Mutating
Maxwell Hammer
the internet for privacy reasons. It's not big brother we have to worry
about, it is good search engines. So many employers and govenment entities
include internet searches in background checks. Usenet is fairly obscure,
but you never know.
So now I'm Maxwell Hammer. If anyone ever asks, you don't know me.
I only use my real name on the net when it's something I could show to my
grandmother.
Max
moonglow minnow
> Hi it's N*y*x. I think every so often you should mutate fake identies on
> the internet for privacy reasons. It's not big brother we have to worry
> about, it is good search engines. So many employers and govenment entities
> include internet searches in background checks. Usenet is fairly obscure,
> but you never know.
>
> So now I'm Maxwell Hammer. If anyone ever asks, you don't know me.
Do you realize how inconvenient this is for the people who had you
killfiled? I mean, for some people, it takes *seconds* to re-plonk.
... And do you realize how you've mutated into a living earworm?
minnow >^..^<
--
http://twitter.com/taheenahana
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
Maxwell Hammer
news:7ptifh...@mid.individual.net:
> ... And do you realize how you've mutated into a living earworm?
It's memetic evolution, baby.
It was either that or King Marigold.
Max
Panurge
> So many employers and govenment entities
> include internet searches in background checks. Usenet is fairly obscure,
> but you never know.
Uh, isn't it a bit late for that?
--p (remebering as unalways to post under his handle) ;-)
--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony
Maxwell Hammer
B4FDB7.210...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
>
> Uh, isn't it a bit late for that?
It's never to late to change;)
Max
Peter H. Coffin
On the other hand, if you live your life online at least as positively
as you live your life offline, the internet searches don't bother you
much. My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I praise
and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save everyone
some time? On the other hand, someone can look at it and think "Hmm...
This guy can fight with people on the internet without sinking to
name-calling, answers more questions than he asks, and when he does
ask, they frequently end up revealing something interesting about the
subject. He's got a wide range of knowlege and interests. I'd rather
have him working for me than my competitor."
--
33. I won't require high-ranking female members of my organization to
wear a stainless-steel bustier. Morale is better with a more casual
dress-code. Similarly, outfits made entirely from black leather will
be reserved for formal occasions. --Anspach's Evil Overlord List
Maxwell Hammer
news:slrnhjmkv6....@abyss.ninehells.com:
> On the other hand, if you live your life online at least as positively
> as you live your life offline, the internet searches don't bother you
> much.
That's fine until you get into a custody battle and they drag up everything
you've ever said and judge you for it.
That sort of happened to me, but like I said, usenet is obscure. They
didn't know about it. However, I did use it on her... she didn't realize
you could save and print text messages...and I had saved every one of them
I ever recieved. I also used her imageshack photos against her.
Max
Maxwell Hammer
news:slrnhjn7u4.5bp...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk:
> That's the way I look at it myself, but I appreciate that
> the
> usefulness of such an approach depends in part on what one does for a
> living. As I'm a writer it's useful for people to know who I am, what
> I think and what my interests are, but other people live in constant
> fear of potential employers finding out that they have hobbies,
> friends etc.
Imagine you were in a family law case where they judged and condemned
you for being a goth, being trans, into bdsm, etc. They can bring up
anything they want, and they do.
Which is why I separate my writing into different personas. The
celebrity gossip goes under the Maxwell persona. Freelance and
journalism goes under my real name. I've got other personas for
different things.
Max
Peter H. Coffin
So you're protecting yourself from you? Interesting...
--
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-- HL Mencken
Maxwell Hammer
> So you're protecting yourself from you? Interesting...
>
No, but if I can do it anyone can. I may be better at it than her lawyer
was, but that may not always be the case.
Max
`una
> Hi it's N*y*x.
That explains a lot. Feel free to ignore that post I wrote to you
because I was reading down in reverse order. And this one too.
`una - *plonk*
TenshiKurai9
> Do you realize how inconvenient this is for the people who had you
> killfiled? I mean, for some people, it takes *seconds* to re-plonk.
At least he's not a virus that regenerates names quickly. Remember a
"she who must not be named" who infected us by cross-posting?
> ... And do you realize how you've mutated into a living earworm?
He's a living bit of tune stuck in our heads?
-TenshiKurai9
Joseph Brenner
Maxwell Hammer <secr...@gmail.com> writes:
> Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> That's the way I look at it myself, but I appreciate that the
>> usefulness of such an approach depends in part on what one does for a
>> living. As I'm a writer it's useful for people to know who I am, what
>> I think and what my interests are, but other people live in constant
>> fear of potential employers finding out that they have hobbies,
>> friends etc.
> Imagine you were in a family law case where they judged and condemned
> you for being a goth, being trans, into bdsm, etc. They can bring up
> anything they want, and they do.
Such things certainly happen. I know someone who had problems with
child custody because he goes to Burning Man. This is (or was?)
"the Land of the Free", but if you actually exercise your freedom,
all of a sudden you're not such a solid citizen.
Th thing is that these kinds of problems can arise from *any* exercise
of freedom, in fact any expression of character. You do understand
that they can use the books you own against you in court?
How much of your life is going to be ruled by worst case scenarios?
> Which is why I separate my writing into different personas. The
> celebrity gossip goes under the Maxwell persona. Freelance and
> journalism goes under my real name. I've got other personas for
> different things.
I would guess that just the fact that you're using different identities
could be used as evidence that you're sneaky and deceptive and doing
something unsavory.
Peter H. Coffin
> Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in
>
>> I would guess that just the fact that you're using different
>> identities could be used as evidence that you're sneaky and deceptive
>> and doing something unsavory.
>
> So are you saying that we should just rollover and give up all our
> privacy?
>
> I don't know about you but I don't want to live an open and
> transparent life.
>
> They say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have
> anything to worry about. Well, I'm doing things that people think are
> wrong. Lots of them. I do have something to worry about. I happen to
> think that it's everyone else with the problem.
>
> Some people seem to be saying that if we bear all of our sins to the
> world then the world will adapt to us. Yeah, sure. That has happened
> in the past. But they ususally burned a few heretics before it was
> eventually accepted.
>
> I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not
> gay. I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that
> they put you in jail for if they find out.
I think what he's saying, or at least what *I'm* saying anyway, is that
if you're doing something online that you need to hide, quit doing it
online. Keep it tucked away in your own bedroom, or bathroom, or
basement, or wherever is convenient and also your own space where you
can *have* a legal expectation of privacy. It's better to expect *no*
privacy out here, and be open about what people could find out anyway,
because then YOU'RE not responsible for ensuring someone else doesn't
misuse it. I'm not sure Montieth ever said it but it's something he
might have: An unlocked door is not an invitation.
--
12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any
flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before
implementation.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhk4sm2....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:22:21 +0000 (UTC), Maxwell Hammer wrote:
>
>> Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in
>>
>>> I would guess that just the fact that you're using different
>>> identities could be used as evidence that you're sneaky and deceptive
>>> and doing something unsavory.
>>
>> So are you saying that we should just rollover and give up all our
>> privacy?
>>
>> I don't know about you but I don't want to live an open and
>> transparent life.
>>
>> They say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have
>> anything to worry about. Well, I'm doing things that people think are
>> wrong. Lots of them. I do have something to worry about. I happen to
>> think that it's everyone else with the problem.
>>
>> Some people seem to be saying that if we bear all of our sins to the
>> world then the world will adapt to us. Yeah, sure. That has happened
>> in the past. But they ususally burned a few heretics before it was
>> eventually accepted.
>>
>> I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not
>> gay. I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that
>> they put you in jail for if they find out.
>
> I think what he's saying, or at least what *I'm* saying anyway, is that
> if you're doing something online that you need to hide, quit doing it
> online.
that people have put up there for others to see. In some countries it's
illegal.
You know what happened in various counties where human rights aren't being
honoured
or even considered.
>Keep it tucked away in your own bedroom, or bathroom, or
> basement, or wherever is convenient and also your own space where you
> can *have* a legal expectation of privacy.
Yep if you know certain things you're wiser to keep then quite if you want
to live,
but does that make it right.
I like it when people film themselves doing illegal[1] things then put it on
youtube
and then get found out and charged etc...
>It's better to expect *no*
> privacy out here, and be open about what people could find out anyway,
> because then YOU'RE not responsible for ensuring someone else doesn't
> misuse it. I'm not sure Montieth ever said it but it's something he
> might have: An unlocked door is not an invitation.
Well I've been to parties were they leave the door unlocked but not open,
the idea being that you are invited, you know the door is open, if yuor not
invited
you assume it's locked :)
[1] the difficulty is sometimes deciding on whether it should be illegal or
not.
Endymion
wrote:
> My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
> it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
> disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I praise
> and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save everyone
> some time?
Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you might
want or need their money.
- Endymion
Joseph Brenner
Maxwell Hammer <Secr...@gmail.com> writes:
> So are you saying that we should just rollover and give up all our
> privacy?
>
> I don't know about you but I don't want to live an open and transparent
> life.
Actually, what I'm saying is that that's what I try to do... I didn't
mean to imply that I know what *you* should try to do.
> I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not gay.
> I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that they put
> you in jail for if they find out.
Being "cool" doesn't necessarily help you all that much.
Peter H. Coffin
If they don't realize it, they'll not bother looking. If they suspect
that they might, they'll likely find a reason, real or imagined. It
might as well be something real, if there's real that they don't like.
--
50. My main computers will have their own special operating system that
will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and Macintosh
powerbooks.
Jennie Kermode
> can *have* a legal expectation of privacy. It's better to expect *no*
> privacy out here, and be open about what people could find out anyway,
> because then YOU'RE not responsible for ensuring someone else doesn't
> misuse it.
There's also the fact that it's much easier to present
something as disreputable or morally unacceptable if the person who did
it made efforts to conceal it, because that can be interpreted as
meaning that they too were ashamed of it.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Jennie Kermode
> So are you saying that we should just rollover and give up all our
> privacy?
I don't think anyone's saying you should do anything; we're
just explaining what we choose to do. I actually spend quite a bit of my
time campaigning to defend privacy laws for precisely the kind of
reasons you raise.
> Some people seem to be saying that if we bear all of our sins to the
> world then the world will adapt to us. Yeah, sure. That has happened in
> the past. But they ususally burned a few heretics before it was
> eventually accepted.
True, and nobody should be among those heretics unwillingly,
no matter what their personally held beliefs. One of the reasons I speak
openly about my life is so that other people won't have to.
Jennie Kermode
> Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you might
> want or need their money.
That's a good reason for many people to be cautious. I don't
think anyone is arguing that openness is the right option for everyone.
It's something one might choose to do when already enjoying plentiful
resources, or in those situations (like mine, and mostly in the arts or
academia) where it can itself be useful to a career.
Maxwell Hammer
news:slrnhk7ckf....@abyss.ninehells.com:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:14:24 -0800 (PST), Endymion wrote:
>> On Dec 30 2009, 8:21�am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
>>> it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
>>> disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I
>>> praise and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save
>>> everyone some time?
>>
>> Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you
>> might want or need their money.
>
> If they don't realize it, they'll not bother looking. If they suspect
> that they might, they'll likely find a reason, real or imagined. It
> might as well be something real, if there's real that they don't like.
>
That's not true. Background checks are a matter of routine these days.
Jobs, apartments, sometimes loans, all have some sort of check. Some may
be just a credit check, others might include a web search, some are drug
tests.
I worked for a company that had a whole department devoted to searching
for mentions of its trademarked name on the web. They weren't snooping
on employees, they were searching for bad pr and complaints to try to
fix them before they became an internet meme or something. But in doing
that they often found employees talking inside information on Myspace
and Blogger.
What if one day they start doing a DNA test for Teh Gay Gene? Or the
bipolar gene? What if your prospective employer is a fantatical
Christian and he found your email address on an atheist site? That's not
even illegal.
Sure, you might say you wouldn't want to work there. But what if you
need the job? What if you haven't worked for 6 months and the
electricity is cut off? You're going to be wishing you hadn't made that
post.
To me what is better than not making the post is to have made it, but
not be recognized by anyone who might be bothered by it.
People don't seem to realize that what goes out on the internet will
last forever in some form. You don't know what kind of changes you are
going to go through in 20 or 50 years.
Max
(Just realized he can sell this post as an editorial, if it's
reworked.)
Kaos
<Secr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in
>news:87ljge7...@kzsu.stanford.edu:
>> Maxwell Hammer <secr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Which is why I separate my writing into different personas. The
>>> celebrity gossip goes under the Maxwell persona. Freelance and
>>> journalism goes under my real name. I've got other personas for
>>> different things.
There seems to be something ironic about a celebrity-gossip writer
bemoaning the loss of his own privacy...
>> I would guess that just the fact that you're using different identities
>> could be used as evidence that you're sneaky and deceptive and doing
>> something unsavory.
>
>So are you saying that we should just rollover and give up all our
>privacy?
>
>I don't know about you but I don't want to live an open and transparent
>life.
>
>They say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything
>to worry about. Well, I'm doing things that people think are wrong. Lots
>of them. I do have something to worry about. I happen to think that it's
>everyone else with the problem.
>Some people seem to be saying that if we bear all of our sins to the
>world then the world will adapt to us. Yeah, sure. That has happened in
>the past. But they ususally burned a few heretics before it was
>eventually accepted.
And I respect the sacrifices they made, as I do those who fought for
my country in the past wars (and this is regardless of whether their
reasons were the same as mine.)
>I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not gay.
>I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that they put
>you in jail for if they find out.
Gay/trans/poly are only 'cool' on a situational basis.
And meaning no offense, but if the things you're doing are things that
could get you put in jail for then only two scenarios crop up:
1) You deserve to be in jail for those things, and thus don't deserve
my support or sympathy.
2) The law is wrong and needs to be challenged, and your
self-closetting is allowing an unjust situation to persist. Which is
something I might sympathize with, but still not something I could
really support.
