Out-of-office messages
The Real Bev
group?
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
Nir
> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
> this group?
>
me too
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
> this group?
>
I think we all have. The person in question probably
belongs to the lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will
go to him as an email. Most people who use these "out of
office messages" forget they belong to these lists, and
everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
The Real Bev
Anybody local to 518 want to call their (jconstantine and webmaster)
alternate and tell him exactly what everybody thinks about those morons? In
case everybody else has already deleted it, here's the number:
"I'll be out of the office and unavailable until Monday 4/16/2007.
In the event of an emergency, please contact one of my coworkers at
(518)432-7820."
Nir
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post
>> into this group?
>>
>
> I think we all have. The person in question probably belongs to the
> lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will go to him as an email.
> Most people who use these "out of office messages" forget they
> belong to these lists, and everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
>
not exactly , this has caused due change in mailing list reply + his/her
auto reply system
"http://tinyurl.com/2cpwtg"
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>> this group?
>
> I think we all have. The person in question probably
> belongs to the lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will
> go to him as an email. Most people who use these "out of
> office messages" forget they belong to these lists, and
> everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
I sent a message to media/public relations at humanist.org. I'd like to
think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting severe beatings, but
that probably won't happen.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
*************************************************
Never argue with a woman holding a torque wrench.
The Real Bev
Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness through
malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you can't
behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind of satisfying.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.
Chris Ilias
> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
> this group?
I've disabled mail delivery for that member, so messages from the list
will not be emailed to that member.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
The Real Bev
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>>> this group?
>>
>> I think we all have. The person in question probably
>> belongs to the lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will
>> go to him as an email. Most people who use these "out of
>> office messages" forget they belong to these lists, and
>> everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
>
> I sent a message to media/public relations at humanist.org. I'd like to
> think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting severe beatings, but
> that probably won't happen.
I swear I'm not making this up. I got back the following message (excerpt,
of course):
| Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
| on vacation as you can tell from the message.
and
| Your subject line is unnecessarily hostile and insulting, however.
| Do you speak to people this way in person, or just by email?
Awfully sensitive, aren't they?
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's true that Smokey the Bear deserves praise for his
campaign against forest fires, but nobody ever mentions
the boy scouts he kills for their hats.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
> On 09/04/2007 4:02 PM, _The Real Bev_ spoke thusly:
>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>> this group?
>
> I've disabled mail delivery for that member, so messages from the list
> will not be emailed to that member.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
I wonder how they notified their webmaster? By email? I
wonder if they got an "out of the office" message, too?
Ron K.
announce:
> Nir wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post
>>> into this group?
>>>
>> me too
>
> Anybody local to 518 want to call their (jconstantine and webmaster)
> alternate and tell him exactly what everybody thinks about those
> morons? In case everybody else has already deleted it, here's the
> number:
>
> "I'll be out of the office and unavailable until Monday 4/16/2007.
> In the event of an emergency, please contact one of my coworkers at
> (518)432-7820."
>
I got two of those also. It happened just after I did a reply here to
the group to a posting done through the list. I thought my reply had
triggered the mail till I dug into it a bit and figured out it was
coincidental. Has got be some nut who subbed the list and did
something dumb.
--
Ron K.
Don't be a fonted, it's just type casting
Terry
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>>>> this group?
>>> I think we all have. The person in question probably
>>> belongs to the lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will
>>> go to him as an email. Most people who use these "out of
>>> office messages" forget they belong to these lists, and
>>> everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
>> I sent a message to media/public relations at humanist.org. I'd like to
>> think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting severe beatings, but
>> that probably won't happen.
>
> I swear I'm not making this up. I got back the following message (excerpt,
> of course):
>
> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
>
> and
>
> | Your subject line is unnecessarily hostile and insulting, however.
> | Do you speak to people this way in person, or just by email?
>
> Awfully sensitive, aren't they?
>
Given the tone of many of your replies, I'd say their question has
entered my mind more than once.
--
Terry
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
>> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
>
> I wonder how they notified their webmaster? By email? I
> wonder if they got an "out of the office" message, too?
My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I was
overly generous.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
*****************************************************
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> | Your subject line is unnecessarily hostile and insulting, however.
> | Do you speak to people this way in person, or just by email?
Bev? -- What did you use as a subject line?
> Awfully sensitive, aren't they?
