offensive emails
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: (Usual) request to change subject - for "thread drift"
Next: Mainframe Express Drag and Drop S0D3 abends after z/OS maintenance
From: Pete Dashwood on 25 Jun 2010 20:53 Alistair wrote: > On Jun 25, 5:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Alistair wrote: >> >>> There are limits to free speech. >> >> Not for me. >> >> There we have to differ. I see it as sacrosanct. As long as speech >> is free and it is safe for people to speak their minds, we can know >> what is in those minds and we can deal with it. It is only words. >> Grown ups can deal with words. It is when we seek to stop the words >> that the world goes to Hell in a handcart. >> > > My limit is where libel and/or slander step in. > >> Let's say you are successful and close him down. (It obviously won't >> change his mind about anything.) >> > > He'll just move on to another vulnerable server. > > According to Netregistry this problem occured some years ago and they > provided the server admin with advice on how to clear it down at that > time. They think that this occurrence is down to a spoofed email > address and they will check with Google direct. > >> How long will it be before someone decides to close YOU down...? > > Probably later his year. > >> >> Who will be next? Who decides what can and can't be said? > > The government and the server providers. > >> >> If someone tells lies about you, you can refute it. If someone >> abuses you, you can deal with it. But not if you are gagged. >> >> Words can be hurtful, but only if you let them be. > > Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains merely > excite me..... ;-) > >> I see the tirade from >> this person and the bitterness and hatred and I see a person >> consumed by demons of their own making. Serves them right. >> >> It isn't my place to judge or proscribe anybody. >> >> Don't like what he says? Kill his mail. > > Are you advocating moderating this newsgroup? Rhetorical question; I > already know your answer. I guess I should state again that the opinions expressed are purely personal ones. I feel very strongly about the right to free speech, to the point where I will tolerate the down side of it. I wouldn't expect everyone else to necessarily agree with this point of view. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 25 Jun 2010 21:04 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Alistair > <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> There we have to differ. I see it as sacrosanct. As long as speech >>> is free and it is safe for people to speak their minds, we can know >>> what is in those minds and we can deal with it. It is only words. >>> Grown ups can deal with words. It is when we seek to stop the words >>> that the world goes to Hell in a handcart. >>> >> >> My limit is where libel and/or slander step in. > > I suppose most of us have several limits. What I would say around my > grandchildren is different than what I would say in private around my > wife. And what I will tolerate people saying around my grandchildren > and in private with my wife are also variable. > > Even in government - I understand fully President Obama's firing of a > general who is less than circumspect when talking with a reporter for > the record. > > And while I have little respect for the concept of treason, putting > one's mates in danger via a loose tongue breaks a limit for me. > > The limits I put on my speech are much more strict than those I put on > others. After all, I am responsible for me, and there aren't many > cases where others would cause harm to my family by what they say. A > post in this forum isn't going to get a grandkid to do something > dangerous. Good sound commonsense points, Howard. While I advocate the right to free speech, I agree that this right brings responsibility, just like most rights and priveleges. I wouldn't personally abuse it, but I don't think the fact that someone else does, means the right should be withdrawn. Rather, I would use my right to respond in a way which would do as much as possible to neutralize said abuse. Sometimes people rant without even considering the consequences of their actions, sometimes it is just a safety valve that releases their own negativity and "gets it off their chest". Whatever the reasons, my point was that I'd rather have some disturbed person spouting invective than have them flying aeroplanes into buildings... Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 28 Jun 2010 13:19 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:53:35 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >I guess I should state again that the opinions expressed are purely personal >ones. I feel very strongly about the right to free speech, to the point >where I will tolerate the down side of it. I wouldn't expect everyone else >to necessarily agree with this point of view. Lots of people seem to advocate free speech as long as it agrees with their views. Which isn't free speech at all. Or free economy when it helps them. Or redefine "socialism" to mean "that part of government that I don't like", or worse "that part of government that doesn't help me", or even worse "that part of government that helps the wrong kind of people". Either a right applies to all, or it's not a right at all. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 28 Jun 2010 14:07 In article <k8mh26tb5g62mhvnadjctmvjun2r8dnt73(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: [snip] >Either a right applies to all, or it's not a right at all. Didn't someone once say 'Freedom of the press applies to everyone who owns one'? DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 29 Jun 2010 08:27
Howard Brazee wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:53:35 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> I guess I should state again that the opinions expressed are purely >> personal ones. I feel very strongly about the right to free speech, >> to the point where I will tolerate the down side of it. I wouldn't >> expect everyone else to necessarily agree with this point of view. > > Lots of people seem to advocate free speech as long as it agrees with > their views. Which isn't free speech at all. Agreed. I sincerely hope you weren't aiming this at me, Howard :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |