From: anchorman3@aol.com (AnchorMan3 at America Online, Inc.)
In article <3505tc$1p6@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
writes:
> By choosing AOL, even internet-experienced AOL users
> (if there are any) give money to a commercial service that is
indifferent
> to the free and unfettered exchange of ideas.
I beg to differ, David. I host one of the more controversial forums on
America Online, The Capital Connection, and the ideas are indeed flowing
quite freely.
Perhaps you are concerned that America Online does not allow foul language
online. Having read and subsequently removed posts with such language, I
daresay that the members are not missing much in the way of ideas.
Of course, I recognize the need of some people to use such language, and
there are certainly places for such people to go...this newsgroup for
example.
> They impose censorship from above...
> ...community that acquiesces to censorship...
You seem a little confused on this point, David. In one sentence we are
imposing your so-called "censorship" from above, and then, a few sentences
later, indicate that our community is apparently agreeing to the
censorship. Which is it, imposition or agreement?
Of course, America Online's members agree to the Terms of Service else
they don't remain members (and I've seen former members post in this
newsgroup about their disagreements with the TOS). Bottom line: America
Online cannot impose censorship on anyone. We wouldn't have a million
plus customers if we did.
Brian Carlisle
Capital Connection Host on AOL
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
anchorman3@aol.com writes:
>>In article <3505tc$1p6@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
>>writes:
>>
>> By choosing AOL, even internet-experienced AOL users
>> (if there are any) give money to a commercial service that is
>indifferent
>> to the free and unfettered exchange of ideas.
Nice quoting.
>I beg to differ, David. I host one of the more controversial forums on
>America Online, The Capital Connection, and the ideas are indeed flowing
>quite freely.
With the following exceptions:
>Member specifically agrees not to submit, publish, or display on America
>Online any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, sexually
>oriented, threatening, racially offensive, or illegal material; nor shall
>Member encourage the use of controlled substances.
AOL's Terms of Service. And let's not forget this:
>Earlier this month, the America Online network shut
>several feminist discussion forums, saying it was concerned
>that the subject matter might be inappropriate for young girls.
New York Times, front page. June 29. The ideas are indeed
flowing quite freely...except when they aren't.
>Perhaps you are concerned that America Online does not allow foul language
>online. Having read and subsequently removed posts with such language, I
>daresay that the members are not missing much in the way of ideas.
It's okay. All the posts I removed against the wishes of the people
who submitted them were really bad. I could tell. And if they were
good posts, but contained bad language...I would still remove them.
AOL policy. (We're talking to the CENSOR, guys. The guy that actually
removes the posts.)
>Of course, I recognize the need of some people to use such language, and
>there are certainly places for such people to go...this newsgroup for
>example.
This newsgroup is on the internet. If it WERE on AOL, you WOULDN'T allow
the language. You do so only because you have no choice. And even then,
you won't let them keep the name they chose to give it.
>> They impose censorship from above...
>
>> ...community that acquiesces to censorship...
>
>You seem a little confused on this point, David. In one sentence we are
>imposing your so-called "censorship" from above, and then, a few sentences
>later, indicate that our community is apparently agreeing to the
>censorship. Which is it, imposition or agreement?
There's no contradiction. You seem to think that if they're acquiescing,
that means they like the policy. As opposed to just not caring enough to
object to it.
>Of course, America Online's members agree to the Terms of Service else
>they don't remain members (and I've seen former members post in this
>newsgroup about their disagreements with the TOS). Bottom line: America
>Online cannot impose censorship on anyone. We wouldn't have a million
>plus customers if we did.
You're playing semantics games. We don't censor our members, because they
agree to let us censor them. If they object, they cease to be members.
I stand corrected.
I'll rest my case with this:
"The freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent
we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Compare that with Brian's AOL user profile:
"Ignorance is bliss . . . we are all happy people."
--------------------------------------------------
destiny@crl.com | This generation of Americans |
man of 1,000 sigs | has a rendezvous with Destiny! F.D.R. |
--------------------------------------------------
In article <9408241826.AA52632@jegelhof.dialup.access.net> James M. Egelhof,
jegelhof@panix.com writes:
> In article <33fi4k$q1t@search01.news.aol.com>, briananchorman3@aol.com
> (AnchorMan3), an AOL employee, writes:
> > The Windows
> > and Mac client both support "data on demand," meaning that artwork is
> > only sent if it is a part of the currently requested form. Of
> > course, once artwork has been sent to the client, it does not have to
> > be sent again.