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in
> news:slrnhk7ckf....@abyss.ninehells.com:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:14:24 -0800 (PST), Endymion wrote:
>>> On Dec 30 2009, 8:21�am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
>>>> it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
>>>> disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I
>>>> praise and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save
>>>> everyone some time?
>>>
>>> Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you
>>> might want or need their money.
>>
>> If they don't realize it, they'll not bother looking. If they suspect
>> that they might, they'll likely find a reason, real or imagined. It
>> might as well be something real, if there's real that they don't like.
>>
>
> That's not true. Background checks are a matter of routine these days.
> Jobs, apartments, sometimes loans, all have some sort of check. Some may
> be just a credit check, others might include a web search, some are drug
> tests.
I'm perfectly okay with that. Those that add in a web search are going
to have a lot of material to wade through.
> I worked for a company that had a whole department devoted to searching
> for mentions of its trademarked name on the web. They weren't snooping
> on employees, they were searching for bad pr and complaints to try to
> fix them before they became an internet meme or something. But in doing
> that they often found employees talking inside information on Myspace
> and Blogger.
Great! More power to 'em! The employees shouldn't be talking about
inside information outside the confines of a business discussion with
all parties present authorized by the company to be discussing that
information. People posting it on MySpace and Blogger are A) possibly
violating some federal laws with regard to trade- and service marks,
B) probably in violation of their own employment agreements and C)
demonstrably untrustworthy idiots. I am none of those. Any time I make
any comment about any of my employer's products, I make it clear under
what conditions I'm making the comment, disclosing who I work for, that
I'm speaking on my own experience, making no promises on behalf of my
employer, etc. For their part, my employer's told me that they may do
similar sorts of things to the above, that and spelled out how and
where I'm allowed to talk about the company's products and what kind of
help and participation I can give online. In short, I read what I was
supposed to read, retained memory of it, and every year I get a kind
reminder to read it again and sign a nice document saying that I read
it. That's not a problem at all. Rules are there because something
happened or could easily have happend that would have put the company at
risk, and I'm not interested in doing that, so rules help point out what
*I* don't think of.
> What if one day they start doing a DNA test for Teh Gay Gene? Or the
> bipolar gene? What if your prospective employer is a fantatical
> Christian and he found your email address on an atheist site? That's not
> even illegal.
That's the part that I alluded to elsewhere. If someone's not going to
hire me because they think I'm an atheist or Teh Gay, I'm not interested
in working for them *regardless of whether it's a true assumption or
not*.
> Sure, you might say you wouldn't want to work there. But what if you
> need the job? What if you haven't worked for 6 months and the
> electricity is cut off? You're going to be wishing you hadn't made that
> post.
*shrug* I've got restaurant experience, and speak enough Spanish to
work in a kitchen. I can find six places to get a random job that
there's no more concern than "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
and "Are you legally allowed to work in the United States?" within an
hour's walk.
> To me what is better than not making the post is to have made it, but
> not be recognized by anyone who might be bothered by it.
Presuming no one saw your own "Hi, I'm ******, now being this" post, and
it's not stored in some searchable archive. (Someone with your level of
care obviously can't trust an "X-No-Archive" to REMOVE your post, only
to make it invisible. And what's invisible now can be made visible
sometime.)
> People don't seem to realize that what goes out on the internet will
> last forever in some form. You don't know what kind of changes you are
> going to go through in 20 or 50 years.
Including the connection. Tra-la, tra-la... All the more reason to
continue forever and have been forever open. Look what happened to
S*t*r, he was a persistant troll, but he made a big deal about being
secret and was even pretty good at it, but eventually someone finds out
he's a realtor in a collapsing housing market, including his website.
Now he can't troll anymore because instead of suspecting he's a pathetic
dork in real life, we can feel honestly sorry for him because we KNOW he
is.
> Max
> (Just realized he can sell this post as an editorial, if it's
> reworked.)
--
I think it's a beautiful day to go to the zoo and feed the ducks.
To the lions.
-- Brian Kantor
The Ghost of Fascinet Present
I knew a someone, and he got himself conned into some expensive self-
improvement courses. One of their watchwords was integrity.
Integrity of being, integrity in life: one of the hallmarks of this
creed was that everything you do should be open to the point that you
actively communicate it to people who aren't involved.
Several years ago, he called me up. "Fascinet," he said, "you know
that this program I'm in values integrity, right? Well, there's
something I want you to know. I don't want you to get freaked out, can
you promise me that? I'm not really in advertising like I said. I've
tried office jobs, you know, but they never work out. I just can't
handle it, so I keep slipping back into old habits, coming back to
LA. I started again just a week before I met you. I run a 'massage'
service out of my apartment. I'm really just a forty year-old
homosexual prostitute."
"O.K.," I said.
"You're not bothered by that?"
"No."
"Good."
"Um, Fascinet," he said after a pause. "Do you think I should tell my
dad?"
"No," I said. He didn't listen to me, he listened to someone on an on-
line forum associated with the cult. It was a mistake.
Who here thinks that it was a good idea for him to discuss this using
his own name on a friendly forum on the internet? Now that he's
training to work in the healthcare industry, do you think that will
help him, harm him, or neither?
Just because you do it, say it, or think it doesn't mean that it's
proper for someone in another relationship to know about it. This
includes your promiscuous felching in the alley or your belief that
they're fat, troll-faced buffoons. This is especially true of
professional relationships.
Certainly, it's better that you have enough clients or customers that
you can withstand the loss of an obnoxious one without affecting your
responsibilities to others. That's one of the greatest benefits of
civilization. But even here, not everyone is in such demand with so
few responsibilities that they can do this.
Even someone who aspires to a professional post in a company or a
field coincidentally dominated by Republicans should have a right to
keep secret the fact that he contributed a thousand dollars to Cynthia
McKinney's last presidential bid (although he does not have such a
right, the contribution will be posted on-line in several places where
someone who's trying to check some professional qualifications might
run into it without intent).
Some things are just not relevant.
-F
Peter H. Coffin
> Even someone who aspires to a professional post in a company or a
> field coincidentally dominated by Republicans should have a right to
> keep secret the fact that he contributed a thousand dollars to Cynthia
> McKinney's last presidential bid (although he does not have such a
> right, the contribution will be posted on-line in several places where
> someone who's trying to check some professional qualifications might
> run into it without intent).
>
> Some things are just not relevant.
*nod* and kind of related, there's a HUGE difference between not
mentioning your donation in an irrelevant circumstance, not mentioning
the donation in a *relevant* circumstance (like to a campaign finance
hearing under oath), and using a false name to make the donation.
--
They got rid of it because they judged it more trouble than it was
worth. (And considering they'd gone to great lengths to minimize its
worth, I suppose they were right.)
-- J. D. Baldwin
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhk97f6.5b4...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2010-01-04, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> can *have* a legal expectation of privacy. It's better to expect *no*
>> privacy out here, and be open about what people could find out anyway,
>> because then YOU'RE not responsible for ensuring someone else doesn't
>> misuse it.
>
> There's also the fact that it's much easier to present
> something as disreputable or morally unacceptable if the person who did
> it made efforts to conceal it, because that can be interpreted as
> meaning that they too were ashamed of it.
