SC - Re: Aoife's Complaint

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Stefan li Rous wrote:
> 
> > I have certain standards. One is never allowing myself to be compromised in
> > my defense of the Constitution. What I have personally done is take the
> > posters e-mail address and blocked him/her from being able to post messages
> > to me.  I am surprised that everyone else who feels strongly about the issue
> > did not do so immediately instead of complaining about it and running off to
> > the 'authorities'.
> 
> Ras, this doesn't work for those of us who get this list in digest form. It
> also doesn't keep this individual from going to one of the multitude of
> free email servers and doing it again under an assumed name.

Or, for that matter, using a false IP address and/or bogus reply-to
address, both of which are fairly easy to do if it matters to you.
Another consideration is that it places the burden of doing something
about the problem squarely on the shoulders of the victim. Kind of like
asking the residents of a neighborhood where there's a violent gang
conflict in the area to shell out for bullet-proof vests. How would it
be, instead, if the people doing the reprehensible things ... stopped
doing them? How about, if they're unwilling, making them reconsider? 
> 
> While I hate blocking the list to non-list members, I think this is
> probably the thing to do. A goodly number of the kingdom lists are
> now blocked to non-members. It certainly complicates my posting of my
> monthly Florilegium article to them. I have now arranged for several
> folks on various lists to forward the article for me.

I should point out that Mr. Arson, the founder of the feast, was not
subscribed to the list under the address from which he posted, as of
that time. This is why I find it hard to believe he had any honorable
intentions in posting the material, and, frankly, don't especially care
about his First Amendment rights. It's been claimed the post was not
spam, but a post, and it certainly is unusual for spam in the number of
times it's been posted, i.e. one, but considering the responses
generated, it is pretty clearly not a simple post. At best it's a troll,
and I find utterly fascinating the double standard displayed by many of
us in regard to what constitutes free speech (when we agree with or
otherwise like what's being said) or abuse (when we don't). Of course,
your comments are perpetuating the response to a troll, you are gullibly
falling victim to the scheme of the original postor whom I am not
prepared to admit is doing anything wrong, whereas mine are enlightened
philosophical and political commentary.

I still say we settle this in front of the tube playing The 700 Club, or
whatever it's called now, at Ras's house. I wonder which one of us will
spew first? On that, I'm sure we can agree.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com