Happy New Year!
Mike O'Brien
to post on mn.general for the New Year 2010! This being a very hard
decision to make-- try not to screw it up and piss off too many folks!!!
Wayne Marsh
===
Keep a Civil Cybertongue
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
By JIMMY WALES AND ANDREA WECKERLE
In less than 20 years, the World Wide Web has irrevocably expanded the
number of ways we connect and communicate with others. This radical
transformation has been almost universally praised.
What hasn't kept pace with the technical innovation is the recognition
that people need to engage in civil dialogue. What we see regularly on
social networking sites, blogs and other online forums is behavior that
ranges from the carelessly rude to the intentionally abusive.
Flare-ups occur on social networking sites because of the ease by which
thoughts can be shared through the simple press of a button. Ordinary
people, celebrities, members of the media and even legal professionals
have shown insufficient restraint before clicking send. There is no
shortage of examples�from the recent Twitter heckling at a Web 2.0 Expo
in New York, to a Facebook poll asking whether President Obama should be
killed.
The comments sections of online gossip sites, as well as some national
media outlets, often reflect semi-literate, vitriolic remarks that
appear to serve no purpose besides disparaging their intended target.
Some sites exist solely as a place for mean-spirited individuals to
congregate and spew their venomous verbiage.
Online hostility targeting adults is vastly underreported. The reasons
victims fail to come forward include the belief that online hostility is
an unavoidable and even acceptable mode of behavior; the pervasive
notion that hostile online speech is a tolerable form of free
expression; the perceived social stigma of speaking out against attacks;
and the absence of readily available support infrastructure to assist
victims.
The problem of online hostility, in short, shows no sign of abating on
its own. Establishing cybercivility will take a concerted effort. We can
start by taking the following steps:
First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in
which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of
ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted
abuse, harassment or lies. Everyone who is online should have a sense of
accountability and responsibility.
Too frequently, we hear the argument that being online includes the
right to be nasty�and that those who chose to participate on the Web
should develop thicker skin. This gives transgressors an out for immoral
behavior.
Just as we've learned what is deemed appropriate face-to-face
communication, we need to learn what is appropriate behavior in an
environment that frequently deals with purely written modes of
communication and an inherent absence of nonverbal cues.
Second, individuals appalled at the degeneration of online civility need
to speak out, to show that this type of behavior will no longer be
tolerated. Targets of online hostility should also consider coming
forward to show that attacks can have serious consequences. There are
already several documented cases of teens taking their own lives because
of cyberbullying.
A third step has to do with media literacy. People need to know how to
differentiate between information that is published on legitimate sites
that follow defined standards and also possibly a professional code of
ethics, and information published in places like gossip sites whose only
goal is to post the most outrageous headlines and stories in order to
increase traffic. People can and will learn to shun and avoid such sites
over time, particularly with education about why they are unethical.
Fourth, adult targets of online hostility deserve a national support
network. This should be a safe place where they can congregate online to
receive emotional support, practical advice on how to deal with
transgressors, and information on whom to contact for legal advice when
appropriate.
Finally, it's time to re-examine the current legal system. Online
hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly
address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition
among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment.
Perhaps federal input is needed.
The Internet is bringing about a revolution in human knowledge and
communication, and we have an unprecedented opportunity to make the
global conversation more reasonable and productive. But we can only do
so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us
with hostility and incivility.
===
Mr. Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and sits on the board of
CiviliNation, a nonprofit. Ms. Weckerle is the founder and president of
CiviliNation.
The Wall Street Journal, 12/29/2009
Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
wayne...@mac.com
levi
> In article <hhh8ko$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike O'Brien" <mikeobri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After serious & cautious consideration-- you have once again been approved
> > to post on mn.general for the New Year 2010! This being a very hard
> > decision to make-- try not to screw it up and piss off too many folks!
>
> ===
>
> Keep a Civil Cybertongue
>
> Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
>
:
: Fourth, adult targets of online hostility deserve a
: national support network. This should be a safe place
: where they can congregate online to receive emotional
: support, practical advice on how to deal with
: transgressors, and information on whom to contact for
: legal advice when appropriate.
Well now -- there's a business opportunity
to serve our society's unmet needs.
(Hopefully, the sarcasm literally drips
off of your screen)
What *I* see in this article is some folks
trying to sidle up to the public trough
and get funding for themselves.