>
> Of course, you pay standard connect time charges to download large and bulky
> artwork you may never need again...
I also have an AOL address (which you'll never see a post from, thanks to
their newsreader), and recently checked out their beta 2.5 version. AOL's
attempt to have a new, hipper multimedia interface means that many screens
have murky, headache-inducing backgrounds. Guess what? These backgrounds
need to be downloaded also in some instances, and it takes WAY longer to
download that artwork. More $$$.
thomas parker
AnchorMan3 (anchorman3@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <334gfm$pfp@news.csus.edu>, stealth@mercury.sfsu.edu (Kenneth)
: writes:
: > 14.4 is here and has been for a while now. What's there to be tested?
: > 14.4 too complex for AOL's systems?
: There is nothing on AOL's end that needs to be tested. I'm fortunate to
: be in one of the areas where SprintNet is testing 14.4. In fact, I'm
: connected at 14.4 right now.
: As has always been the case in the online services industry, it takes time
: for the local access companies to test and eventually distribute higher
: speed access to all of their indials.
: Brian Carlisle
: Capital Connection Host on AOL
I guess that means you can search thru 1000 responses to re-read a
previously read posting much faster now. And I'll bet those silly icons
download much faster every time you log on.
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: anchorman3@aol.com (AnchorMan3)
In article <350lel$42f@crl7.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
writes:
: >Earlier this month, the America Online network shut
: >several feminist discussion forums, saying it was concerned
: >that the subject matter might be inappropriate for young girls.
:
: New York Times, front page. June 29. The ideas are indeed
: flowing quite freely...except when they aren't.
I didn't read the article you mention, but the phrase "inappropriate for
young girls" leads me to believe that feminism, if that was the original
subject matter, was not the reason the room was closed. Feminist
discussions occur in the forum I host as well as other forums across
America Online.
: It's okay. All the posts I removed against the wishes of the people
: who submitted them were really bad. I could tell. And if they were
: good posts, but contained bad language...I would still remove them.
: AOL policy. (We're talking to the CENSOR, guys. The guy that
: actually removes the posts.)
It may surprise you to know that I remove, on average, less than one post
per week. Of course, given your fervent attempt to prove that America
Online censors ideas, it may also surprise you to see the wide variety of
controversial subjects being convered in The Capital Connection. Of
course, we'll miss this little pearl of wisdom from godless@netcom.com
(Godless):
: Since when does calling people names have anything to do with
: being mature? Maturity is having hair on your balls and the ability
: to blow a load. Or in the case of females, you are mature when you
: get tits, bleed a lot and start bleaching your hair.
Ah, yes, the quintessential definition of maturity. Back to your post,
though.
: >Of course, I recognize the need of some people to use such language,
: > and there are certainly places for such people to go...this newsgroup
: > for example.
:
: This newsgroup is on the internet. If it WERE on AOL, you WOULDN'T
: allow the language. You do so only because you have no choice. And
: even then, you won't let them keep the name they chose to give it.
David, I'm not sure if you just didn't read what I said, or you're trying
to set up some sort of straw man. Yes, this newsgroup is on the internet
and yes, if it were an America Online forum, such language would not be
allowed. The point I made, which you apparently missed, was that people
who must use such language have a place to go other than America Online.
: You seem to think that if they're acquiescing, that means they like
: the policy. As opposed to just not caring enough to object to it.
David, I don't understand why this concept boggles your mind so--the
members who don't like the policy, leave and go elsewhere. Perhaps I
don't frequent the right places, but I don't find people using such
language in public places. In the same way, foul language is not allowed
on America Online's public forums. For people who avoid using foul
language in public, there's not any difference.
: "The freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent
: we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
An admirable statement which certainly applies to the government. Of
course, America Online, or any other online service for that matter,
cannot take away someone's freedom of speech.
: Compare that with Brian's AOL user profile:
:
: "Ignorance is bliss . . . we are all happy people."
The quote I store in my profile is a commentary on some people's attitude
toward our government. Are you trying to set up another straw man here?
Brian Carlisle
Capital Connection Host on AOL
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: mark@mailserv.phoenix.net (Mark Miller)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 21:57:42
In article <351lnl$rhc@search01.news.aol.com> anchorman3@aol.com (AnchorMan3)
writes:
>It may surprise you to know that I remove, on average, less than one post
>per week. Of course, given your fervent attempt to prove that America
>Online censors ideas, it may also surprise you to see the wide variety of
>controversial subjects being convered in The Capital Connection. Of
>course, we'll miss this little pearl of wisdom from godless@netcom.com
>(Godless):
Dood, one post pulled = censorship, ideas or not. Any service or individual
that finds it within themselves to claim a moral superiority by erasing
peoples' messages is one step away from being a TV evangelist (gag, retch).