Then why did God create fig leaves.
:)
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhka1r0....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:51 +0000 (UTC), Maxwell Hammer wrote:
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in
>> news:slrnhk7ckf....@abyss.ninehells.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:14:24 -0800 (PST), Endymion wrote:
>>>> On Dec 30 2009, 8:21 am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
>>>>> it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
>>>>> disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I
>>>>> praise and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save
>>>>> everyone some time?
>>>>
>>>> Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you
>>>> might want or need their money.
>>>
>>> If they don't realize it, they'll not bother looking. If they suspect
>>> that they might, they'll likely find a reason, real or imagined. It
>>> might as well be something real, if there's real that they don't like.
>>>
>>
>> That's not true. Background checks are a matter of routine these days.
>> Jobs, apartments, sometimes loans, all have some sort of check. Some may
>> be just a credit check, others might include a web search, some are drug
>> tests.
>
> I'm perfectly okay with that. Those that add in a web search are going
> to have a lot of material to wade through.
It's been done to me, post(s) cited by my 'boss' from here and used in a
compliant against me.
>
> Great! More power to 'em! The employees shouldn't be talking about
> inside information outside the confines of a business discussion with
> all parties present authorized by the company to be discussing that
> information. People posting it on MySpace and Blogger are A) possibly
> violating some federal laws with regard to trade- and service marks,
> B) probably in violation of their own employment agreements and C)
> demonstrably untrustworthy idiots.
What iof you say something that is true and factual but your employer
prefers
such things covered up as it's embarrassing if not illegal for them to be
doing it. ?
>> What if one day they start doing a DNA test for Teh Gay Gene? Or the
>> bipolar gene? What if your prospective employer is a fantatical
>> Christian and he found your email address on an atheist site? That's not
>> even illegal.
>
> That's the part that I alluded to elsewhere. If someone's not going to
> hire me because they think I'm an atheist or Teh Gay, I'm not interested
> in working for them *regardless of whether it's a true assumption or
> not*.
Oh I don;t know sometimes these things are important.
If you went for the job of Pope I wouldn't blame the Catholic church for not
employing
you because they found out you were an atheist, not to sure about Teh Gay
bit though ;-)
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhka1r0....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>> I'm perfectly okay with that. Those that add in a web search are going
>> to have a lot of material to wade through.
>
> It's been done to me, post(s) cited by my 'boss' from here and used in a
> compliant against me.
I'd think an accusation that your spelling is atrocious and style of
argument muddled would be entirely accurate. I'm not sure what else they
could get from you.
>> Great! More power to 'em! The employees shouldn't be talking about
>> inside information outside the confines of a business discussion with
>> all parties present authorized by the company to be discussing that
>> information. People posting it on MySpace and Blogger are A) possibly
>> violating some federal laws with regard to trade- and service marks,
>> B) probably in violation of their own employment agreements and C)
>> demonstrably untrustworthy idiots.
>
> What iof you say something that is true and factual but your employer
> prefers such things covered up as it's embarrassing if not illegal for
> them to be doing it. ?
Illegal for them to be doing the searching? Or illegal for you to be
doing whatever it was that they're snooping out?
>>> What if one day they start doing a DNA test for Teh Gay Gene? Or the
>>> bipolar gene? What if your prospective employer is a fantatical
>>> Christian and he found your email address on an atheist site? That's not
>>> even illegal.
>>
>> That's the part that I alluded to elsewhere. If someone's not going to
>> hire me because they think I'm an atheist or Teh Gay, I'm not interested
>> in working for them *regardless of whether it's a true assumption or
>> not*.
>
> Oh I don;t know sometimes these things are important.
> If you went for the job of Pope I wouldn't blame the Catholic church for not
> employing
> you because they found out you were an atheist, not to sure about Teh Gay
> bit though ;-)
I'm not likely to get the offer in the first place, so it's a pretty
irrelevant hypothetical.
--
Remember, a 12'x12'x18" raised floor can hold over a thousand gallons of
blood before it starts to seep up through the cracks.
-- Roger Burton West in the Monastery
NightMist
Ah, to be such a young idealist again...
I not only post here, but also in a bdsm group and a discordian group.
Neither of those things are technically illegal.
That does not mean that you won't go to jail for them. In fact I have
on a temporary arrested but not charged sort of basis, and one really
wild whacked out sort of case (I won).
I have been bashed, more than once, for my lifestyle. I do not want
to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for yet more people who are so
inclined.
Plus anyone who has minor children should not ever post openly
anywhere. There are way too many crazies in social services, and plus
if you ever get involved in any sort of custody dispute a lawyer can
and will try to make a case out of anything and nothing.
I have no doubt that someone dedicated could track me down.
I see no reason why I should make it easy for every nutjob out there
though.
NightMist
--
Legolas is my house elf
Panurge
> Look what happened to S*t*r,...
I've been here all this time and I'm STILL not one of the kewl kidz, I
guess--when did all this happen and how did I miss it?
--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony
whisky-dave
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:59:35 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhka1r0....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>> I'm perfectly okay with that. Those that add in a web search are going
>>> to have a lot of material to wade through.
>>
>> It's been done to me, post(s) cited by my 'boss' from here and used in a
>> compliant against me.
>
> I'd think an accusation that your spelling is atrocious and style of
> argument muddled would be entirely accurate. I'm not sure what else they
> could get from you.
They often try, but on this occasionn I'd said something about my 'boss'
and I was told that he could 'get me' for slander, I'd already checked up.
And I told them that for him to do that he'd have to prove I was lying and
as I hadn;t said
anything other than the truth they couldn't do much other than embarrass
themselves.
But I did agree not to say anything again via my work account
but I would do exactly the same from home, and they wouldn;t klnow what I
was saying so
would they prefer to know what I was saying or not. for some reason they
dropped the 'charge'.
>> What iof you say something that is true and factual but your employer
>> prefers such things covered up as it's embarrassing if not illegal for
>> them to be doing it. ?
>
> Illegal for them to be doing the searching? Or illegal for you to be
> doing whatever it was that they're snooping out?
Well presently I'm concerned that they are about to break H&S regulations
by installing a drill press in my office for students to use. Which means a
drill being used
by untrained students behind my head, and then there's safety clothing
situation.
And also temerature, it's was 8C in my office when I arrived.
5C in the lab and I wanted to know if I should open the lab at those
temperatures
when H&S factories act states that the minimum temp should be 16C.
So I've been asking about and no one is prepared to give me an answer other
than to say
I have to have the lab open. It's not that I'm being difficult but the
heating system hasn';t
worked in the lab for nearly 30 years ! and they still haven't got it sorted
in all that time.
They also refuse to put the heating on until people arrive back.
Today is the first days the temps been above 16C in the lab, all I want to
know is
weather ;-) we have a legal obligation to studetnts as they aren't employed
but classed as visitors.
