Posted to: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/minister_tanners_welcome
See: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html for more on "GetUp!"
"If not ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) then something needs to be done (and is well over-due) in terms of making the internut/McNet/McWeb we currently have a better place for one and all to use as well as set it in the direction of being something that is more of a benefit to the ongoing development of our society and culture than the ever increasing demeaning and putrid negative it currently is.
My advice to the government is to ignore the pathetic and self-indulgent bleatings of the selfish Oz minority who are worried about being cut off from their chosen poisons and the feeds they use to steal intellectual property by, and instead continue to consider the wishes of the businesses being robbed left right and centre by the likes of that aforementioned bleating selfish minority, as too the wishes of the Oz majority who want a safe virtual backyard for their kids to play in.
That the likes of the putrid lefty "GetUp!" lobbying group have now chosen to now align themselves with this latest public fad topic (no doubt in order to fleece a new breed of sheep then redirect conned, uh, donated funds to their more extreme lefty agendas where-ever possible) is one of the best indications that the likes of ILCF is not only well justified but also well overdue.
Why ? Well since when did the likes of GetUp! ever get involved in supporting what is actually Good and Right for Australia ?
regarDS
http://derblatz.blogspot.com"
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt16
Firstly, those who've been busy putting money on "derspatz" being anyone else in here other than "derspatz" and for a brief moment "derspatz13" early on in the piece (before requesting that ID be deleted as I'd finally remembered my password to my former account created years ago) please donate your losses to the "Royal Flying Doctor Service" ... where it might actually do some Real World Good rather than sponsor the evil lefty agendas of "GetUp!". I'm too narcissistic to hide behind aliases ;)
Anyway, too slow and quiet by half in here ATM, so here is something to cheer the regulars up.
Quotes from "Prune", the 2008 "ISP Level Content Filtering" initiative directed by Senator Conroy, based on the novel Dune by Frank Herbert.
Cast:
Princess Irulan: Bernadete McMenamin
Paul Atreides/Muad'Dib/Usul: Senator Conroy
Chani: Senator Conroy's wife.
Duke Atreides: KRudd.
Alia Atreides: Hetty Johnston
Gurney & Stilgar: Loyal Conroy and/or ILCF Supporters
Guildsmen: ISP Representatives speaking for themselves, and Whirlpool Mods.
Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: Org'asmo
Bene Gesseret Reverend Mother: derspatz in drag after a very bad haircut.
"The beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 2008. The Known World Wide Web is ruled by the Protocul TCP IPvIV. In this time, the most precious substance in the WWW is the packet data "pr0n". The pr0n corrupts life, the pr0n perverts consciousness, the pr0n is vital to the profits of Internut Service Providers. The Internutting Guild and its representatives and high-bandwidth customers, who the pr0n has mutated over 20 years, use the fleshy coloured pr0n pixels, which gives them the ability to bond across space. That is, to virtually fornicate with anyone else on the web without actually moving. Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you. The pr0n exists in packets throughout the entire web, a dangerous child unfriendly desert with vast potential to bring harm to one and all. Hidden away within the addresses of this desert are a people known as the Freemen, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The task is called "ILCF", also known as "Prune" - Princess Irulan
"It is by will alone I set my hand in motion. It is by the packets of "unwanted" that hands acquire speed, my pants acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my hand in motion." - The Late Night Solitary User Mantra, (played by The Plugged In, all over Oz)
"Some URLs have a certain smell ..." - Paul Atreides
"FIIIILLL-TAAR!" - Shouted by supporters of ILCF in attack mode.
"Send a third stage GetUp! Advertiser to google to demand details from the Governet. The pr0n must flow..." - a pr0n warped/changed member of the Internutting Guild, from a special report within the Guild, speaking on his own behalf.
"The Bene Gesserit witch must leave." - a Guildsman says that the Truthsayer has to leave the forum.
"when the storm hits... set off the atomics. I want an opening through the entire Shield Wall. Stilgar, do we have wormsign? Stilgar: Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen." (Storm = "Holiday Season when no one is around, Atomics = ILCF, Wormsign = "pr0n to be pruned by ILCF")
"You suggest the son of the Duke is an animal?
Let us say I suggest you may be human." - from a conversation between Paul and the Reverend Mother.