(I must say though, I find your efforts to defend AOL to be quite
entertaining
- almost as entertaining as posts from most AOL's users!)...
I dunno about the little guys, but here at PDS we don't presume to be
goody-goody enough to tell people that their posts are unacceptable.
-Mark Miller
Grand Poobah of Engineering,
Phoenix Data Systems; Internet Services Div.
"Houston's Premier Internet Services Provider"
713-486-8337
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
What I said was AOL-ers "support a commercial service indifferent to the
free and unfettered exchange of ideas."
You're missing my point, which is that ANYone using America Online is
accepting a level of censorship higher than what's found on the internet.
And paying money to the originators of that policy.
The word "censor" to describe America Online was first used by
the New York Times. The second sentence of their front-page story:
"Even as thousands of Americans each week join the several million who use
computer networks to share ideas, the companies that control the networks,
and sometimes individual users, are beginning to play the role of censor.
Earlier this month, the America Online network shut several feminist
discussion forums..."
Now back to our flame.
> : >Earlier this month, the America Online network shut
> : >several feminist discussion forums, saying it was concerned
> : >that the subject matter might be inappropriate for young girls.
> :
> : New York Times, front page. June 29. The ideas are indeed
> : flowing quite freely...except when they aren't.
> I didn't read the article you mention,
Why don't you look in your goddamn New York Times area? Oops--forgot.
They only have the "Dining" section.
>but the phrase "inappropriate for young girls" leads me to believe
>that feminism, if that was the original subject matter, was not the
>reason the room was closed.
They closed *several* forums, against the wishes of people EXCHANGING
INFORMATION. These people felt the information was appropriate, but AOL
disagreed, and imposed their opinion.
This wouldn't happen on the internet. The America Online spokesman quoted in
the New York Times said they were worried that young girls would "go in there
looking for information about their Barbies." Thus, AOL acts boldly to
ensure the creation of an online service with an intellectual level
approaching that of Mattel toys.
>The point I made, which you apparently missed, was that people
>who must use such language have a place to go other than America Online.
The point I made is that this is available only by default. Up
until earlier this year, people who wanted to use "such language" were
SOL if they wanted to post on AOL.
>it may also surprise you to see the wide variety of
>controversial subjects being convered in The Capital Connection.
You seem to think that by saying ""We talk politics in my forum" you've
proven America Online doesn't impose numerous restrictions on what you can
say. Not true.
You've missed the point that AOL's terms of service identify
specific topics which shall not be discussed.
And what about the way AOL alters the names of newsgroups based on
whims--"alt.life.sucks" is okay, but "alt.aol-sucks" is not.
Justify that.
-----------------------------------------
destiny@crl.com | The America Online Anagram Contest |
man of 1,000 sigs | "Nice arena, Milo." |
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: anchorman3@aol.com (AnchorMan3)
In article <353ei2$nrm@crl6.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
writes:
> What I said was AOL-ers "support a commercial service indifferent to
> the free and unfettered exchange of ideas."
And what I've been pointing out, and what you've apparently been missing,
is that the exchange of ideas goes on unfettered on America Online. You
seem to want to equate the ability to cuss with the formation of ideas, a
specious link at best.
> You're missing my point, which is that ANYone using America Online is
> accepting a level of censorship higher than what's found on the
internet,
> and paying money to the originators of that policy.
I didn't miss your point. I've already pointed out that there are places
for people to go if they don't like America Online's policies. I am
pleased at your use of "accepting," implying that our members do indeed
"accept" our policies and that there is no "imposition" on our part as you
apparently want to claim.
Your quotation of the NY Times article is indeed helpful. As you've
pointed out, the @Times service only contains certain information
which I've explained in a different thread.
> Earlier this month, the America Online network shut several
> feminist discussion forums...
First, a small point about terms needs to be made here. The article is
obviously referring to a real-time chat room and not an actual forum.
While several AOL forums have discussions on feminism, no forums are
devoted specifically to that subject. Had AOL actually closed any forums,
The Capital Connection would certainly have been among them since we
discuss feminism.
> The America Online spokesman quoted in the New York
> Times said they were worried that young girls would "go in
> there looking for information about their Barbies."