You'd have throught with masses of administrators we have in the univ and
H&S services
someone would know, but it seems not. The students have complained to me but
most of
the staff seem to be working from home or taking days off. I wonder why. ;-)
>>> That's the part that I alluded to elsewhere. If someone's not going to
>>> hire me because they think I'm an atheist or Teh Gay, I'm not interested
>>> in working for them *regardless of whether it's a true assumption or
>>> not*.
>>
>> Oh I don;t know sometimes these things are important.
>> If you went for the job of Pope I wouldn't blame the Catholic church for
>> not
>> employing
>> you because they found out you were an atheist, not to sure about Teh Gay
>> bit though ;-)
>
> I'm not likely to get the offer in the first place, so it's a pretty
> irrelevant hypothetical.
There's nothing wrong with hypothetical, there's lots of good reasons to be
hypothetical.
It can help you prepare for what could happen in life in the real world.
Suppose a woman wanted to be Pope ?
Is religion above equal opportunities ?
Am I a misogynist for hitting a women that has attacked me ?
Do you think it's hypothetical that a female could change in to a male but
be banned
from doing personal care for women but OK for him to do personal care for
men
while being a homosexual man.
I know someone in this situation.
whisky-dave
"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b4628c...@news.windstream.net...
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:12:38 GMT, Kaos <ka...@xplornet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:22:21 +0000 (UTC), Maxwell Hammer
>><Secr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not gay.
>>>I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that they put
>>>you in jail for if they find out.
>>
>>Gay/trans/poly are only 'cool' on a situational basis.
>>
>>And meaning no offense, but if the things you're doing are things that
>>could get you put in jail for then only two scenarios crop up:
>>
>>1) You deserve to be in jail for those things, and thus don't deserve
>>my support or sympathy.
>>
>>2) The law is wrong and needs to be challenged, and your
>>self-closetting is allowing an unjust situation to persist. Which is
>>something I might sympathize with, but still not something I could
>>really support.
>
> Ah, to be such a young idealist again...
Or living in a fantasy, until you have to leave it behind that is.
>
> I not only post here, but also in a bdsm group and a discordian group.
What's a discordian group ?
> Neither of those things are technically illegal.
> That does not mean that you won't go to jail for them. In fact I have
> on a temporary arrested but not charged sort of basis, and one really
> wild whacked out sort of case (I won).
>
> I have been bashed, more than once,
Isn't that part of bdsm ? ;-)
>for my lifestyle. I do not want
> to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for yet more people who are so
> inclined.
try poisoned breadcrumbs.
>
> Plus anyone who has minor children should not ever post openly
> anywhere.
What are minor children, I'm guessing below about 14 years old.
> There are way too many crazies in social services, and plus
> if you ever get involved in any sort of custody dispute a lawyer can
> and will try to make a case out of anything and nothing.
Well that is how they make their living.
> I have no doubt that someone dedicated could track me down.
> I see no reason why I should make it easy for every nutjob out there
> though.
Why is it that nutjobs get given so much power in the world.
Not that I want to bring Hitler up.
doh !
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>> Look what happened to S*t*r,...
>
> I've been here all this time and I'm STILL not one of the kewl kidz, I
> guess--when did all this happen and how did I miss it?
Hmm... C13 timeframe, I think, so it might have been lost in the dregs
of SWMNBN. Blackavar was the one that had the website URL, I think.
--
The plural of datum is not "facts".
A collection of facts is not "knowledge".
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhkbu8r....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:59:35 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhka1r0....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm perfectly okay with that. Those that add in a web search are
>>>> going to have a lot of material to wade through.
>>>
>>> It's been done to me, post(s) cited by my 'boss' from here and used
>>> in a compliant against me.
>>
>> I'd think an accusation that your spelling is atrocious and style of
>> argument muddled would be entirely accurate. I'm not sure what else
>> they could get from you.
>
> They often try, but on this occasionn I'd said something about my
> 'boss' and I was told that he could 'get me' for slander, I'd already
> checked up. And I told them that for him to do that he'd have to prove
> I was lying and as I hadn;t said anything other than the truth they
> couldn't do much other than embarrass themselves. But I did agree not
> to say anything again via my work account but I would do exactly the
> same from home, and they wouldn;t klnow what I was saying so would
> they prefer to know what I was saying or not. for some reason they
> dropped the 'charge'.
There you are. Work account, which reflects on the organization. It's a
fairly clear line. My work address doesn't show up on ANYTHING unless
it's work-related.
>>> What iof you say something that is true and factual but your
>>> employer prefers such things covered up as it's embarrassing if not
>>> illegal for them to be doing it. ?
>>
>> Illegal for them to be doing the searching? Or illegal for you to be
>> doing whatever it was that they're snooping out?
>
> Well presently I'm concerned that they are about to break H&S
> regulations by installing a drill press in my office for students to
> use. Which means a drill being used by untrained students behind my
> head, and then there's safety clothing situation.
Well, get them some goggles then! I'm sure you know a DJ someplace.
> And also temerature, it's was 8C in my office when I arrived. 5C
> in the lab and I wanted to know if I should open the lab at those
> temperatures when H&S factories act states that the minimum temp
> should be 16C. So I've been asking about and no one is prepared to
> give me an answer other than to say I have to have the lab open. It's
> not that I'm being difficult but the heating system hasn';t worked in
> the lab for nearly 30 years ! and they still haven't got it sorted in
> all that time.
I suppose they've forgotten that computers these days don't run on 2KW
of power anymore.
> They also refuse to put the heating on until people arrive back. Today
> is the first days the temps been above 16C in the lab, all I want to
> know is weather ;-) we have a legal obligation to studetnts as they
> aren't employed but classed as visitors. You'd have throught with
> masses of administrators we have in the univ and H&S services someone
> would know, but it seems not. The students have complained to me but
> most of the staff seem to be working from home or taking days off. I
> wonder why. ;-)
Seems simple enough: if the students have to be in there to do their
work, they're effectively employees. If it's an optional situation, and
they can finish their assignments on computers they all have at home,
then they're visitors.
>>>> That's the part that I alluded to elsewhere. If someone's not going
>>>> to hire me because they think I'm an atheist or Teh Gay, I'm not
>>>> interested in working for them *regardless of whether it's a true
>>>> assumption or not*.
>>>
>>> Oh I don;t know sometimes these things are important. If you went
>>> for the job of Pope I wouldn't blame the Catholic church for not
>>> employing you because they found out you were an atheist, not to
>>> sure about Teh Gay bit though ;-)
>>
>> I'm not likely to get the offer in the first place, so it's a pretty
>> irrelevant hypothetical.
>
> There's nothing wrong with hypothetical, there's lots of good reasons
> to be hypothetical. It can help you prepare for what could happen
> in life in the real world. Suppose a woman wanted to be Pope ? Is
> religion above equal opportunities ? Am I a misogynist for hitting a
> women that has attacked me ?
>
> Do you think it's hypothetical that a female could change in to a male
> but be banned from doing personal care for women but OK for him to do
> personal care for men while being a homosexual man. I know someone in
> this situation.
The hypotheticalness of the situation isn't my objection, it's the
irrelevancy. My belief in God isn't relevant to whether I'll be selected
as Pope because I'm not Catholic.
whisky-dave
I've edited my email address though, and I'm not trying to hide anything.