Kinda 'pends on what you used as a subject line, doesn't it?
--
/b.
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Gord McFee
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
>>> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
>> I wonder how they notified their webmaster? By email? I
>> wonder if they got an "out of the office" message, too?
>
> My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I was
> overly generous.
I have no idea why they were annoyed. :-)
--
Best regards
Gord McFee
Brian Heinrich
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
>>> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
>>
>> I wonder how they notified their webmaster? By email? I wonder if
>> they got an "out of the office" message, too?
>
> My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I
> was overly generous.
Hmm. . . . Tact ain't exactly one of your strong suits, is it?
'Sides, I think it's only one employee, just two different e-mail accounts.
No, don't write them back apologising and indicating that what you /should/
have written is 'One of your employees is a moron twice-over'. :-P
Andrew DeFaria
Nir wrote:
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind of satisfying.
The Real Bev wrote:not exactly , this has caused due change in mailing list reply + his/her auto reply system "http://tinyurl.com/2cpwtg"
Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into this group?I think we all have. The person in question probably belongs to the lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will go to him as an email. Most people who use these "out of office messages" forget they belong to these lists, and everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
Leonidas Jones
> On 2007-04-09 17:10 (-0600 UTC), The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>
> Hmm. . . . Tact ain't exactly one of your strong suits, is it?
>
> 'Sides, I think it's only one employee, just two different e-mail accounts.
>
> No, don't write them back apologising and indicating that what you
> /should/ have written is 'One of your employees is a moron twice-over'. :-P
>
"Hmm. . . . Tact ain't exactly one of your strong suits, is it?"
See, I told you you were becoming quite the diplomat!
Lee
--
Leonidas Jones, Netscape/Mozilla Champion
The Champs: http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
Links: http://www.ufaq.org/ http://mozilla.com http://kb.mozillazine.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Nir wrote:
>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post
>>>>> into this group?
>>>> I think we all have. The person in question probably belongs to the
>>>> lists, so all postings to that newsgroup will go to him as an email.
>>>> Most people who use these "out of office messages" forget they
>>>> belong to these lists, and everyone has to suffer in the mean time.
>>> not exactly , this has caused due change in mailing list reply +
>>> his/her auto reply system "http://tinyurl.com/2cpwtg"
>> Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness
>> through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you
>> can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind
>> of satisfying.
> Pssssst! Unless you're a dictator or other person in power over their
> own country, generally you can't behead people period! Well I guess if
> your Al Quaeda...
If my Al Quaeda does what? Has it ever occurred to you that come the
revolution you might be on my to-do list?
"Up against the wall, you redneck mothers!" A Chinese friend was fond of
singing that in moments of stress. Just a single moment of fantasy made the
whole room feel better...
Sorry about the lack of whitespace, I don't feel like tidying it up. 1040 time.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
==============================================================
"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."
The Real Bev
> On 2007-04-09 17:10 (-0600 UTC), The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> | Thank you for your message. I have notified our webmaster, who is
>>>> | on vacation as you can tell from the message.
>>>
>>> I wonder how they notified their webmaster? By email? I wonder if
>>> they got an "out of the office" message, too?
>>
>> My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I
>> was overly generous.
>
> Hmm. . . . Tact ain't exactly one of your strong suits, is it?
Sure it is, but only when it's necessary. I am very good with children, but
not with the willfully stupid. Yeah, I know, not everybody chooses to be
stupid, but some people are so good at it that I just KNOW they spend a lot
of time practicing.
> 'Sides, I think it's only one employee, just two different e-mail accounts.
>
> No, don't write them back apologising and indicating that what you /should/
> have written is 'One of your employees is a moron twice-over'. :-P
I think Chris already solved the problem. Those people sure don't cast
humanism in a good light, though...
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
Andrew DeFaria
Pssssst! Unless you're a dictator or other person in power over their own country, generally you can't behead people period! Well I guess if your Al Quaeda...If my Al Quaeda does what?
Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be on my to-do list?
(Remember you were talking about beheading and now you're actually threatening violence)
squaredancer
to generate the following:? :
> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Pssssst! Unless you're a dictator or other person in power over
>>> their own country, generally you can't behead people period! Well I
>>> guess if your Al Quaeda...
>> If my Al Quaeda does what?
> That'd be "I guess if you are Al Quaeda".
>> Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be
>> on my to-do list?