Did the article mention what the names of the rooms were? Based on the
quote above, I find it unlikely that the discussions in question were
about feminism. You, however, may continue believing what you will.
Meanwhile, feminist discussions will continue in The Capital Connection
and throughout America Online.
> The point I made is that this is available only by default. Up
> until earlier this year, people who wanted to use "such language"
> were SOL if they wanted to post on AOL.
As I've pointed out previously, services have always existed that cater to
this need. There's nothing to prevent these people from moving to another
service.
> You seem to think that by saying ""We talk politics in my forum"
> you've proven America Online doesn't impose numerous
> restrictions on what you can say. Not true.
And you seem to think that these restrictions prevent the free flow of
ideas. Not true.
As I've explained in a previous post, America Online's public message
boards are similar to any other public place. I don't find people cussing
in the public places that I frequent; likewise, I don't find such public
posts on America Online.
> And what about the way AOL alters the names of newsgroups
> based on whims--"alt.life.sucks" is okay, but "alt.aol-sucks" is not.
> Justify that.
There's nothing to justify. A click on the Internet Names icon shows the
name for all the newsgroups given descriptive titles.
Brian Carlisle
Capital Connection Host on AOL
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: tfinley@en.com (Tom Finley)
: Your quotation of the NY Times article is indeed helpful. As you've
: pointed out, the @Times service only contains certain information which
: I've explained in a different thread.
Certain information, andcertain information is not included when
it says anything bad about AOL which might just enlighten it's users.
A guy was taken off the system because he posted the article in
the message bases. His account was deleted, as was his post.
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
anchorman3@aol.com writes:
>> What I said was AOL-ers "support a commercial service indifferent to
>> the free and unfettered exchange of ideas."
>And what I've been pointing out, and what you've apparently been missing,
>is that the exchange of ideas goes on unfettered on America Online.
This all stems from anchorman misunderstanding what I mean by "indifferent
to the free exchange of ideas." The fact that ideas are exchanged doesn't
mean that the provider isn't indifferent to ensuring that process.
But Anchorman stubbornly clings to his argument that we swapped ideas
once on "Capital Forum," therefore, America Online never censors anyone.
*I* feel that an online service that censors in even a few cases
could still be characterized as "indifferent to the free exchange of ideas,"
since, as I said earlier, they allow the ideas to flow, except when they
don't. Just a little censorship....is still censorship.
>>You seem to think that by saying ""We talk politics in my forum" you've
>>proven America Online doesn't impose numerous restrictions on what you can
>>say. Not true.
>And you seem to think that these restrictions prevent the free flow of
>ideas. Not true.
Notice anchorman conveniently leaves out this part of my post:
>AOL's terms of service identify specific topics which shall not be
>discussed.
To repeat: the fact that ideas are sometimes exchanged doesn't prove
that sometimes, they aren't--thanks to AOL's policies. Indifferent to
the exchange of ideas means that they CAN be exchanged...sometimes, though
they will be prohibited at other times.
>I've already pointed out that there are places for people to go if they
>don't like America Online's policies.
I agree. CompuServe has "Human Sexuality" posting forums. America Online
does not. There are ideas that are being exchanged freely on CompuServe that
are not on America Online. Case closed.
>I am pleased at your use of "accepting," implying that our members do indeed
>"accept" our policies and that there is no "imposition" on our part
You keep playing on the distinction between "accept" and "acquiesce".
Everyone but you apparently knows there are two meanings to the word
accept:
Definition One: "To receive (something offered), esp. gladly."
Definition Two: "To bear up under resignedly or patiently: 'accept one's
fate'"
(Actual dictionary definitions)
But this guy makes it a point to force his own interpretation on what is
said.
He writes that my quoting the New York Times was "helpful," while ignoring
my point, which was that they also used the word "censor".
>>> I didn't read the article you mention,
>>
>>Why don't you look in your goddamn New York Times area? Oops--forgot.
>>They only have the "Dining" section.
>As you've pointed out, the @Times service only contains certain information
>>They closed *several* forums, against the wishes of people EXCHANGING
>>INFORMATION. These people felt the information was appropriate, but AOL
>>disagreed, and imposed their opinion.
>>This wouldn't happen on the internet. The America Online spokesman quoted
>>in the New York Times said they were worried that young girls would "go in
>>there looking for information about their Barbies." Thus, AOL acts boldly
>>to ensure the creation of an online service with an intellectual level
>>approaching that of Mattel toys.
>I find it unlikely that the discussions in question were
>about feminism.
