Because it is ... and how much of my archives from that era do you want me to dump into the yahoo groups in order to take the hearsay out of it and prove the dishonesty of it instead ? :)
Actually, I need only do one message (check ozltuae soonish) which will show that it was me who introduced the term "twist and turn" (ala Black Adder's "Twist and Turn like a twisty turny thing") into my replies to various folk in LTUAE before Mark ever arrived there, and he is quite mistaken if he is of the view it was introduced for me or ever a name/tag adopted for me.
I think your term of the "internut" is pissing everybody else.
So I should stop using a term I've been using for a long time and from long before I posted to this forum thread ? Pass. When I first started using that spelling way back when, it was more as a joke as well as an expression of self-deprecation than anything else, but now I see that with every passing day it is becoming quite the apt descriptor ... though still not so bad that I'm willing to count myself out of as yet. :)
The obvious truth is that most of us ARE quite "nutty" when it comes to The Net ... and none moreso than those who take it all far too seriously and become quite the FRZs in relation to it. (FRZ = Fanatical Religous Zealots ... you know, the same kind of folk that with a different cause and means behind them, would fly planes into buildings and think they are doing a Good Thing.)
I'd have thought most would be able to appreciate the quaint efficiency of the term "internut" by now, as well as have adequate reason to refer to The Web as "McWeb" or "McNet" now and then, too.
Your choice whether to use it, fight for it, or lose it.
That's bordering on hysterical nonsense richary, and it is very surprising to see it from you. We're not about to "lose" the "internet" and nor is it something that requires "fighting for". It isn't even under any kind of threat other than the standard noise to signal ratio that all public networks have been lumbered with since rs232 was designed.
You have your beliefs and I respect your right to those beliefs, As long as you don't try to impose them on others.
So by supporting the government's attempts to bring the same law and order you live by/under offline, online, *I* should be deemed to be imposing my beliefs upon you ? Non Sequitur alert ! ;)
I personally agree the "internet" as it is will develop to something outside government or corporate control – eventually.
We're somewhat in tune on that one (btw, I thought that was a good/succint reply you returned to me back in part 5 or 4 of this thread ... went to reply to say so but we had already moved on and replies were not possible) EDIT: Here tis: /forum-replies.cfm?t=1079347&r=17074544#r17074544
But I don't agree that censoring what we can and can't see now will hasten that day.
I really don't get this. There is no clamour going on in the offline world to throw away laws and controls in relation to the many levels of censorship we already have going/generally abide by there, so why this (almost psychotic) resistance to have our online world be brought into line with the same ? Can you see/understand why I deem such a stance to be gross hypocrisy ?
The problem is not what the main government media push is – getting rid of child porn. We all know it won't do that anyway. It is about being able to control what we can and can't see. Sure, I am prepared to give Conroy the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes he is doing the right thing
Sometimes you are far more generous than I, richary. :) On ya.
But once the filter is in place, it is open to abuse by his or a future government.
Absolutely. No disagreement here. And this ISP-Level content filtering that we KNOW is going to fail, won't remain the only attempt of a government to do such a thing either, I reckon.
Yet even if the internut became a total tool of The Government Machine (most unlikely) it still wouldn't mean diddly in terms of censor because quite simply, it just isn't the be all and end all of communications and knowledge/information transfer. Sure, it may currently be one of the fastest versions ... though, having lived in a country town, I reckon gossip travels much faster :)
That is the real argument against this and I wish people would shut up about child porn etc.
Yet it isn't, for the purpose of the proposed filters is to block illegal material, which merely includes what you just mentioned.
Folk are merely trying to make it about something else because they are basically worrying that their free ride to certain things may be coming to an end.
In short, the prime motivation for all the noise is basic selfishness and self-interest.
regarDS
Posts
