Re: WA - background-image in CSS

Your are verging on a record for logical fallacies in one day, I think.

The absurdity of what you have written is readily evident. Take my 
analogy to public roads. I said that just because you own your car 
doesn't mean that you can do anything you want with it on public roads.

You've turned this into an argument that I, as a private citizen, can 
tell you when you can drive, how fast, and where. Don't be ridiculous.

That the web is a public place, and that governments, acting in the 
interests of the public (we hope) can regulate that environment (and 
should) bears absolutely no resemblance to your absurd rantings about 
individual users forcing authors to rewrite their pages.

Calm down a little. You might regain your sense of perspective.

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington


Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 10:58 AM -0800 1/18/02, Charles F. Munat wrote:
> 
>> You post your page, you are now in the public sphere. And the public 
>> has a right to regulate what you can and cannot do in the public 
>> sphere. That includes telling you what you can do with your web page, 
>> and how you can do it.
> 
> 
> Yeah! To hell with freedom of expression! If I don't like what Charles
> Munat puts on his web page, I -- meaning anyone who possibly looks at
> it -- has the right to ORDER him to take my needs into account!
> 
> Like, if I go to Charles's page, and it's not what I want it to be,
> I can demand that he rewrite the page to:
> 
> (a) Meet my purposes instead of his. For example, maybe my purpose
>     is to determine whether or not he and I are sexually compatible.
>     Information about web standards is not helpful to me in this
>     regard.
> 
> (b) Provide the information I want to have. His information may be
>     incomplete. If this is the case, I have a right to require him
>     to give me more information -- because I want it.
> 
> (c) Require him to take down parts of the site that seem to be
>     unnecessary to me. For example, maybe he posts both a picture
>     of his house, and a text description. Tear down that image!
>     Completely worthless AND it clutters the web. And heavens
>     knows we can't have the web being cluttered.
> 
> (d) Make him get rid of bad things too. After all, we can't be
>     criticizing, for example, governments.
> 
> This is the type of control that's being suggested, Charles, and
> the type of control which you are supporting with your vague notions
> of "public control."  The statement was made that the author is not
> allowed to decide what parts of his content are "essential" and what
> is not.  Once you start deciding that authorial intent doesn't
> matter and the public has the right to make demands on authorial
> intent, you pretty much squash any concepts of reasonable expression
> on the Internet.
> 
> --Kynn
>

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 22:51:05 UTC