"We Freemen have a saying: God created Prune to train the faithful. One cannot go against the word of God." - Muad'Dib.
"Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work." - Gurney
"Father... father, the sleeper has awakened!" - Senator Conroy commenting to KRudd how GetUp! have chosen to attached themselves to this latest publicity related fad-concern so that they can fleece the naive of funds so that their more extreme left-wing goals can be further supported and promoted. As described at:
http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.
"talk without rhythm and you won't attract the worm." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.
"Tell me of your homeworld, Usul." - Chani, wondering what she has married :)
"We foresee a slight problem. The Duke's son. We want him killed. I did not say this. I am not here." - Guildsman speaking for himself.
"I'll miss the 747s, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - KRudd commenting to Conroy what it may be like to be a single term government (we can all only hope so. And there you have another aspect of derspatz pragmatism. Heh.)
"I will have Prune back for myself! He who controls the pr0n controls the Web ..." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
"The pr0n must flow." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
"Long live the filters !" - Muad'Dib/Conroy
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." - Muad'Dib/Conroy, speaking of the internut.
"And how can this be? For he is the ersatz spatzattack!" - Alia Atreides talking of Paul.
regarDS
Anyway, too slow and quiet by half in here ATM, so here is something to cheer the regulars up.
Quotes from "Prune", the 2008 "ISP Level Content Filtering" initiative directed by Senator Conroy, based on the novel Dune by Frank Herbert.
Cast:
Princess Irulan: Bernadete McMenamin
Paul Atreides/Muad'Dib/Usul: Senator Conroy
Chani: Senator Conroy's wife.
Duke Atreides: KRudd.
Alia Atreides: Hetty Johnston
Gurney & Stilgar: Loyal Conroy and/or ILCF Supporters
Guildsmen: ISP Representatives speaking for themselves, and Whirlpool Mods.
Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: Org'asmo
Bene Gesseret Reverend Mother: derspatz in drag after a very bad haircut.
"The beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 2008. The Known World Wide Web is ruled by the Protocul TCP IPvIV. In this time, the most precious substance in the WWW is the packet data "pr0n". The pr0n corrupts life, the pr0n perverts consciousness, the pr0n is vital to the profits of Internut Service Providers. The Internutting Guild and its representatives and high-bandwidth customers, who the pr0n has mutated over 20 years, use the fleshy coloured pr0n pixels, which gives them the ability to bond across space. That is, to virtually fornicate with anyone else on the web without actually moving. Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you. The pr0n exists in packets throughout the entire web, a dangerous child unfriendly desert with vast potential to bring harm to one and all. Hidden away within the addresses of this desert are a people known as the Freemen, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The task is called "ILCF", also known as "Prune" - Princess Irulan
"It is by will alone I set my hand in motion. It is by the packets of "unwanted" that hands acquire speed, my pants acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my hand in motion." - The Late Night Solitary User Mantra, (played by The Plugged In, all over Oz)
"Some URLs have a certain smell ..." - Paul Atreides
"FIIIILLL-TAAR!" - Shouted by supporters of ILCF in attack mode.
"Send a third stage GetUp! Advertiser to google to demand details from the Governet. The pr0n must flow..." - a pr0n warped/changed member of the Internutting Guild, from a special report within the Guild, speaking on his own behalf.
"The Bene Gesserit witch must leave." - a Guildsman says that the Truthsayer has to leave the forum.
"when the storm hits... set off the atomics. I want an opening through the entire Shield Wall. Stilgar, do we have wormsign? Stilgar: Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen." (Storm = "Holiday Season when no one is around, Atomics = ILCF, Wormsign = "pr0n to be pruned by ILCF")
"You suggest the son of the Duke is an animal?
Let us say I suggest you may be human." - from a conversation between Paul and the Reverend Mother.
"We Freemen have a saying: God created Prune to train the faithful. One cannot go against the word of God." - Muad'Dib.
"Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work." - Gurney
"Father... father, the sleeper has awakened!" - Senator Conroy commenting to KRudd how GetUp! have chosen to attached themselves to this latest publicity related fad-concern so that they can fleece the naive of funds so that their more extreme left-wing goals can be further supported and promoted. As described at:
http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.
"talk without rhythm and you won't attract the worm." - Senator Conroy during Parliment Question Time.