>> Well presently I'm concerned that they are about to break H&S
>> regulations by installing a drill press in my office for students to
>> use. Which means a drill being used by untrained students behind my
>> head, and then there's safety clothing situation.
>
> Well, get them some goggles then! I'm sure you know a DJ someplace.
Have done, but what about overalls and most importanlty safety shoes,
Do I get lots of differtn sizes and if so how many of each size.
What if a Muslim student refuses as they are very particular about foot
cleanlyness
and sharing shoes with other studetns might nopt appeal to them, so should I
give
Muslims or indeed anyone special treatment.
In the mechenical eng department students are told if they don;t wear the
shoe they
can;t do the course, where as I've been told to offer them the shoes and if
they don;t
want to wear them they don;t have to, but what if there's an accident the
college is liable
and can be sued or so I've been told by H&S elswhere.
>
>> And also temerature, it's was 8C in my office when I arrived. 5C
>> in the lab and I wanted to know if I should open the lab at those
>> temperatures when H&S factories act states that the minimum temp
>> should be 16C. So I've been asking about and no one is prepared to
>> give me an answer other than to say I have to have the lab open. It's
>> not that I'm being difficult but the heating system hasn';t worked in
>> the lab for nearly 30 years ! and they still haven't got it sorted in
>> all that time.
>
> I suppose they've forgotten that computers these days don't run on 2KW
> of power anymore.
True, I turned on (ooo err misses) about 30 PCs with 350W PSUs
but that's 30X350W of PC fan noise not heat, and the monitors are all LCD.
>
>> They also refuse to put the heating on until people arrive back. Today
>> is the first days the temps been above 16C in the lab, all I want to
>> know is weather ;-) we have a legal obligation to studetnts as they
>> aren't employed but classed as visitors. You'd have throught with
>> masses of administrators we have in the univ and H&S services someone
>> would know, but it seems not. The students have complained to me but
>> most of the staff seem to be working from home or taking days off. I
>> wonder why. ;-)
>
> Seems simple enough: if the students have to be in there to do their
> work, they're effectively employees.
Not legally, they are visitors apparently.
>If it's an optional situation, and
> they can finish their assignments on computers they all have at home,
> then they're visitors.
That's not true as anyone can do their work at home can't they.
They can buy word, photshop even a �10,000 antenna package if they can
afford it.
Druidic Ranger
>
> The hypotheticalness of the situation isn't my objection, it's the
> irrelevancy. My belief in God isn't relevant to whether I'll be selected
> as Pope because I'm not Catholic.
You could probably become a Mormon latter-day saint, however. Their
religion encourages them to infiltrate other religions and
prosthetylize the Mormon faith while masquerading as a Catholic or
Baptist or Lutheran or what have you. It's hardly immoral to do the
same to them and infiltrate their church and take one of their top
positions.
--
Skold
Druidic Ranger
> That's not true as anyone can do their work at home can't they.
> They can buy word, photshop even a £10,000 antenna package if they can
> afford it.
Some of the students are homeless, and one lives in a crawl space
beside the river with no heat.
--
Abraham
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhkeenk....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> Well, get them some goggles then! I'm sure you know a DJ someplace.
>
> Have done, but what about overalls and most importanlty safety shoes,
> Do I get lots of differtn sizes and if so how many of each size. What
> if a Muslim student refuses as they are very particular about foot
> cleanlyness and sharing shoes with other studetns might nopt appeal to
> them, so should I give Muslims or indeed anyone special treatment. In
> the mechenical eng department students are told if they don;t wear the
> shoe they can;t do the course, where as I've been told to offer them
> the shoes and if they don;t want to wear them they don;t have to, but
> what if there's an accident the college is liable and can be sued or
> so I've been told by H&S elswhere.
I'm a little puzzled as to how a drill press will make them drop
something on their toes. Usually, they only either spit little bits of
stuff in one's face (hence the goggles) or make light and sticky
materials whirl around and whack people in the knuckles. Do the overalls
trstrain sleeves? Sometimes floppy sleeving can get caught on the bit.
[..]
>> I suppose they've forgotten that computers these days don't run on 2KW
>> of power anymore.
>
> True, I turned on (ooo err misses) about 30 PCs with 350W PSUs
> but that's 30X350W of PC fan noise not heat, and the monitors are all LCD.
Fan Noise is also heat. Not much, but some. And more importantly, it's
pushing the heat from the wimpy run-cool processors out into the room.
Just remind them that 5C is the absolute minimum recommended operating
temperature for the LCD panels.
--
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food
groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and fat."
-Alex Levine
Kaos
Given that virtually all companies with "insider information" to worry
about have their employees sign non-disclosure agreements, I think
that's fair.
>What if one day they start doing a DNA test for Teh Gay Gene? Or the
>bipolar gene? What if your prospective employer is a fantatical
>Christian and he found your email address on an atheist site? That's not
>even illegal.
Discrimination on the basis of religion *is* ostensibly illegal where
I live (barring valid justification, such as the position being
inherently religious in scope ie. joining the clergy). If he does
make an issue about that, he's opening himself up to getting raped by
the Human Rights tribunals here, if not the more formal courts.
>Sure, you might say you wouldn't want to work there. But what if you
>need the job? What if you haven't worked for 6 months and the
>electricity is cut off? You're going to be wishing you hadn't made that
>post.
Meh. I'm going to be wishing I had other skills as well, so I could
look into other fields and be less subject to the whims of a single
prospective employer.
OTOH, at least in Canada I can file a human rights complaint and
potentially be compensated for his bigotry. Which costs me nothing
except time (which, given my lack of employment, I've got plenty of)
and might very well be worth more than the job I was refused would
have been. And leveraging the right support networks (ie. activist
groups) could probably get me by on the necessities until things
worked their way through the system.
>To me what is better than not making the post is to have made it, but
>not be recognized by anyone who might be bothered by it.
To me, that's no different than just being a silent lurker while
someone else makes the post for you.
Kaos
<disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30 2009, 8:21�am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com>
>wrote:
>
>> My name is on everything I post, here and elsewhere, because
>> it largely paints an accurate portrait of who I am, and people that
>> disapprove of what I write, what I write about doing, and who I praise
>> and shame, will likely also disapprove of me. Why not save everyone
>> some time?
>
>Because they might not *realize* they disapprove of you, and you might
>want or need their money.
I tend to value honesty more than greed, so if it's a mere case of
"wanting" their money then fuck it.
If it's a case of need, I can sympathise a bit better. But on the
other hand, if one is giong to sacrifice honesty for that, why not
just jump the slope and start stealing as well?
Kaos
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:12:38 GMT, Kaos <ka...@xplornet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:22:21 +0000 (UTC), Maxwell Hammer
>><Secr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I also don't have any sort of "cool" issue to hide behind. I'm not gay.
>>>I'm not trans or poly. All I have are the kinds of issues that they put
>>>you in jail for if they find out.
>>
>>Gay/trans/poly are only 'cool' on a situational basis.
