Text 24184, 77 rader
Skriven 2011-12-31 22:04:56 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 24169 av Joe Delahaye (21098.fidonews)
Ärende: florida public records st
=================================
Hello Joe,

 JD>> Obviuosly.  If he ran a mailer or BBS, he would know that <G>

 LL>> You've missed the point entirely.

JD>Perhaps in YOUR mind.

If you do not find "twitting" an individual as being an
insult or personal attack, you *are* deluded.

 >> "Twitting" an individual is an insult or personal attack.  Saying one
 >> has "twitted" an individual is an insult or personal attack.  Even if
 >> that individual has not actually been "twitted".  Encouraging others
 >> to "twit" an individual is an insult or personal attack.

JD>Twitting an individual is not Censorship per se.

Yes, it is.

Not only is "twitting" and individual an insult or personal
attack, but it is also a form of censorship, as well as "character
assassination".

Censorship, as defined by American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition,
is "the act, process, or practice of censoring."  The word "censor"
is defined as "a person authorized to examine books, films, or other
material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally,
politically, or otherwise objectionable."

As you can plainly see, as defined by American Heritage Dictionary,
the act of "twitting" an individual is in fact a form of censorship.

The NAB/Troika censored this echo, in an effort to "twit" certain
individuals.  When that didn't work, they got their stooges to attempt
the same by "twitting" some of those individuals from within.  That
didn't work either, as you found out.

JD>I most cases it simply means that I (meaning myself) do NOT wish
JD>to read the verbiage eminating from the particular individual being
JD>twitted.

It is one thing to "censor" the messages you read.  Everybody does
that, including me.  However, that is not what this discussion is
about.  The "twitting" comments made by those two individuals were
done as insults, or personal attacks.  No other reason.

JD>Censorship would be if I twitted the individual from my message
JD>bases completely and did not pass on his so called drivle to the
JD>rest of my downlinks, and even that is MY choice to make.  P4 does
JD>make privision of sort for that.

Your warped definition of censorship is not shared by everyone.
In fact, I cannot imagine anybody sharing that view.

FidoNet consists of more than one sysop, a community established
to promote communication among sysops and others.  Censorship, and
anything resembling censorship, is not promoting communication but
rather hindering communication.

P4 makes no provision of anything, given that P4 is totally ignored
by the top brass of Z1.  The NAB does what it wants regardless of P4,
so why should you or anybody else care what it says?  For all practical
purposes, P4 is just a goddamned piece of paper.  Kind of like what a
former U.S. President is alleged to have said about the U.S.
Constitution.

 LL>> I am sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand this.

JD>It seems that you are the one lacking.

Even Forrest Gump had better understanding than you.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)