"Tell me of your homeworld, Usul." - Chani, wondering what she has married :)
"We foresee a slight problem. The Duke's son. We want him killed. I did not say this. I am not here." - Guildsman speaking for himself.
"I'll miss the 747s, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - KRudd commenting to Conroy what it may be like to be a single term government (we can all only hope so. And there you have another aspect of derspatz pragmatism. Heh.)
"I will have Prune back for myself! He who controls the pr0n controls the Web ..." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
"The pr0n must flow." - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
"Long live the filters !" - Muad'Dib/Conroy
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." - Muad'Dib/Conroy, speaking of the internut.
"And how can this be? For he is the ersatz spatzattack!" - Alia Atreides talking of Paul.
regarDS
Posted here in response to - ILCF pt15 @ WP
"Why should these parents who are, by your admission, unable to protect their children by monitoring their internet use, be allowed to be in posession of alcohol, deadly household chemicals, deadly weapons (cars), matches and lighters which can cause fires and sharp knives and instruments which can maim or kill?"
A question from a user call "Non Sequitur" choosing to example just why that particular user name was chosen, and who is still yet to realise the folly of its repetitious asking of an obviously foolish question.
Hmmmm, should I apply Proverbs 26:4, or 26:5 in this case ?
Oh well, its troll has now received the attention it so desired and its folly is now further exampled for a greater audience to judge.
A case of "careful what you wish for ..." ?
regarDS
A question from a user call "Non Sequitur" choosing to example just why that particular user name was chosen, and who is still yet to realise the folly of its repetitious asking of an obviously foolish question.
Hmmmm, should I apply Proverbs 26:4, or 26:5 in this case ?
Oh well, its troll has now received the attention it so desired and its folly is now further exampled for a greater audience to judge.
A case of "careful what you wish for ..." ?
regarDS
Thursday, December 04, 2008
So Long And Thanks For All The Fish ...
Taking a break.
Visit http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html should you ever miss me and/or need a bit of annoying. :)
regarDS
Visit http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-up-stand-up-getup-for-your-lefts.html should you ever miss me and/or need a bit of annoying. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Eeeek, this thread seems to have gone mad. Anti-"religion" oozing out of every other keyboard and pore and to compound that (on the subject of poor), we've now apparently got money being thrown at a new hopeless cause.
Which, come to think of it, is somewhat ironic considering the charge being levelled at ILCF being an alleged waste of money !
Oh well. Prolly silly to be part of this topic ATM – maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a little more sensible.
To paraphrase one Captain Oates, "I am just going offline and may be some time."
regarDS
Which, come to think of it, is somewhat ironic considering the charge being levelled at ILCF being an alleged waste of money !
Oh well. Prolly silly to be part of this topic ATM – maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a little more sensible.
To paraphrase one Captain Oates, "I am just going offline and may be some time."
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Thought some might find this interesting re: Internet control in the UAE. From wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
SOQ
"Etisalat, the government owned telecommunications provider, held a virtual monopoly over telecommunication services in Dubai prior to the establishment of other, smaller telecommunications companies such as Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company (EITC — better known as Du) in 2006. Internet was introduced into the UAE (and therefore Dubai) in 1995. The current network is supported by a bandwidth of 6 GB, with 50,000 dialup and 150,000 broadband ports. Dubai houses two of four DNS data centers in the country (DXBNIC1, DXBNIC2)[90]. Internet content is regulated in Dubai. Etisalat uses a proxy server to filter internet content that is deemed to be inconsistent with the values of the country, that provides information on bypassing the proxy, dating, gay and lesbian networks, sites pertaining to the Bahá'í faith, and sites originating from Israel. Additionally, VoIP services such as Skype that challenge Etisalat's monopoly over international calling as well as multimedia sharing and social networking websites such as Flickr, Lastfm, Hi5 and Orkut are blocked"EOQ
The entry seems a bit hay-wire the positioning of the phrase "that provides information on bypassing the proxy" mind you ...
