The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by angua:

Of course I meant to impute bad faith. I still believe that the "censorship"/hacking of the web sites would have brought out more/some outrage had a different bunch of web sites been involved (though I still conceed it's not terrorism per se). The fact that posters see censorship in what Internet Hagganah does, but not in what the hackers do when they shut down IH is the kind of thing I mean.
If I had meant to impute Jew-hatred, I really would have said so.

I've read it, Julia. And the rest of them, except whatever is out in hard-cover only. Also the complete works of William Shakespeare, many French and Russian classics in the orginal, a variety of non-fiction on history and politics, and, well, lots of other books, too.

I aplogize profusely for not interpreting them the Julia way, the one single obvious correct way of looking at the world. I will try better next time.

And I do apologize sincerely if I implied that anyone was anti-Semitic. That was not my intention. (If it was, I would have said something along the lines of, "You are an anti-Semite, 'put name here'." Us illiterate morons tend to say what we mean.)

The Internet Hagganah is one of a group of web sites that I call "uppity Jew" websites for a reason -- they are very pro-Israeli, very anti-anti-Semtitism, usually pro-Iraq-war, sometimes anti-Islam, and quite loud about it. These websites (1) do not represent the views of most posters here and (2) do not really hold a view which is uniquely suppressed or censored in the States. So, I still believe that most posters here would worry about, say, Indymedia being censored a lot more that they would worry about LGF being censored. It has nothing to do with, say, LGF owner being Jewish (he isn't), and much to do with how difficult it is to support freedom of speech for views opposite to one's own. I hope this clarifies my meaning.

No, Julia, I've never read any Pratchett. In fact, I haven't read any books, ever. Finally someone's found my secret. The 2,000 papery items on my shelves with fancy little black marks? Only for decoration. "Read"? What that? Obviously, I *must* be an illiterate moron, since one opinion I posted on one web site does not fit in with Julia's. Anything else you've divined from that post? My view on renaissance poetry? My shoe size?

Oh, and my "dictionary difficulties" are perfering Dictionary.com to Merriam-Webster for 2 AM Googling? God, how will I ever live with myself?! The shame, the horror, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth...

On the other hand, for the grown-ups in the audience...

OK, I think you are right. I still think that people don't need to die or be "terrified" for it to be "terrorism", but I'll accept that some violence should be involved. I was looking at the "intimidation" part of the definition, but, I guess, if it's just intimidation of not allowing you to work or keep in contact with others, it's not bad enough to be considered terrorism. Now, can we agree that a private individual disagreeing with another private individual is not "censorship"? And that your 1st Ammendment applies only to the government censoring speech and press?

So now the definition of terrorism means that people have to actually die? Or at least be actually terrified?

Expecting "terrorism" to involve "terror" is like expecting "homophobia" to include "uncontrollable fear". The definition most people use goes something like this:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

If the August blackout in Northeastern US and Canada was caused by a saboteur, it would not have been terror, because no one died? I would say that an event like that would fit the above definition to a tee.

I can't help but think that
1. This is all jolly good because the victim is Internet Haggnah, who are a bunch of uppity Jews anyway. If it had been, oh, Al-Jazeera, then we would all be screaming from the rooftops about freedom of speech. No?
2. If the DOS attack was against my ISP, the result would be pretty intimidating: I would not be able to work, earn money, or access my banking info, among others. If my work was web-based, this would be even more so, an equivalent to blowing up my building and equpment, while no one was there. Um, talk to a sci-fi writer or something, they may help out how "plugged-in" the average North American is these days.

Comment statistics for angua on the Electrolite blog

Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.