Re: Does the CIA control the internet?

From: skullcap (news4_at_earthsong.null.free-online.co.uk)
Date: 03/07/04 

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:11:13 +0000

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:10:07 +0000, Diogenes wrote:

> skullcap wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:07:21 +0000, Diogenes wrote:
>>
>>> skullcap wrote:
>>>> The jibes about 'keep taking the pills' are just ignorant, and
>>>> offensive to people with mental health problems.
>>>
>>> Keep taking your pills. You seem to need them.
>>
>> It seems to be a popular way of putting people down on the 'net (and
>> elsewhere) without having to address the things they have to say,
>> that's all. And i think it sucks.
>>
>> If powerful people don't have an inherent interest in controlling the
>> distribution of information, then why do most democratic countries
>> have laws trying to prevent media monopolies for exactly this reason?
>> (the laws in these countries reflecting some kind of uneasy
>> compromise between the interests of the powerful and the powerless).
>> And why did the italian populist politician silvio berlusconi put so
>> much effort into trying to undermine and find his way round these
>> laws before making his bid for office?
>
> It's not used to "put people down",

of course it is.

> it's usually used to point out to mentally
> sick people that they better keep taking their meds or they might get worse
> than they are now. Paranoid people like yourself, have commited suicide over
> the things their minds conger up...
                         ^conjure^

> if you're told to "keep taking your meds",
> it's because you wrote/said something that was recognized as severe paranoia.

If that is the case, and you're 'only trying to help, honest', how about
actually spelling out what exactly is wrong, or 'severely paranoid' with
pointing out the bloody obvious - that one of the ways that people with
social power have always tried to maintain their power is, among other
things, by attempting to control the public distribution of information,
and the ways in which the institutions that sustain them may be
represented. If this is not so, why do the world's most repressive regimes
tend to have strict censorship laws? Why was one of the US govt's first
acts on taking power in iraq to remove the public symbols of Hussein's
authority? Why do corporations fight lengthy court battles over
unfavourable or parodic representations of their public image? Why did the
US seek to stifle the Al-jazeera TV station? The western democracies
tend not to be so heavy handed in these things, and the balance is more in
favour of peoples' right to free speech, but the same basic dynamics still
operate. The question isn't whether the US govt and other powerful
groups might want to monitor, influence, or control (in order of
likelihood) what can be said on the net - of course they do. The question
is whether they are likely to be doing it to the degree or in the manner
suggested by the OP.

As far as I can see I was being quite reasonable and
considered in what I said. If you really think that you are trying to
help, perhaps you might consider that one of the things that drives people
into severely paranoid states is to have the things they say dismissed
without even an attempt at a reasoned reply. So after enough of this sort
of treatment, you start to wonder if maybe you have touched a nerve after
all.

> We only have your best interests in mind.
>
> BTW, keep taking your meds.

the drugs don't work - they just make things worse. But I know I'll see
your face again. 

-- 
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/skullcap.html
remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with [html] or [attachment] in the subject line.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does the CIA control the internet?
    ... Maybe you're not paranoid after all, more likely you've just bought into the ... |>> have laws trying to prevent media monopolies for exactly this reason? ... | social power have always tried to maintain their power is, ... | unfavourable or parodic representations of their public image? ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors
    ... Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ... He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing ... For suspending our own Legislatures, ... with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: The New Democrats - War Heroes
    ... >> all, if you say the Constitution defines how to seize power, you must know ... >the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ... >it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles ... >Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: The New Democrats - War Heroes
    ... > Constitution defines how one goes about "seizing power" as you put it. ... it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles ... He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the ... Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws
    ... All the seat-belt "wearing" laws o ... general power to govern --- not enumerated powers. ... I referenced the United States Constitution ... and responsibilities of good government. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)