Either way, it seems that the proxy server is far from dead.
regarDS
SOQ
"Etisalat, the government owned telecommunications provider, held a virtual monopoly over telecommunication services in Dubai prior to the establishment of other, smaller telecommunications companies such as Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company (EITC — better known as Du) in 2006. Internet was introduced into the UAE (and therefore Dubai) in 1995. The current network is supported by a bandwidth of 6 GB, with 50,000 dialup and 150,000 broadband ports. Dubai houses two of four DNS data centers in the country (DXBNIC1, DXBNIC2)[90]. Internet content is regulated in Dubai. Etisalat uses a proxy server to filter internet content that is deemed to be inconsistent with the values of the country, that provides information on bypassing the proxy, dating, gay and lesbian networks, sites pertaining to the Bahá'í faith, and sites originating from Israel. Additionally, VoIP services such as Skype that challenge Etisalat's monopoly over international calling as well as multimedia sharing and social networking websites such as Flickr, Lastfm, Hi5 and Orkut are blocked"EOQ
The entry seems a bit hay-wire the positioning of the phrase "that provides information on bypassing the proxy" mind you ...
Either way, it seems that the proxy server is far from dead.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I typed that I thought an even better way would be for a rating system like happens before TV programs.
This site is rated MA15+ as it contains sexual content (or whatever). Mature viewing is recommended.
That indeed would be inline with current laws governing broadcastable material and may well be the "middle ground" that is finally settled upon as a compromise in the long run.
And compromise is generally how these things work when it comes to "Government Initiatives", yes ? First they work out what they are prepared to settle for, then the present a couple of objectionable solutions of varying offensiveness, and then are seen to be giving in to public wishes by implementing the lesser of the deemed evils; The People reckon they have had a win, and The Government have the solution they were prepared to accept in the first place.
Part of the Hegelian approach for the Powers That Be to Get Things Done ?
regarDS
This site is rated MA15+ as it contains sexual content (or whatever). Mature viewing is recommended.
That indeed would be inline with current laws governing broadcastable material and may well be the "middle ground" that is finally settled upon as a compromise in the long run.
And compromise is generally how these things work when it comes to "Government Initiatives", yes ? First they work out what they are prepared to settle for, then the present a couple of objectionable solutions of varying offensiveness, and then are seen to be giving in to public wishes by implementing the lesser of the deemed evils; The People reckon they have had a win, and The Government have the solution they were prepared to accept in the first place.
Part of the Hegelian approach for the Powers That Be to Get Things Done ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Derspatz, do you not agree that perhaps people should rise up against the religious far rights pushing for control of the masses through censorship? Or are you one of the religious sheep that try to push your beliefs onto others?
Neither/Nor.
I don't see the first of that happening; I see the a more middle/middle-to-right ground trying to be maintained, and one that I am in support of. That being said, if it happens to help bring the down-fall for a long time to come of the ALP, then it is a "Win-Win" AFAIC. :)
No to the second, as per: http://derblatz.blogspot.com/2008/11/posted-whirlpool-ilcf-pt5_4744.html
regarDS
Neither/Nor.
I don't see the first of that happening; I see the a more middle/middle-to-right ground trying to be maintained, and one that I am in support of. That being said, if it happens to help bring the down-fall for a long time to come of the ALP, then it is a "Win-Win" AFAIC. :)
No to the second, as per: http://derblatz.blogspot.com/2008/11/posted-whirlpool-ilcf-pt5_4744.html
regarDS
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
If parents are too stupid to protect their own children from dangers in the home, then they don't deserve to be parents.
No argument there. Which is why our elected government is obliged to step in as best can be managed.
As in "intervention", etc.
regarDS
No argument there. Which is why our elected government is obliged to step in as best can be managed.
As in "intervention", etc.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef - derspatz
Perhaps that is what the filter should do. Warn you that are you about to view something that the government doesn't want you to see and ask you if you want to continue. Think of your well known Perth band The Waifs.
Lighthouse man can’t help us all
Some he’ll save and some will fall
He’ll show you where the danger lies
But he can’t help it if you capsize
He’ll light your way but that is all
Steer your own ship back to shore
The "skull and cross-bones" and "warning, danger Will Robinson" audio-visual pop-up could be part of the solution, along with the SMSing of a responsible Adult if you like. There are going to be many ways of approaching this required to get the job done properly.
I like the lyrics you provided (which are somewhat topical ... I certainly get your gist) but never heard of the band nor could actually name anything they have done mind you.