> Bring it on bitch!
seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
B= Beautiful
I= Intelligent
T= Talented
C= Charming
H= Horney
"BITCH'es on tour"
reg
<<Snipped>>
>
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Andrew DeFaria
seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
B= Beautiful
I= Intelligent
T= Talented
C= Charming
H= Horney
"BITCH'es on tour"
The Real Bev
> squaredancer wrote:
>> seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
>>
>> B= Beautiful
>> I= Intelligent
>> T= Talented
>> C= Charming
>> H= Horney
>> "BITCH'es on tour"
> Yeah bitches often *think* they are "all that" - but the truth is they
> are usually exactly the opposite!
Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)
Andrew DeFaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
squaredancer wrote:Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:Yeah bitches often *think* they are "all that" - but the truth is they are usually exactly the opposite!
B= Beautiful
I= Intelligent
T= Talented
C= Charming
H= Horney
"BITCH'es on tour"
And regardless if you're "pissed" and you wish to stamp your little foot dear, advocating violence, and indeed you did, and threatening people, which you also did, is illegal. You are aware of that are you not?
Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Why is it that anybody going slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster is a maniac.
Terry R.
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>> seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
>>>
>>> B= Beautiful
>>> I= Intelligent
>>> T= Talented
>>> C= Charming
>>> H= Horney
>>> "BITCH'es on tour"
>> Yeah bitches often *think* they are "all that" - but the truth is they
>> are usually exactly the opposite!
>
> Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
> Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
>
Bev,
Could you please lay off calling everyone an idiot? We're aware that
you're friggin perfect, okay? And you've got bigger balls than any of
us. Good grief woman...
--
Terry R.
Dave Kelsen
> On 4/11/2007 3:39 PM On a whim, The Real Bev pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
>>>>
>>>> B= Beautiful
>>>> I= Intelligent
>>>> T= Talented
>>>> C= Charming
>>>> H= Horney
>>>> "BITCH'es on tour"
>>> Yeah bitches often *think* they are "all that" - but the truth is they
>>> are usually exactly the opposite!
>>
>> Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
>> Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
>>
>
> Bev,
>
> Could you please lay off calling everyone an idiot? We're aware that
> you're friggin perfect, okay? And you've got bigger balls than any of
> us. Good grief woman...
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I challenge you to read a number of Andrew's posts and *not* come to the
same conclusion, about him at least, and perhaps men in general by
extrapolation. I know Bev's statement was generalized, but she was
actually conversing with Andrew; that alone earns her some slack in the
pejorative department, in my book.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just as
Secretariat and Mr. Ed were both horses." -- James Rhodes
Andrew DeFaria
I challenge you to read a number of Andrew's posts and *not* come to the same conclusion,
Then, and only then, I called her a bitch because she was clearly acting like one.
And, of course, I'm labeled the bad guy. What screwed up backassed logic is that you have there Dave?
about him at least, and perhaps men in general by extrapolation.
I know Bev's statement was generalized,
but she was actually conversing with Andrew;
that alone earns her some slack in the pejorative department, in my book.
Terry R.
Dave,
Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
a husband beater and child abuser! NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
others the way Bev does. She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
Brian Heinrich
> Dave Kelsen wrote:
>> I challenge you to read a number of Andrew's posts and *not* come to
>> the same conclusion,
>
> Let's review. Bev advocated violence!
She did?
<quote>
Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness through malevolence
because punishment isn't really practical -- you can't behead people just
for being ignorant, although it might be kind of satisfying.
</quote>
The only way in which that statement could be construed as advocating
violence would be /if she has already beheaded people or had people
beheaded/. My suspicion is that, were that the case, she would hardly be
advertising the fact. :-P
> Do you get that? Do you understand
> that? Do you realize that people go to jail for such things?
She didn't advocate the violent over-throw of the 'Merkin government, nor
did she encourage or advocate that violence be directed towards a specific
person or group of persons, so I'm having a bit of a problem trying to
determine precisely what in her statement is or could be considered
gaol-worthy. . . .
> She did
> that *first* [ . . . ]
Don't you just love it when people say '[He|She] did it first!', as if that
somehow justifies anything that follows. . . . :-P
> [ . . . ] - way before I even entered this thread at all. Then I
> kindly (yes check it) pointed out that that kind of stuff it generally
> not tolerated in polite societies.
