Mike Padlipsky | 14 Jun 2005 12:11
Picon
Favicon

Censoring the history of the Internet

I've been working on an article about the censoring of Internet history which I think should be of interest to most readers of [ih].

With apologies for the inconvenience, it can be found at http://f1.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/firstmap <at> sbcglobal.net/ ,
just sitting there as the file called "ppapp.html".  It's there because I prefer to protect my good old real, but small and pro bono, ISP from the many hits it might well receive, so I choose to use the awkward personal web page-imitation furnished by my new ISP-impersonator for it instead.  (The ISP-impersonator came with the DSL line I finally broke down and sprung for recently, and I figure I might as well get some use out of it.)

[This, by the way, is the "unpoliticized" version of the article, despite what some readers might think.  In fact, out of perhaps misguided sentiment I'm still trying to hold out against using the alternative version I did in response to the suggestion that it would be more publishable if it were refocused toward the broader "Internet Governance" theme, which I received when I submitted an earlier version to one of the more-or-less prominent (non-"nerd") "e-zines" -- even though I do find the "politicized" version more amusing....]
 
 
BONUS:  Take two Good Marks out of Petty Credit if you know enough pre-Internet technohistory to be able to explain why I'm doing this today.  (Indeed, e-let me know what you came up with and I'll grant a third Good Mark -- provided you got it right, of course -- the Petty Credit budget's running a surplus these days/months/years.)
 
 
cheers, map
http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html

"One (indeed, perhaps the only) indisputable benefit of the 'Net is that you don't have to waste any stamps on, nor be complicitous in the killing of any trees for, letters to editors and/or other invincibly smug corporate behemoths that aren't going to be responded to because they show said institutions up, but need to be sent anyway."

       --first new, official Elements of Networking Style Slogan in yearsandyears
Joe Touch | 16 Jun 2005 00:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: Censoring the history of the Internet


Reminder to all:

Ad-hominum attacks are not appropriate on this list, either directly or
by URL reference.

Joe (as list admin)

Mike Padlipsky wrote:
> I've been working on an article about the censoring of Internet history
> which I think should be of interest to most readers of [ih].
> 
> With apologies for the inconvenience, it can be found at
> http://f1.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/firstmap <at> sbcglobal.net/ ,
> just sitting there as the file called "ppapp.html".  
Mike Padlipsky | 17 Jun 2005 03:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: Censoring the history of the Internet

At 03:16 PM 6/15/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
Reminder to all:

Ad-hominum attacks are not appropriate on this list, either directly or
by URL reference.

Joe (as list admin)

Let the record show that, presumably to no one's surprise, and as you and I have already discussed at some length off-list, I do not agree that "ppapp" constitutes an ad hominem attack.  I would not have "posted" it if I thought it was, and I do not want a lack of on-list response from me to be construed as silent assent to your view.


cheers, map
http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html

"One (indeed, perhaps the only) indisputable benefit of the 'Net is that you don't have to waste any stamps on, nor be complicitous in the killing of any trees for, letters to editors and/or other invincibly smug corporate behemoths that aren't going to be responded to because they show said institutions up, but need to be sent anyway."

       --first new, official Elements of Networking Style Slogan in yearsandyears 
Dave Crocker | 17 Jun 2005 17:59

Re: Censoring the history of the Internet

>  Let the record show that, presumably to no one's surprise, and as you and
>  I have already discussed at some length off-list, I do not agree that
>  "ppapp" constitutes an ad hominem attack.

It is pretty massively an hominem.

More importantly is that it is vectored to a useless venue.  

If there is a complaint against the RFC-Editor, then the complaint should be 
vectored to those who provide oversight and funding.  

Sending it to this list is just a way to attack someone, as indeed the document 
spends most of its energy doing.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net


Gmane