No radio on the motor-bike, no radio antenna on the 4x4.
How is that for an example for filtering at the user end of things rather than at the provider side ? :)
regarDS
Perhaps that is what the filter should do. Warn you that are you about to view something that the government doesn't want you to see and ask you if you want to continue. Think of your well known Perth band The Waifs.
Lighthouse man can’t help us all
Some he’ll save and some will fall
He’ll show you where the danger lies
But he can’t help it if you capsize
He’ll light your way but that is all
Steer your own ship back to shore
The "skull and cross-bones" and "warning, danger Will Robinson" audio-visual pop-up could be part of the solution, along with the SMSing of a responsible Adult if you like. There are going to be many ways of approaching this required to get the job done properly.
I like the lyrics you provided (which are somewhat topical ... I certainly get your gist) but never heard of the band nor could actually name anything they have done mind you.
No radio on the motor-bike, no radio antenna on the 4x4.
How is that for an example for filtering at the user end of things rather than at the provider side ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
The government is elected by us, for us. They work for us. If they aren't working for us, there is no point having them, we may as well fire them.
No problem with that, except you missed the bit where "they ARE us".
IE, just a bunch of public servants who prolly get into the job because they aren't much good at anything else and also because they enjoy trying to tell people what to do a bit more than the next bloke, but still not all that different from the next bloke.
regarDS
No problem with that, except you missed the bit where "they ARE us".
IE, just a bunch of public servants who prolly get into the job because they aren't much good at anything else and also because they enjoy trying to tell people what to do a bit more than the next bloke, but still not all that different from the next bloke.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Are you part of the conspiracy or merely an innocent chump who has been taken in by misleading promises of child protection?
Which reads as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?"
Rest assured that my motivations and views have nothing to do with popular conspiracies and go way beyond mere child protection.
As I'm sure both Mark and Richary can confirm.
Heck, they could also confirm that when it comes to proving a point and how serious I am with my views, I'm also known to spend my own coin in very Real World (ala "offline") ways.
regarDS
Which reads as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?"
Rest assured that my motivations and views have nothing to do with popular conspiracies and go way beyond mere child protection.
As I'm sure both Mark and Richary can confirm.
Heck, they could also confirm that when it comes to proving a point and how serious I am with my views, I'm also known to spend my own coin in very Real World (ala "offline") ways.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
he was preaching the monumental failure of NetAlert because noone adopted it, yet he claims that there is public desire for this mandatory filtering.
He makes no sense.
I reckon it makes perfect sense in the context of a high probability that many folk who do want filtering for their kids/families/etc found/find it all too hard to actually figure out how to do it themselves and would much prefer a system where it is all done for them much like how their ISP takes care of spam filtering for them.
regarDS
He makes no sense.
I reckon it makes perfect sense in the context of a high probability that many folk who do want filtering for their kids/families/etc found/find it all too hard to actually figure out how to do it themselves and would much prefer a system where it is all done for them much like how their ISP takes care of spam filtering for them.
regarDS
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I agree a referendum on a bill of rights has to happen!
1+ providing it goes hand in hand with a "bill of responsibilities".
TANSTAAFL. ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")
regarDS
1+ providing it goes hand in hand with a "bill of responsibilities".
TANSTAAFL. ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I can't quite understand why you are supporting the filtering. If you were really a purely religious nutter as some people have suggested that wouldn't explain your past history on LTUAE, because that wouldn't have been the sort of forum you would have wanted to be on. And in the early threads you pushed the Gibsonesque or whatever free net with no government controls - the opposite of what you are pushing for with filtering. Is the filter a means to an end for you?
If you're asking if I have personal selfish reasons as well as community welfare reasons and a lot more besides for supporting ILCF and/or greater/easier control of online content then my answer is yes on all counts.
I think it is both near-sighted and foolish to only view this issue in terms of black and white, us and them (etc) when in fact it is quite a complex multi-faceted broad spectrumed many layered issue that similarly can be viewed/debated from far more angles than the typical dualistic "one or the other"/"if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" seemingly preferred by most around here.
