From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17: 3:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E3B37B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE8A43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJoqtd002043; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7TJoqQ5002040; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200208290958.g7T9wa110717@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020829124035.V63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? > >> > >> Then you are doomed, even without trolls. Psyches change all the > >> time. You've often heard someone bemoan change, this will be no > >> different. > > > > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead > > of having some jerk push me. > > Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. But isn't the jerk just a part of the dance? > > > > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit > > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" > > to act in self defense. > > It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. But then you state (below): > > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, > > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability > > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of > > closure. > > I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, > somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying > "censor the morons". A rather ironic (read: self-contradictory) sentiment, don't you think? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message