I'm assuming that I'm not the only one who's immensely amused by the idea of
you expounding on what is or is not tolerated in polite society. . . . :-D
> Then Bev directly threatened me!
Certainly, she mocked you for confusing 'your' and 'you're', but I'd be hard
pressed to read what she wrote as a direct threat against you:
<quote>
> Well I guess if your Al Quaeda...
If my Al Quaeda does what? Has it ever occurred to you that come the
revolution you might be on my to-do list?
"Up against the wall, you redneck mothers!" A Chinese friend was fond of
singing that in moments of stress. Just a single moment of fantasy made the
whole room feel better...
</quote>
You /did/ read the bit about phantasy, right? -- Last time I checked,
people's phantasies as such weren't illegal. . . .
> If I
> could properly identify Bev at this point I would have cost [ . . . ]
s/cost/cause/?
> [ . . . ] and action
> to put her in jail!
Sorry, still not seeing anything actionable in her words. . . .
> Do you get a sense of the gravity of this situation?
> Probably not.
Other than the irony that, as someone who is so liberal with invective,
you're showing yourself to be remarkably thin-skinned, no, you're right,
probably not. . . .
> Then, and only then, I called her a bitch because she was clearly acting
> like one.
Never occurred to you that your diarrhœtic spewing of invective might
generate some back-spatter? :-P
'Sides, not only is your statement purely /ad hominem/, it's tautological to
boot! :-P
> When in reality
> the only person who guilty here at all on this issue is the originator
> of the violence, [ . . . ]
/What/ violence? -- The violence of the (written) word? of discourse?
I'm not sure how much good lugging tomes of Barthes, Derrida, Lacan, &c into
court would help you, since all of them (and most linguists over the past
hundred years or so) argue that the word is not (identical to) the thing,
which kinda wreaks havoc with assumptions of authorial intent. . . .
> [ . . . ] Bev, who, probably because she's a girl [ . . . ]
My suspicion is that Bev is of an age at which the use of the term 'girl' to
describe here probably isn't entirely appropriate. . . .
> [ . . . ] and in this
> emasculated society [ . . . ]
'Emasculated'? Oh, dear. . . .
While I've never agreed with the use some feminists make of the word
'patriarchy' -- our society is clearly /not/ patriarchal (save in a
figurative/Imaginary sense (/e.g./, the phantasmatic Phallus as the
(absolute) Other that structures the social/Symbolic order)), although it
/can/ be considered 'paternalistic' in a non-gendered, oligarchical sense --
, to claim that (y)our society is 'emasculated' seems rather to over-state
the case, and certainly (and this is one of the few points on which I agree
with Foucault) does so in respect of discourses of power; that is to say,
power and its exercise is neither implicitly nor inherently
masculine/masculinist.
> [ . . . ] is allowed to threaten violence against another with
> impunity.
You still haven't shown that there /was/ a threat. . . .
> Right... Sorry I'm not buying that bullshit!
>
>> I know Bev's statement was generalized,
>
> No, Bev's statement was illegal...
Of course, unless you can cite an appropriate law to support your claims,
everything you've written can be construed as at least implicitly libelous
-- at any rate, you certainly are maligning her and impugning her character.
>> but she was actually conversing with Andrew;
>
> No, she was threatening me.
>
>> that alone earns her some slack in the pejorative department, in my book.
>
> Actually nobody cares about *your* book - it's the book that should be
> thrown at her but isn't that is most telling...
*ROTFLMAO!!!* -- Jeez, Andrew, I suspect you're going to have a hell of a
time finding someone who's going to throw the book /for/ you. Or are you so
emasculated that you lack the /cojones/ to do so yourself? :-D
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
> a husband beater and child abuser!
And here I thought she just sounded like a (Heinleinian) grumpy misanthrope. :-P
BTW, I can't recall her ever having written anything demeaning about her
mother, husband, or children . . . although she seems to be a bit more
ambivalent regarding her 'grand-spawn'.
> NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
> talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
> people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
> The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
Agreed. By the same token, haven't all of us, at one point in time or
another, wanted to write an e-mail along the lines of:
'Dear Sir or Madame:
'Your Web monster is clearly a moron [&]'
?
> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
> others the way Bev does.
No, he actually stoops to personal invective far more often than does Bev
and usually does so in an insulting and abusive fashion, while Bev's
misanthropy tends to be liberally lavished in a non-personal manner. . . .
