Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: nygdan@yahoo.com (R.Schenck)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: What an arrogant buffoon!
Date: 5 Jan 2004 13:37:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <198d0a68.0401051337.2236ccf2@posting.google.com>
References: <pan.2004.01.03.16.43.43.173594@il.huh> <bt783e$66t$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <pan.2004.01.03.21.47.48.650648@il.huh> <bt7o30$e7p$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <198d0a68.0401040031.53a30155@posting.google.com> <vvfkm7b0lkcla2@corp.supernews.com> <bt9tic$ai2$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <198d0a68.0401041905.8c3351f@posting.google.com> <btb59h$66a$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.208.6.35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073338642 29825 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2004 21:37:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 21:37:22 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1694
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<btb59h$66a$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> Uzytkownik "R.Schenck" <nygdan@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:198d0a68.0401041905.8c3351f@posting.google.com...
> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bt9tic$ai2$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > Uzytkownik "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> napisal w
> > > wiadomosci news:vvfkm7b0lkcla2@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > R.Schenck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bt7o30$e7p$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > > >
> > > > >>Uzytkownik "Mark K. Bilbo" <noem@il.huh> napisal w wiadomosci
> > > > >>news:pan.2004.01.03.21.47.48.650648@il.huh...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>And so upon Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:11:33 +0100 didst Uncle Davey speak
> > > > >>>thusly:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>He knows that very well, but the FAQ is a volutary guideline as to
> what
> > > > >>
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>founder is hoping to achieve.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>He has repeated often enough that you can't moderate here, and
> he's
> > > > >>
> > > > >> getting
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>in the neck for having an anything goes environment by the
> brothers
> over
> > > > >>>>there who want more of a monastery environment, even though they
> came
> > > > >>
> > > > >> along
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>to something Jason bothered to set up and have him to thank for
> that
> > > > >>>>particular place.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>He's getting it in the neck from brethren for being too much one
> way,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>from your lot for the opposite. You can't please everybody, that's
> for
> > > > >>
> > > > >> sure.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>Your calling him an arrogant buffoon without full possession of
> the
> > > > >>
> > > > >> facts
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>does nothing but undermine your personal credibility.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Speaking of which, you obviously are clueless about the functioning
> of
> > > > >>>Usenet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I live and learn.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>In order:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>FAQs and charters are enforceable in many cases having been
> incorporated
> > > > >>>in the terms of service of many (most really) providers. Repeat
> offenders
> > > > >>>can (and have had) their accounts restricted or terminated.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>About him "getting it in the neck," who gives a flip? This is not
> only
> > > > >>>irrelevant to Usenet governance but just plain silly. The creation
> of a
> > > > >>>newsgroup in a hierarchy such as this "costs" a small post to
> > > > >>>free.control. It's not some big effort.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>I am in full possession of the charter/FAQ of the free.* hierarchy.
> None
> > > > >>>of the other things you mention are relevant to the issue. The
> facts
> are
> > > > >>>the free.* hierarchy was chartered to be sans content restrictions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Period.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Gastrich's FAQ is invalid and, in itself, in violation of the
> hierarchy's
> > > > >>>charter.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Should he or any one else attempt any enforcement action (and, yes,
> > > > >>>Virginia, there is such a thing) I'll volunteer to go to bat with
> them
> > > > >>>*against Gastrich's attempt to impose rules where he has no
> authority
> > > > >>>under the charter to do so.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You have set yourself up a strawman for a windmill to tilt at. Jason
> knows
> > > > >>he cannot enforce anything, and what he does is use his killfile.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>That's his choice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Myself, in six or seven years of usenetting, I've never needed one.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Neither have I done any petty netkopping, although I will happily
> work
> with
> > > > >>law enforcement if need be on extreme offenses like child
> pornography,
> > > > >>terrorism or holocaust denial.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > i had asked this in another thread, and i see ity brought up agian.
> > > > > since when is holocaust denial illeagal? i agree that its assinine,
> > > > > wrong, and motivated by, well, the lowest motivations, but since
> when
> > > > > is it illeagel? also, you had alleged that the isreali gov and
> secret
> > > > > service would be interested. now, i know that they were able to
> > > > > capture nazi escapees after the war, and to their credit. but i
> dont
> > > > > think holocaust denial is anymore illeagal in the united states than
> > > > > it is in isreal. not that i claim to know much about isreali law.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Davey seems to be posting from Poland. That may make a
> > > > difference. He also sounds like he has Jewish contacts, and
> > > > appears to be properly opposed to anti-Semitism on those grounds,
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > > Tom McDonald
> > > >
> > >
> > > Holocaust denial is against German, French, British, Canadian, and
> > > Australian law, among many others.
> > >
> > > Ken McVey, a non-Jewish American, is the mainstay of the anti
> revisionist
> > > movement and anybody could be proud to be an American looking at his
> work.
> > >
> > > It is likely to be EU wide law.
> > >
> > > Further reading from the Stockholm forum:
> > >
> http://2001.stockholmforum.se/se/stats/semrapport/seminar_report_Legislation2b.pdf
> > >
> > > The Swedes, which is what Roadrunner's .se account signifies, have had
> more
> > > than their share of revisionists. They are a very Aryan-minded country
> which
> > > also assisted Germany in the war, but were never humbled as Germany was.
> > > Swedish people and other Scandinavian countries such as Demark harbour a
> lot
> > > of Neo-Nazis, probably more than Germany these days. Think of that when
> you
> > > next buy IKEA furniture.
> > >
> > > That's on top of the taste argument, of course.
> > >
> > > Uncle Davey
> >
> >
> >
> > is it illegal in isreal as well? its not perhaps too crazy to think
> > it could not be. holocaust denial practically goes hand in hand with
> > nazism, and it seems like they are outlawing it as much as an attempt
> > to route out nazis before they get started in those countries named
> > above, especially germany. but i dont think there is much chance of a
> > nazi-like movement hold much sway in isreal. if they dont have it
> > there then that might confirm my suggestion as to why its illegal in
> > the above countries.
>
> I would have thought you wouldn't even need that law in Israel, that if
> someone started up with that over there they wouldn't get out of the room to
> worry about whether it was illegal or not.
>
> And rightly so.
>
> Uncle Davey
i would think so. its just that you were refering specifically to the
israeli embassy and israeli sercret service. i gather from this that
its not illeagal there, nor does it need be, since its illegal enough
in the countries in question. i dont understand how these holocaust
deniers get away with it as much as they do then either! seems like in
order to be a denier you'd have to go to germany at least. oh wait,
that would only be on the assumption that they do actual -research-
and make -hypotheses-. fergot who, or what rather, we were talking
about for a sec.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|