Of course, I also see the current wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan to be driven by folks
neck deep in the public trough assuring
their lines of supply. You know, oil
companies and the "defense industry".
Cynical? Hell yes. And why not?
Wayne Marsh
<2cf3e7c7-f5b8-4635...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
levi <le...@visi.com> wrote:
> Cynical? Hell yes. And why not?
Because it's not the American Way to be so cynical, particularly at the
New Year. What are you, French?
Scott Smith
>In article
><2cf3e7c7-f5b8-4635...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> levi <le...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Cynical? Hell yes. And why not?
>
>Because it's not the American Way to be so cynical, particularly at the
>New Year. What are you, French?
No, he's just an intelligent realist. That tends to lend itself to
year-round cynicism, ESPECIALLY in America. ;-)
.
.
osmium
He may be what you say, but he has a poor grasp of the English language. A
person fluent in English would not say:
"Now that Minneapolis has laws prohibiting
the carrying of guns into private establishments
open for business to the public -- yes, we *need*
those cops to ensure our feelings of security."
to describe a law that has probably been on the books for the last hundred
years. Giving an existing statute a new number, does not make it a new law.
We can thank Bert for nipping a nascent urban legend in the bud.
Scott Smith
It seems to me that you gun fondlers are getting bent out of
shape over semantics...and it's all rather goofy.
.
.
levi
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:37:34 -0600, "osmium" <r124c4u...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"Scott Smith" wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>In article
> >>><2cf3e7c7-f5b8-4635-9239-f1270d767...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> levi <l...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Cynical? Hell yes. And why not?
>
> >>>Because it's not the American Way to be so cynical, particularly at the
> >>>New Year. What are you, French?
>
> >> No, he's just an intelligent realist. That tends to lend itself to
> >> year-round cynicism, ESPECIALLY in America. ;-)
>
> >He may be what you say, but he has a poor grasp of the English language. A
> >person fluent in English would not say:
>
> > "Now that Minneapolis has laws prohibiting
> > the carrying of guns into private establishments
> > open for business to the public -- yes, we *need*
> > those cops to ensure our feelings of security."
>
> >to describe a law that has probably been on the books for the last hundred
> >years. Giving an existing statute a new number, does not make it a new law.
>
> >We can thank Bert for nipping a nascent urban legend in the bud.
>
> It seems to me that you gun fondlers are getting bent out of
> shape over semantics...and it's all rather goofy.
>
> .
> .
<chuckle> One name...Ikrushlots.
levi
> > wrote:
>
> >>In article
> >><2cf3e7c7-f5b8-4635-9239-f1270d767...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>> Cynical? Hell yes. And why not?
>
> >>Because it's not the American Way to be so cynical, particularly at the
> >>New Year. What are you, French?
>
> > No, he's just an intelligent realist. That tends to lend itself to
> > year-round cynicism, ESPECIALLY in America. ;-)
>
> He may be what you say, but he has a poor grasp of the English language. A
> person fluent in English would not say:
>
> "Now that Minneapolis has laws prohibiting
> the carrying of guns into private establishments
> open for business to the public -- yes, we *need*
> those cops to ensure our feelings of security."
>
> to describe a law that has probably been on the books
> for the last hundred
> years. Giving an existing statute a new number,
> does not make it a new law.
Whether the laws were passed 100 years ago,
or merely three -- what I wrote is literally
correct. Perhaps it's *your* reading and
comprehension skills that could use improvement,
However, feel free to consult your lawyer.
BTW, if I read the statute website properly,
the Minneapolis law was first enacted in 1960,
with various changes through the years.
Philosophically, at that point, the burden
of self-protection was shifted from the
individual to the government.
>
> We can thank Bert for nipping a nascent urban
> legend in the bud.
You mean the one about the 2nd Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution that states that
"the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed"?
Scott Smith
Exactly! Perfect example of this mentality. LOL
.
.
WDS
> You mean the one about the 2nd Amendment
> to the U.S. Constitution that states that
> "the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed"?
It also states "the right of the people to keep bear shall not be
infringed" if we are going to leave out parts and punctuation like you
did.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
catpandaddy
"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:38b7b322-ff7e-4ad8...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Oh great, now we're going to get the usual debate over what constitutes that
there Militia. Happy New Year!
Scott Smith
And it's all so very silly.
.