>>
>>And meaning no offense, but if the things you're doing are things that
>>could get you put in jail for then only two scenarios crop up:
>>
>>1) You deserve to be in jail for those things, and thus don't deserve
>>my support or sympathy.
>>
>>2) The law is wrong and needs to be challenged, and your
>>self-closetting is allowing an unjust situation to persist. Which is
>>something I might sympathize with, but still not something I could
>>really support.
>
>Ah, to be such a young idealist again...
"All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do
nothing." Or somesuch, spoken by a rather elderly gentleman as I
recall. Idealism is not restricted to youth.
>I not only post here, but also in a bdsm group and a discordian group.
>Neither of those things are technically illegal.
A fact for which you have the more idealistic segment of the populace
to thank. Remember that, when you're counselling others on the wisdom
of "duck and cover."
Maxwell Hammer
news:hbrik5p09dk4j3e68...@4ax.com:
>
> "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do
> nothing." Or somesuch, spoken by a rather elderly gentleman as I
> recall. Idealism is not restricted to youth.
I don't see you posting your name, address, phone number and whatever you
call the national id in Canada. So you must have something to fear. If
you didn't have anything to fear you wouldn't be hiding that information.
Only terrorists have things to hide.
QED that means you are a terrorist. Interpol will be at your home
shortly. Please blindfold yourself for us. It will make things go easier
on you.
Max
Maxwell Hammer
> In my local social circles, 'Max' is understood to be the
> secret name of all evil twins.
>
That's crazy. All twins are evil, so they can be named anything.
Max
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:51 +0000 (UTC), Maxwell Hammer wrote:
<snips />
> > People don't seem to realize that what goes out on the internet will
> > last forever in some form. You don't know what kind of changes you are
> > going to go through in 20 or 50 years.
>
> Including the connection. Tra-la, tra-la... All the more reason to
> continue forever and have been forever open. Look what happened to
> S*t*r, he was a persistant troll, but he made a big deal about being
> secret and was even pretty good at it, but eventually someone finds out
> he's a realtor in a collapsing housing market, including his website.
> Now he can't troll anymore because instead of suspecting he's a pathetic
> dork in real life, we can feel honestly sorry for him because we KNOW he
> is.
Poor bastard. I know most people here pretty much hated him and lord
knows he gave many of them perfectly good reasons. Still, it's always
teh sux0rz to get outed. But eventually it's likely to happen.
Mr Coffin would be one of the first to agree -- and ISTR he's said as
much in the past -- that I never did take all that much effort to keep
my RL and online identities securely partitioned. Indeed, in recent
years I went so far as to pretty much abandon any online nyms other
than the RL one. Yet the thing is, there's no point in going out of my
way to habitually post as the RL if I'm going to be looking for work
or whatever.
I don't know how things are elsewhere in the country, but where I
live, Political Correctness is mandatory in all job applications and
even probably in contracting. So, basically, freedom of speech is
limited to saying what people want you to say. Even politicians in
hotly-contested local races are reduced to blatting platitudes and
Positivities on all matters social and even political, reducing almost
all political debate to an ad-hominem argument where the only issue
isn't what is to be done, but who is to do it. Locally, the choice on
who is to do something may hinge simply on whether or not they have
any record of disagreeing with the party platform. And unfortunately,
in such an environment, the party platform can go past weird to become
just plain mad, and with that sort of change comes a willingness to
spare no expense to leave no stone unturned, as it were. It all feeds
on itself and you wind up with specialized marketing niches that
mostly exist to serve up the dirt, so to speak. In the same way that
if s*t*r ever morphs and pops up again, he'll be outed in minutes,
there are services that will simply add any new nyms we choose to the
list of nyms already associated to identity.
Of course, some of these services are seriously in error but they
aren't exactly public and are hard to serve with a FOIA or Credit
Reporting Act challenge. There are probably still people who conflate
me with a certain person who used to post to certain groups likely to
raise eyebrows. See also the discussion which took place at least in-
part in this NG discussing Buttered Cat Arrays. I never even knew they
existed before that, and this was one of the main reasons I wound up
morphing nyms to the present one.
Oh well, I was just doing a drive-by and saw this thread. I should
mention that recently I've started doing as much as I could to
sanitize my presences on teh intarwebs and some of you may or may not
have noticed. It's just that I see no point in making it easy for
stalkers, and I do see some benefit in making future researchers see
more to like and less to which anyone could reasonably (or within
limits, even unreasonably) object.
Happy New Year 2010, folks.
whisky-dave
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:58:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhkeenk....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>
>>> Well, get them some goggles then! I'm sure you know a DJ someplace.
>>
>> Have done, but what about overalls and most importanlty safety shoes,
>> Do I get lots of differtn sizes and if so how many of each size. What
>> if a Muslim student refuses as they are very particular about foot
>> cleanlyness and sharing shoes with other studetns might nopt appeal to
>> them, so should I give Muslims or indeed anyone special treatment. In
>> the mechenical eng department students are told if they don;t wear the
>> shoe they can;t do the course, where as I've been told to offer them
>> the shoes and if they don;t want to wear them they don;t have to, but
>> what if there's an accident the college is liable and can be sued or
>> so I've been told by H&S elswhere.
>
> I'm a little puzzled as to how a drill press will make them drop
> something on their toes. Usually, they only either spit little bits of
> stuff in one's face (hence the goggles)
Well you have to consider what they migth be drilling, in fact I've only had
one request
so far and that was to cut, which is actually 1 ft wide 4ft long, longer
than the bench.
And made of chipboard, drop that on your foot and you'll notice.
With things like this you have to use G glamps too, then there's hammers and
all sorts of other tools
which is why I believe workshop safety measures should be employed
if they intend to use my office as a workshop.
> or make light and sticky
> materials whirl around and whack people in the knuckles. Do the overalls
> trstrain sleeves? Sometimes floppy sleeving can get caught on the bit.
Elasticated sleeves, well the one I have does anyway.
In the old days we used to 'ave a go at hippies for having long hair, now we
have girls too doing this sort of stuff with long hair.
Then there's teh certain styles of dress that are long and flowing that
weren;t allowed
in workshops previously, but now with religious freedom to wear what you
want,
I'm not sure where I stand.
>>> I suppose they've forgotten that computers these days don't run on 2KW
>>> of power anymore.
>>
>> True, I turned on (ooo err misses) about 30 PCs with 350W PSUs
>> but that's 30X350W of PC fan noise not heat, and the monitors are all
>> LCD.
>
> Fan Noise is also heat. Not much, but some.
Very very little, less than a watt or two.
> And more importantly, it's
> pushing the heat from the wimpy run-cool processors out into the room.
My lab is about 32 metres X 17 metres two sides of which are single glazed
windows
which don't all close properly.
There's must be some formula for working out such things.
But we had some routers/switchesd that wouldn't come on because they were
near
the window and very cold, they needed a hairdryer to warm them up before
they
eventually sprung in to action.
> Just remind them that 5C is the absolute minimum recommended operating
> temperature for the LCD panels.
