Why you get spam
Gary Lawrence Murphy
21 Apr 2002 23:35:37 -0400
>>>>> "P" == Paul Prescod <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
P> ... I kind of think it is interesting to think that a
P> generation will grow up that will not be shocked by anything.
When I was young, someone said just this after a severed hand was put
on display in an art gallery in Australia. I later learned people
said this after witnessing the "immoral gyrations" of Stravinski's
Rite of Spring. Far from "anything goes" it seems that each age still
preserves its own particular pet 'long silk stocking'.
Speculating on what those stockings might be leads to the worlds-apart
worlds of George Orwell's "1984" vs Anthony Burgess' "1985", and the
stark differences in these visions are the best argument yet why any
and all tolerance of spam-censorship brings us a step closer to evil:
Tools don't care how they are used whereas public mores are in a
constant state of fickle flux; surveillance and censorship by any
other name still smell like rosebeds.
Ain't it clever how I snuck my favourite rant into this thread?
Gary Lawrence Murphy <email@example.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)