.
levi
Ummm, I went with the version that the states
received and ratified. If you go read the
earliest versions of the Amendment, there
should be no doubt as to the intent of the
law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment,
each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences,
found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of
the Bill of Rights. One such version was passed by the Congress,
which reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the
states, and then ratified by them, which had this
capitalization and punctuation:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. ”
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights,
approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by
scribe William Lambert and resides in the National
Archives.
levi
> "WDS" <B...@seurer.net> wrote in message
"The American Bar Association has noted
that there is more disagreement and less
understanding about this right than of
any other current issue regarding the
Constitution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
osmium
I don't know who you think the gun fondlers are, I are not one. My only
interest here is when someone purposely uses semantics to try to make people
think that the largest city in Minnesota has it's own set of laws that
contradict a significant state law, the record should be set straight.
Usenet is a text only medium, semantics and such are what it's all about.
Haven't you noticed?
Scott Smith
Yet, strangely enough, nobody seems to get the interpretation
of that law right, because the interpretation seems to change
from person to person. Even with law enforcement and courts
of law, it seems there's a lot of gray area there.
.
.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Oh great, now we're going to get the usual debate over what constitutes that
> there Militia. Happy New Year!
There is nothing to debate. Both the dictionary definition and the
spirit of the founding fathers are in sync. You need armed citizens to
form a militia, plain and simple.
Don't know why this is under "Happy New Year!". Don't know what it has
to do with Minnesota. Maybe I need to killfile any threads where
googlegroups.com is even *part* of the discussion.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@1q2010.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-1D...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <hhmij7$fof$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh great, now we're going to get the usual debate over what constitutes
>> that
>> there Militia. Happy New Year!
>
> There is nothing to debate. Both the dictionary definition and the
> spirit of the founding fathers are in sync. You need armed citizens to
> form a militia, plain and simple.
I tend to agree. A lot of people try to read too many specifics into it,
but it is nothing more or less than a simple and basic declaration, as you
correctly point out.
D.A.Tsenuf
"levi" <le...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:6b9cfc8f-f2fd-4740...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 10:37 pm, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> "WDS" <B...@seurer.net> wrote in message
>
> news:38b7b322-ff7e-4ad8...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:28 pm, levi <l...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> You mean the one about the 2nd Amendment
> >> to the U.S. Constitution that states that
> >> "the right of the people to keep and bear
> >> arms shall not be infringed"?
>
> > It also states "the right of the people to keep bear shall not be
> > infringed" if we are going to leave out parts and punctuation like you
> > did.
>
> > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> > infringed.
>
> Oh great, now we're going to get the usual
> debate over what constitutes that
> there Militia. Happy New Year!
# "The American Bar Association has noted
# that there is more disagreement and less
# understanding about this right than of
# any other current issue regarding the
# Constitution."
#
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Then they should spend some time reading the Heller (USSC) and Nordyke (9th
Circuiit Appeal) decisions to get clarified.
levi
> "levi" <l...@visi.com> wrote in message
>
> Then they should spend some time reading the Heller (USSC) and Nordyke (9th
> Circuiit Appeal) decisions to get clarified.
Wouldn't it be kinder and gentler to the
poor beleaguered barristers of the ABA if
we just implemented Dick's plan...
"...The first thing we do, let's kill all
the lawyers..."
levi
>
> Then they should spend some time reading the Heller (USSC) and Nordyke (9th
> Circuiit Appeal) decisions to get clarified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
It was a 5 to 4 decision, obviously there
were plenty of dissenting opinions.
D.A.Tsenuf
On Jan 2, 7:55 pm, "D.A.Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
>
> Then they should spend some time reading the Heller (USSC) and Nordyke
> (9th
> Circuiit Appeal) decisions to get clarified.
# Wouldn't it be kinder and gentler to the
# poor beleagured barrristers of the ABA if
# we just implemented Dick's plan...
#
# "...first, let's kill all the lawyers..."
No
Because there ARE SOME lawyers who do serve a usefull purpose
D.A.Tsenuf
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
#
# It was a 5 to 4 decision, obviously there
# were plenty of dissenting opinions.
This is not a basketball game where you can argue that the game was a close
one
This is a simple fact that a decision was made and will stand unless
challenged
I expect it to re-inforced with the MaDonald decision that is now in front
of USSC with Nordyke being integrated to the USSC decision.
I hope that Scalia will be writing the MacDonald decision as well.
In which case we can expect some more incisive and trenchant material in the
decision, which will also be a pleasure to read just for the clarity of it's
arguments.