I also think it is somewhat silly if not counter productive to be basically in support of static treatment of a dynamic medium (yup, I realise that is a knife that cuts both ways, dualistically speaking), and I am really not interested that much in pointless preservation of something just the way it is when there is clearly room for much improvement and much that should not be preserved at all ... with as many differing opinions on that as there are people using it or are affected by it.
As many layers, facets, spectra there are to this issue and regardless of my truly selfish attitudes regarding it, the percentages and check sheet I'm judging it by still oblige me to say "yes, this or something like this needs to be done".
I'm not in the least offended and threatened by the fact that at least in here there are many who choose to disagree and disapprove of my view, for as you well know, due to the beliefs that have sustained me for well over half my life, I've been made no stranger to being of the relative minority view when it comes to quite a list of issues and controversies. It all goes with the territory.
A territory which can't help but include the attempt to censor that which increasing demeans and by doing so is destructive to our society.
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef" than "oh, he is being contrary, he is wrong because I am right so therefore he must be trolling", a better understanding of where I am coming from may be achieved.
I have no disagreement that unjust forms of censorship should nearly always be resisted, but I am no where near being convinced that ILCF is one of them, or even of much concern to Oz as a nation even if it was reduced to the level of "governet" (credit to whoever it was who first coined the term in these forums) only showing/allowing "safe for Oz" ala "safe for work" information.
regarDS
PS: To prove another point, unmoderated comments have now been enabled at derblatz.
If you're asking if I have personal selfish reasons as well as community welfare reasons and a lot more besides for supporting ILCF and/or greater/easier control of online content then my answer is yes on all counts.
I think it is both near-sighted and foolish to only view this issue in terms of black and white, us and them (etc) when in fact it is quite a complex multi-faceted broad spectrumed many layered issue that similarly can be viewed/debated from far more angles than the typical dualistic "one or the other"/"if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" seemingly preferred by most around here.
I also think it is somewhat silly if not counter productive to be basically in support of static treatment of a dynamic medium (yup, I realise that is a knife that cuts both ways, dualistically speaking), and I am really not interested that much in pointless preservation of something just the way it is when there is clearly room for much improvement and much that should not be preserved at all ... with as many differing opinions on that as there are people using it or are affected by it.
As many layers, facets, spectra there are to this issue and regardless of my truly selfish attitudes regarding it, the percentages and check sheet I'm judging it by still oblige me to say "yes, this or something like this needs to be done".
I'm not in the least offended and threatened by the fact that at least in here there are many who choose to disagree and disapprove of my view, for as you well know, due to the beliefs that have sustained me for well over half my life, I've been made no stranger to being of the relative minority view when it comes to quite a list of issues and controversies. It all goes with the territory.
A territory which can't help but include the attempt to censor that which increasing demeans and by doing so is destructive to our society.
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef" than "oh, he is being contrary, he is wrong because I am right so therefore he must be trolling", a better understanding of where I am coming from may be achieved.
I have no disagreement that unjust forms of censorship should nearly always be resisted, but I am no where near being convinced that ILCF is one of them, or even of much concern to Oz as a nation even if it was reduced to the level of "governet" (credit to whoever it was who first coined the term in these forums) only showing/allowing "safe for Oz" ala "safe for work" information.
regarDS
PS: To prove another point, unmoderated comments have now been enabled at derblatz.
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
There are way too many Sunrise viewers in Australia to risk putting it to a referendum.
An admission that the majority of Oz are more likely to be either for ILCF or so ambivalent about it that they are more likely accept it than be bothered resisting it let alone trying to circumvent it ?
Tis refreshing to see such a realistic admission made in here despite the likely smack-down to come from localised majority/unity enforced/approved party line on the topic.
regarDS
An admission that the majority of Oz are more likely to be either for ILCF or so ambivalent about it that they are more likely accept it than be bothered resisting it let alone trying to circumvent it ?
Tis refreshing to see such a realistic admission made in here despite the likely smack-down to come from localised majority/unity enforced/approved party line on the topic.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
derspatz writes...So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
60K signatures on a petition in less than a week would seem to suggest that this scheme is not popular with the general public.
Who of us in here really thinks that 60k hits to a presumed online petition (happy to be corrected on that) can be deemed either indicative or representative of what may or may not be popular with the overall "general public" ?
Ah well, you can at least be greatful for the enabling/oxygen I'm affording this topic, if even just for the practice ?
