail or rely on the information you find in them.
So what was the result of the vote? The result is not finished yet as
the votetakers has been bombarded with prefilled ballots and they are
probably still bombarded with it today over a month after the vote was
over thanks to all the people who keeps spreading the chainmails. I
think this vote will go over in history as the biggest scam ever done
on the net!!!
If you still feel an urge to say something about the creation of
this newsgroup a long time after the RFD and CFV please remark the
followup to news.groups.
Robert-
--
*------------------------- rob...@unik.no ---------------------------*
| Robert Lundemo Aas http://www.unik.no/~robert/ (3.5 mill.acc.) |
| What would you do if Israel occupied your country too? |
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*