From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:02:47 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970214053042.31811B-100000@dhp.com>
Message-ID: <19970215060243.25796.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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
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.

  * 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.

  * 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.