Strength through diversity and progress through conflict, and all that. :)
regarDS
60K signatures on a petition in less than a week would seem to suggest that this scheme is not popular with the general public.
Who of us in here really thinks that 60k hits to a presumed online petition (happy to be corrected on that) can be deemed either indicative or representative of what may or may not be popular with the overall "general public" ?
Ah well, you can at least be greatful for the enabling/oxygen I'm affording this topic, if even just for the practice ?
Strength through diversity and progress through conflict, and all that. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I was brought up with the understanding that democracy was based on the belief that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I've got no problem with that at all ... which is also why I reckon that if not ILCF then something like it will become the norm sooner or later.
Necessity re: "the needs of the many" will make it so.
regarDS
I've got no problem with that at all ... which is also why I reckon that if not ILCF then something like it will become the norm sooner or later.
Necessity re: "the needs of the many" will make it so.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
DS, If the filter has such a mass following and support, why does the senator consistently refuse comment and interviews?
So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
regarDS
So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
regarDS
Monday, December 01, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
... remembered that even Jesus Christ had a soft spot in his heart for a prostitute:)
Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?
Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?
Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?
How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?
I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.
All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.
regarDS
Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?
Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?
Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?
How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?
I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.
All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.
regarDS
Posted here in response to - ILCF pt14 @ WP
"Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not." - derspatz
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
invoking the "mothers, Wives and daughters" to justify your opinion. Yet we have women who clearly disagree, including women on this forum, my daughter and her friends (adult and teen), and even Holly from "Save the Children" organization. I can speak for them because I have personally talked to them or read their public comments.
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
DS only mentions his assumptions in order to support his arguments ...
Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...
Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.
For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.
Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?
On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.
Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.
Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.
regarDS
Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...
Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.
For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.
Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?
On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.
Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.
Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
Part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that a probable majority of non-single women in Oz, especially those with children, would happily agree to all sorts of government enforced constrictions put on the net (and way beyond anything ILCF might manage) if it would return a greater degree of attention from their partner back to them and their family, especially if it came with the added bonus of making it harder for either their partners or children to accidentally or deliberately view material not beneficial to healthy family life regardless of whether it was via their own net connections or connections at other people's houses, etc.
Another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the majority of Oz population are more interested in their TV and mobile phones than the "online world", and just as long as they can still do their banking, ebaying, check out sports scores and tv guides, book holidays and hotels, and maybe even get the odd cheap international phonecall, the net is never going to rise above being much more than a novelty and convenience to them and never going to figure as being "the last bastion of free speech". If anything, such people just want easier to use online systems, and care not much as to how it is done.
Yet another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the more certain minorities bash on about "free speech" and the like in the face of a government talking about controlling pr0n and attempting to bring similar law and order online as is done offline, an increasing majority will side with the goverment on this, for there IS something distinctly worrying and suspicious about such long bows being drawn re: alleged "attacks on free speech" etc in response to a proposal to help clean up the online world to make it all the more child and family safe and friendly.
I've got other assumings to add to that if you really wish ...
regarDS
Part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that a probable majority of non-single women in Oz, especially those with children, would happily agree to all sorts of government enforced constrictions put on the net (and way beyond anything ILCF might manage) if it would return a greater degree of attention from their partner back to them and their family, especially if it came with the added bonus of making it harder for either their partners or children to accidentally or deliberately view material not beneficial to healthy family life regardless of whether it was via their own net connections or connections at other people's houses, etc.
Another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the majority of Oz population are more interested in their TV and mobile phones than the "online world", and just as long as they can still do their banking, ebaying, check out sports scores and tv guides, book holidays and hotels, and maybe even get the odd cheap international phonecall, the net is never going to rise above being much more than a novelty and convenience to them and never going to figure as being "the last bastion of free speech". If anything, such people just want easier to use online systems, and care not much as to how it is done.
Yet another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the more certain minorities bash on about "free speech" and the like in the face of a government talking about controlling pr0n and attempting to bring similar law and order online as is done offline, an increasing majority will side with the goverment on this, for there IS something distinctly worrying and suspicious about such long bows being drawn re: alleged "attacks on free speech" etc in response to a proposal to help clean up the online world to make it all the more child and family safe and friendly.
I've got other assumings to add to that if you really wish ...
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
