Just say NYET to kneejerking

[pjm@gasco.com (Patrick J. May)]

nzook@math.utexas.edu writes:
 > I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured that I would take some hits,
 > but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...

     I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured people on this
list would assume good faith on the part of other list members until
it was demonstrated otherwise.

     I read your entire post.  You advocate using the government to
force people to behave as you see fit.  I pointed out that the
services you want could be offered without the need for more
legislation.

 > 2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own
 >    children_.  Only.  
 >  
 >    People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones.  Are you not aware
 >    that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be
 >    present in order for certain channels to come through?  That the phone
 >    companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls?  My
 >    idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household
 >    determination of what will be allowed into their homes.

     The cable and telephone companies _offer_ these services.  You
propose mandating what is provided.

 > 3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/
 >    disallow access to falls entirely on the parents.

     And on the Department of Internet Connectivity and Hiding Erotic
Data (DICHED).

 > 4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops
 >    deserve.  

     What's wrong with leaving the sysops free to protect themselves
as they see fit?

Regards,

Patrick May
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              "A contract programmer is always intense."
pjm@gasco.com