Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> writes:

> aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
>
> > > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > > gays "created and run usenet."
> > ...
> > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> > a new heterosexual beginning.
> >
> > ...  We are here to
> > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.
>
> So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have

Not true. Homos created Fidonet. Tom Jenkins was one. Normal people created
Usenet. (That is, some of the people who created Usenet may well have been
sexually attracted to people of the same sex in real life - I don't have a
problem with that - but none of them were "Usenet faggots" who tried to
suppress free speech). Now the homos, who ruined Fidonet through
censorship and UDP-like wars, are trying to take over Usenet with the same
disasterous results.

> also ruined it thus far.  Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
> trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
> believe], and it seems contradictory.
>
>   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
>     good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
>     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
>     manage to run it well.

Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all
happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom
had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it?

>   * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly
>     is your interest in it?  Why don't you just create an alternate
>     news network.  You can easily do this using software these gay
>     people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you
>     could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news
>     hierarchy.

We were here first. I've been on Usenet for > 10 years, before most of the
scum that's trying to ruin it now. Besides, the homos will try to ruin any
alternative forum they think is used by their "enemies". Look how they've
been flooding the freedom-knights mailing list with shit.

>   * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on
>     the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to
>     fight them in particular?  I mean, what authority do these gay
>     people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need
>     to rip new assholes in them?
>
> I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.

Good question. I'm fighting against _actions that suppress speech - such
as complaints to postmasters that result in plug-pulling; or forged cancels.
If false complaints were universally ignored - cancels junked, postmaster
complaints junked, as they should be, then these actions would be just
speech, therefore not worthy of suppression. I don't want the homos to be
silenced, merely rendered impotent to silence others.