From: anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 19:11:58 PDT
To: talk.politics.guns.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: [ANON] War in rec.guns Winds Down, All Parties Lose
Message-ID: <199405170152.AA27423@xtropia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[[Reply-To: john.nieder@tigerteam.org]]

 -=> Quoting Dputzolu@cs.uiuc.edu to John Nieder <=-

 Dp> | I mean, think about it:  Would you be polite to Charles Schumer?

 Dp> I understand completely, and was frustrated about the lack of
 Dp> thoughtful response. However, by posting in a flame tone you did give
 Dp> the moderator an excuse to (assuming he was) censor your post.

Well, look at it this way.  After having several buttheads stamp on your
big toe, you're throbbing sore and about ready to kill the next guy who
does it.  Anti-gun net administrators on another network used obscure
and broadly-ignored rules, particularly a dusty "real names only" policy
to kill off the best gun forum I've ever seen.  Jeff Chan then listened
to a couple of really messed up anti-anon people and unilaterally banned
remailed posts on ca-firearms@shell.portal.com without valid reasons or
discussion (note from my previous cross-posts that he STILL won't
discuss it to this day).  Now this "Magnum" person, for completely
illogical and uninformed reasons is doing the same goddam thing on
rec.guns, in spite of the fact that I have pointed out the specific
fallacies in the anti-anon argument.  This is like talking to Sarah
Brady about bogus HCI anti-gun claims.  I mean, _deja vu_!

 |  Dp> However, you have made quite an accusation. I did see at least
 |  Dp> a few posts arguing the pro-anon side (including mine).

 Dp> | Obviously, he excluded _mine_, and admitted it.

 Dp> Right, but he has reasonable reasons for this. If he doesn't for
 Dp> the other ones, then...

There's _always_ a good reason to exclude something you don't want
anyone to hear.  You show that the Greifer post eventually appeared, but
did it do so AFTER the "Closure on [ANON]" post?  If so, it was likely
retrieved and stuck in AFTER I started raising hell about it.  I got
that post some time ago.  I didn't see the Vetleson post in any case,
and certainly none of the short, supporting pro-anon messages that I got
that were Cc:ed to the group.  If "Magnum" says that his anti-anon
position was overwhelmingly supported (despite the fact it was based on
erroneous propositions) we only have his word for it, as he filters all
messages to the group before we see them.

In the first couple of days after my post, I received twelve netmail
posts (most, perhaps all, showing headers indicating they were also
posted to the group), eight of which supported my pro-anon post, two of
which were illiterate anti-anon blasts of one or two lines, and the
remaining one was upset at the angry tone of the post.  The later mail
was about in the same proportion.  Only _one_ anti-anon post questioned
a single of my assertions, and that was on a technical point about which
the respondent was in error (I will post my response to him after I'm
done with this message).

Is this "overwhelming" anti-anon support?  I think not.  A very heavy
majority who wrote to me supported remailer use, and we are told that
people are more likely to write to bitch than to agree on any given
issue.  Maybe the posts to "Magnum," whoever he is, were completely
anti-anon, but it just doesn't seem plausible to me.  I'm sure at this
point it's too late to know, but it's established that he didn't show us
_every_ message that came in, but merely an edited "digest."

If he's the moderator, he can obviously do whatever he pleases, no
matter if it's the usual capricious and petty nonsense we've all come to
expect from the sort of people who tend to become moderators.  What bugs
me is this charade of consensus...which even if it did exist would be in
favor of a demonstrably flawed policy that should be rejected on the
basis of objective criteria anyway.

 Dp> You'll notice that all anti-anon responses were
 Dp> either butt-kissing | "me-too" posts of moderator adulation, or else
 Dp> completely ignored the | arguments in my post.

 Dp> I know, I know. I hoped rec.guns would have a few more free-thinkers,
 Dp> but it seems most don't see past the end of their muzzle.

[Sigh!] This is another subject, but one that ought to be addressed at
some point in an appropriate venue.  I am _really_ distressed at the
intellectual insularity of the RTKBA crowd who are, as a group, probably
the squarest bunch of anal-retentive old ladies I've ever had the
misfortune to be allied with.  Their political unsophistication,
narrowness and conceptual introversion drives me nuts.  They also have
this infuriating timidity about yelling when stepped on.  Note the
collective reaction (and yours) when I did.

 Dp> This may be true, but rec.guns has its own rules. Just because someone
 Dp> makes the superior arguments doesn't mean they win the debate. That's
 Dp> life.

No kidding.

 Dp> On the other hand, IF consent was engineered, that isn't fair
 Dp> play, and can and should be acted on.

"Fair play" is nothing but a quaint irrelevancy in 1994.  Anyone in
serious RTKBA lobbying discovers that in a BIG hurry.  If fair play
mattered, none of these anti-gun bills would have got past committee.

Anyway, there's no way that we can "prove" what the input was at this
late date.  All this mail is ephemeral and gone by now, I'm sure.  If
"Magnum" fiddled the outcome, as I suspect he did to one degree or
another, I don't even really care any more.  The wrongheaded policy is
passed, just like the recent wrongheaded gun laws, and that's _that_.

I see that the moderator (whose comments indicate he _still_ doesn't
understand the mechanics of remailers or the point of their use) has
essentially told Greifer in this belated entry, "My mind is made up,
don't confuse me with facts."

The abusive and plainly stupid no-anon policy has made rec.guns lots of
new enemies and accomplished nothing else of substance.  I've dropped
rec.guns as a waste of my time and an insult to common sense.  If
anything useful at all has come out of this, it's that more and more
people are getting fed up with the insularity, intellectual dishonesty
and hidebound mindset prevailing in these traditional gun forums.
Alternative venues are sorely needed.

I think we're going to see them established soon.  Stay tuned.

|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| <john.nieder@tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
|"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude |
|   better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in   |
|  peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the |
| hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may |
|posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."  --  Samuel Adams, 1776|
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|