That doesn't address what I said.
>> And what about the way AOL alters the names of newsgroups
>> based on whims--"alt.life.sucks" is okay, but "alt.aol-sucks" is not.
>> Justify that.
>There's nothing to justify. A click on the Internet Names icon shows the
>name for all the newsgroups given descriptive titles.
Hello? Why does AOL require some newsgroups to have a click, and some not?
Answer the question, or be forever branded a question-evader.
-----------------------------------------
destiny@crl.com | The America Online Anagram Contest |
man of 1,000 sigs | "I.E., come in. Learn." |
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: anchorman3@aol.com (AnchorMan3)
Date: 14 Sep 1994 14:09:01 -0400
In article <355t4p$s81@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
writes:
> This all stems from anchorman misunderstanding what I mean by
> "indifferent to the free exchange of ideas." The fact that ideas
> are exchanged doesn't mean that the provider isn't indifferent to
> ensuring that process.
There is no misunderstanding. The fact that ideas can be exchanged
without the use of profanity is central to the point that you seem to be
missing.
> But Anchorman stubbornly clings to his argument that we swapped
> ideas once on "Capital Forum," therefore, America Online never
> censors anyone.
More than once, David...constantly; again, more evidence that ideas can be
expressed without profanity.
> *I* feel that an online service that censors in even a few cases
> could still be characterized as "indifferent to the free exchange
> of ideas," since, as I said earlier, they allow the ideas to flow,
> except when they don't. Just a little censorship....is still
> censorship.
If *you* cannot express your ideas under America Online's TOS, then *you*
have other service options--something I've been pointing out for some
time.
Of course, Capital Connection members will continue expressing
their ideas without having to use profanity.
: Notice anchorman conveniently leaves out this part of my post:
:
: >AOL's terms of service identify specific topics which shall not
: >be discussed.
I'm looking at the Online Conduct portion of the TOS right now and don't
see how it prevents the discussion of specific topics.
>>I beg to differ, David. I host one of the more controversial forums on
>>America Online, The Capital Connection, and the ideas are indeed flowing
>>quite freely.
>With the following exceptions:
>
>>Member specifically agrees not to submit, publish, or display on America
>>Online any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, sexually
>>oriented, threatening, racially offensive, or illegal material; nor
>>shall Member encourage the use of controlled substances.
>>
: >I've already pointed out that there are places for people to go if
: > they don't like America Online's policies.
:
: I agree. CompuServe has "Human Sexuality" posting forums. America
: Online does not. There are ideas that are being exchange freely on
: CompuServe that are not on America Online. Case closed.
America Online does have a Gay & Lesbian forum.
Furthermore, sexual issues are discussed in a wide variety of forums on
America Online. To propose otherwise is inherently naive.
Before getting caught up in the non-argument about the difference between
forums and real-time chat rooms,
> He writes that my quoting the New York Times was "helpful," while
> ignoring my point, which was that they also used the word "censor".
I deemed your quoting of the article "helpful" because it showed how the
NY Times obviously misused the word "forum"
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
In article <355t4p$s81@crl.crl.com>, destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
writes:
>> This all stems from anchorman misunderstanding what I mean by
>> "indifferent to the free exchange of ideas." The fact that ideas
>> are exchanged doesn't mean that the provider isn't indifferent to
>> ensuring that process.
`>There is no misunderstanding. The fact that ideas can be exchanged
>without the use of profanity is central to the point that you seem to be
>missing.
anchorman mis-interprets me again.
My point is they will still, sometimes, censor. And not just because of
profanity. Thus, your response "ideas can be exchanged without use of
profanity" is meaningless.
>> But Anchorman stubbornly clings to his argument that we swapped
>> ideas once on "Capital Forum," therefore, America Online never
>> censors anyone.
>More than once, David...constantly; again, more evidence that ideas can be
>expressed without profanity.
Yes, but zero evidence that they haven't censored numerous times on other
occassions. For a relevance score of: zero.
>> *I* feel that an online service that censors in even a few cases
>> could still be characterized as "indifferent to the free exchange
>> of ideas," since, as I said earlier, they allow the ideas to flow,
>> except when they don't. Just a little censorship....is still
>> censorship.
>If *you* cannot express your ideas under America Online's TOS, then *you*
>have other service options--something I've been pointing out for some
>time.
Right. We heard you. I said "A little censorship...is still
censorship." Instead of saying "No it isn't," you say "There
are other services." Would you at least finish the thought?