Didn;t know that, but I'm still more concerned about my minimum recommended
operating temperature.
> --
> "Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food
> groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and fat."
> -Alex Levine
And you need at least an even number of them per day for a balanced diet. :)
War
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnhkh8ap....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:58:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
I will operate on you at any temperature I like.
~Fianna
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhkee4b....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:18:28 -0500, Panurge wrote:
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Look what happened to S*t*r,...
>>
>> I've been here all this time and I'm STILL not one of the kewl kidz, I
>> guess--when did all this happen and how did I miss it?
>
> Hmm... C13 timeframe, I think, so it might have been lost in the dregs
> of SWMNBN. Blackavar was the one that had the website URL, I think.
IIRC it was 12 and it was Blackavar... or at least, it was on Blackavar's
laptop where I saw it.
~Fi, still wake up screaming at night, too.
Peter H. Coffin
Coulda been 12. They tend to run together in my brain for some reason.
--
Technical points aside, you could probably beat someone to
death with a Newton if you had to. Try that with a Palm Pilot!
--Dan Duncan in comp.sys.newton.misc
~Fianna
> Coulda been 12. They tend to run together in my brain for some reason.
12 was a good Convergence, although I spent a lot less time converging than
I did exploring the city and eating. Blackavar was a fantastic local tour
guide.
The first night pretty much set the tone for the weekend: found Blackavar
and EveofDestruction and went briefly to the venue. Decided the drinks were
too hit or miss, went back to the hotel to grab a drink before the bands...
got absorbed in talking, next thing, the bar was putting up the lights and
everyone was back at the hotel.
~Fi
Panurge
> IIRC it was 12 and it was Blackavar... or at least, it was on Blackavar's
> laptop where I saw it.
Ah, yes--now it comes to me... (I think...)
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhknkng....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> Coulda been 12. They tend to run together in my brain for some reason.
>
> 12 was a good Convergence, although I spent a lot less time converging than
> I did exploring the city and eating. Blackavar was a fantastic local tour
> guide.
>
> The first night pretty much set the tone for the weekend: found Blackavar
> and EveofDestruction and went briefly to the venue. Decided the drinks were
> too hit or miss, went back to the hotel to grab a drink before the bands...
Drinks were fine, until they figured out that they probably shouldn't be
selling 3 oz of MacCallan for $6...
--
The consquences of any action will never be fully understood until after
it's too late to do anything about it.
-- Schwartz's Second Law
~Fianna
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:35:29 -0800, ~Fianna wrote:
>>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhknkng....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>
>>> Coulda been 12. They tend to run together in my brain for some reason.
>>
>> 12 was a good Convergence, although I spent a lot less time converging
>> than
>> I did exploring the city and eating. Blackavar was a fantastic local
>> tour
>> guide.
>>
>> The first night pretty much set the tone for the weekend: found Blackavar
>> and EveofDestruction and went briefly to the venue. Decided the drinks
>> were
>> too hit or miss, went back to the hotel to grab a drink before the
>> bands...
>
> Drinks were fine, until they figured out that they probably shouldn't be
> selling 3 oz of MacCallan for $6...
They were selling 2 ounces of gin for 7 dollars... or 9 dollars, depending
on the bartender. I think there might have been one person who knew what
they were doing. The rest appeared to have never mixed a drink or used a
cash register in their entire lives.
~Fi, drink lottery!
`una
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:56:19 -0800, ~Fianna wrote:
>
> > "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnhkee4b....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:18:28 -0500, Panurge wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Look what happened to S*t*r,...
> >>>
> >>> I've been here all this time and I'm STILL not one of the kewl kidz,
> >>> I guess--when did all this happen and how did I miss it?
> >>
> >> Hmm... C13 timeframe, I think, so it might have been lost in the
> >> dregs of SWMNBN. Blackavar was the one that had the website URL, I
> >> think.
> >
> > IIRC it was 12 and it was Blackavar... or at least, it was on
> > Blackavar's laptop where I saw it.
>
> Coulda been 12. They tend to run together in my brain for some reason.
It was 12 because Blackavar told me about it at C13 and
never did get around to finding it for me.
`una - misses all the fun
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhl1a65.7hh...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2010-01-11, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> In the old days we used to 'ave a go at hippies for having long hair, now
>> we
>> have girls too doing this sort of stuff with long hair.
>
> be tied back or kept under a hairnet in situations like that. Perhaps
> you should keep rubber bands in your office for the purpose (you could
> also flick them at students who failed to comply and claim it was an
> accident if they complained).
I got a big bag of various sizes to flick at students I'm hoping it'll
become
an olympic sport. I really don;t care what's decided but there must be
someone
in the academic or real world what the rules are and what I should do if ANY
student
irrespective of their 'beliefs' doesn't wish to follow them.
>> Then there's teh certain styles of dress that are long and flowing that
>> weren;t allowed in workshops previously, but now with religious
>> freedom to wear what you want, I'm not sure where I stand.
>
> The rule with equalities law is that special allowances
> requested have to be reasonable. Health and safety issues usually trump
> such concerns, provided the situation is handled in a respectful manner,
> Generally easy compromises can be reached - you can use those rubber
> bands again for securing wide sleeves, for instance. Sikh bangles (also
> worn as a cultural custom by some Arab women) are a problem with some
> machinery, but can be secured further up the arm using our old friend
> gaffa tape. Most people are not keen on losing arms or fingers and will
> listen if you explain the reasons for these things. If they don't
> listen, ask your diversity officer (or equivalent) to mediate.
All I want is a list of things they expect me to tell the students
and what they expect me to enforce.
>> But we had some routers/switchesd that wouldn't come on because they were
>> near the window and very cold, they needed a hairdryer to warm them up
>> before they eventually sprung in to action.
>
> Earlier this winter I was having to hug my computer tower
> before the computer would start.
That sort of behaviouir belongs in another newsgroup. :-0
TenshiKurai9
> "Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnhl1a65.7hh...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>> before the computer would start.
>
> That sort of behaviouir belongs in another newsgroup. :-0
Because here in alt.gothic, we fuck.
-TenshiKurai9, ok, so maybe I cuddle.
kest
> That sort of happened to me, but like I said, usenet is obscure. They
> didn't know about it. However, I did use it on her... she didn't realize
> you could save and print text messages...and I had saved every one of them
> I ever recieved. I also used her imageshack photos against her.
>
Look, I learned how to use my killfile *again*, just for YOU!
k
Peter H. Coffin
Don't worry about it too much, at least until that killfile becomes
totally set into the finger macros...
--
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
-- Steven M. Haflich
ags...@yahoo.com
> Hi it's N*y*x. I think every so often you should mutate fake identies on
> the internet for privacy reasons. It's not big brother we have to worry
> about, it is good search engines. So many employers and govenment entities
> include internet searches in background checks. Usenet is fairly obscure,
> but you never know.
>
I didn't know McDonald's does background checks. How's the new job?
>
> Max
Regards...
The forever lurking, but rarely posting Blackavar
I'm pretty sure it was the post-C14 Vegas trip for the closing of STTE,
but yes, my machine.
--
Michael