Do you mean, "Other services, which don't censor, like we do?" or "Other
services, and therefore by virture of their existence, no *absolute*
deprivation of the ability to exchange ideas has occured."
How exactly does what you said correspond to what I'm saying?
>Of course, Capital Connection members will continue expressing
>their ideas without having to use profanity.
Big fucking deal.
>: Notice anchorman conveniently leaves out this part of my post:
>:
>: >AOL's terms of service identify specific topics which shall not
>: >be discussed.
>
>I'm looking at the Online Conduct portion of the TOS right now and don't
>see how it prevents the discussion of specific topics.
Again, Southern literacy problems. I posted this already.
>>I beg to differ, David. I host one of the more controversial forums on
>>America Online, The Capital Connection, and the ideas are indeed flowing
>>quite freely.
>With the following exceptions:
>
>>Member specifically agrees not to submit, publish, or display on America
>>Online any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, sexually
>>oriented, threatening, racially offensive, or illegal material; nor
>>shall Member encourage the use of controlled substances.
>>
Here's the line before it:
>Any action by a Member that, in AOL, Inc.'s sole opinion, restricts or
>inhibits other Members from using and enjoying America Online (such as but
>not limited to, the use of vulgar language; inappropriate screen names;
>committing, or discussing with the intention to commit, illegal activities),
>is strictly prohibited.
Example of why discussions of illegal activities should not be prohibited:
"I think Rosa Parks should go sit at the front of the bus."
: >I've already pointed out that there are places for people to go if
: > they don't like America Online's policies.
:
: I agree. CompuServe has "Human Sexuality" posting forums. America
: Online does not. There are ideas that are being exchange freely on
: CompuServe that are not on America Online. Case closed.
>America Online does have a Gay & Lesbian forum.
I said posting forum. Message boards. Are you saying there's an area of
AOL where people can post messages about Gay & Lesbian issues?
>Furthermore, sexual issues are discussed in a wide variety of forums on
>America Online. To propose otherwise is inherently naive.
If I understand correctly, sexual issues are never discussed in any public
message board forums on AOL, as they are on CompuServe.
>Before getting caught up in the non-argument about the difference between
>forums and real-time chat rooms,
Too late.
I'm getting tired of this. Anchorman just reduces all my arguments to
"You wanna use dirty words." I'm arguing about the principle of a higher
authority tinkering with anything I say (which doesn't happen on the
internet, but does on AOL), and especially about AOL tinkering with
content for reasons besides the use of profanity (which anchorman refuses
to address).
>> He writes that my quoting the New York Times was "helpful," while
>> ignoring my point, which was that they also used the word "censor".
>I deemed your quoting of the article "helpful" because it showed how the
>NY Times obviously misused the word "forum"
Actually, you deemed it helpful because you couldn't find the article on
your bogus online service because it only had the "Dining" section.
>Your quotation of the NY Times article is indeed helpful. As you've
>pointed out, the @Times service only contains certain information which
>I've explained in a different thread.
But remember it any way you want. (Certain information = "Dining"
section.)
Anchorman then says that the New York Times is wrong, and he's right.
Maybe the Decatur Times will set us all straight.
Finally, it's official. Remember this?
>>There's nothing to justify. A click on the Internet Names icon shows the
>>name for all the newsgroups given descriptive titles.
>Hello? Why does AOL require some newsgroups to have a click, and some not?
>
>Answer the question, or be forever branded a question-evader.
Brian Carlisle
Capital Connection Host on AOL
is hereby christened a question-evader.
-----------------------------------------
destiny@crl.com | The America Online Anagram Contest |
man of 1,000 sigs | "I reel on, maniac." |
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AOL is really, really fly.
From: destiny@crl.com (David Cassel)
By the way, guys? He's 22.
He's from Alabama.
How does it feel knowing topics from a national audience on current events
are being sifted through by a 22 year old in Decatur?
The reviews are in
jegelhof@cloud9.net
Jesus, can you READ?
amh@cyclos.oau.org
It seems Anchorman is quite adept at regurgitating the AOL party
line, but doesn't like to answer straight questions.
spatula@twain.ucs.umass.edu
(yer deputized, son.)
On this one:
jegelhof@cloud9.net
Jesus, can you READ?
You know the problems they have with literacy in the South.
The florid language, the skips of logic...these posts make alot more sense
if you read them with a drawl.
-----------------------------------------
destiny@crl.com | The America Online Anagram Contest |
man of 1,000 sigs | "I rein on a camel." |
-----------------------------------------
Return to Main Page