> She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
> post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
> so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
> the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'. :-P
Terry R.
> On 2007-04-12 09:54 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
>> a husband beater and child abuser!
>
> And here I thought she just sounded like a (Heinleinian) grumpy misanthrope. :-P
>
> BTW, I can't recall her ever having written anything demeaning about her
> mother, husband, or children . . . although she seems to be a bit more
> ambivalent regarding her 'grand-spawn'.
I can't see anyone talking that way about people in general, or the
opposite sex, and not have issues. If I bad mouthed women when I write
in newsgroups, I doubt I would really be a loving husband, and I could
be blaming my wife (and all women) for the cause of my anger. I mean
she went ballistic over an out-of-office message! (OL thankfully only
sends one message outside a network, or that poor guy would have never
heard the end of it!)
>
>> NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
>> talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
>> people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
>> The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
>
> Agreed. By the same token, haven't all of us, at one point in time or
> another, wanted to write an e-mail along the lines of:
>
> 'Dear Sir or Madame:
>
> 'Your Web monster is clearly a moron [&]'
>
> ?
>
Sure. But thinking and doing are completely different. When a driver
with a cell phone is oblivious to their environment, I want to smack
them upside the head! They're a threat to society! But do I do it? No.
Because I don't want to go to jail for failure to control myself.
It's one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel that
in Bev's comments.
>> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
>> others the way Bev does.
>
> No, he actually stoops to personal invective far more often than does Bev
> and usually does so in an insulting and abusive fashion, while Bev's
> misanthropy tends to be liberally lavished in a non-personal manner. . . .
>
Usually not unless he's provoked. Some of Bev's recent (only) comments:
Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness
through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you
can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind
of satisfying.
Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be on my
to-do list?
Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
I'd like to think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting
severe beatings, but that probably won't happen.
My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I
was overly generous.
Those people sure don't cast humanism in a good light, though...
NO provoking. I think a prescription of Zoloft is in order...
>> She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
>> post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
>> so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
>> the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
>
> I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'. :-P
>
;-)
Andrew DeFaria
On 2007-04-12 06:34 (-0600 UTC), Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Dave Kelsen wrote:She did?
I challenge you to read a number of Andrew's posts and *not* come to the same conclusion,
Let's review. Bev advocated violence!
<quote>
Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind of satisfying.
</quote>
The only way in which that statement could be construed as advocating violence would be /if she has already beheaded people or had people beheaded/. My suspicion is that, were that the case, she would hardly be advertising the fact. :-P
Do you get that? Do you understand that? Do you realize that people go to jail for such things?She didn't advocate the violent over-throw of the 'Merkin government, nor did she encourage or advocate that violence be directed towards a specific person or group of persons, so I'm having a bit of a problem trying to determine precisely what in her statement is or could be considered gaol-worthy. . . .
She did that *first* [ . . . ]Don't you just love it when people say '[He|She] did it first!', as if that somehow justifies anything that follows. . . . :-P
[ . . . ] - way before I even entered this thread at all. Then I kindly (yes check it) pointed out that that kind of stuff it generally not tolerated in polite societies.I'm assuming that I'm not the only one who's immensely amused by the idea of you expounding on what is or is not tolerated in polite society. . . . :-D
Then Bev directly threatened me!Certainly, she mocked you for confusing 'your' and 'you're',
but I'd be hard pressed to read what she wrote as a direct threat against you:
<quote>
> Well I guess if your Al Quaeda...
If my Al Quaeda does what? Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be on my to-do list?
"Up against the wall, you redneck mothers!" A Chinese friend was fond of singing that in moments of stress. Just a single moment of fantasy made the whole room feel better...
</quote>
You /did/ read the bit about phantasy, right? -- Last time I checked, people's phantasies as such weren't illegal. . . .
If I could properly identify Bev at this point I would have cost [ . . . ]s/cost/cause/?
[ . . . ] and action to put her in jail!Sorry, still not seeing anything actionable in her words. . . .
Do you get a sense of the gravity of this situation? Probably not.Other than the irony that, as someone who is so liberal with invective, you're showing yourself to be remarkably thin-skinned, no, you're right, probably not. . . .
Then, and only then, I called her a bitch because she was clearly acting like one.Never occurred to you that your diarrhœtic spewing of invective might generate some back-spatter? :-P
'Sides, not only is your statement purely /ad hominem/, it's tautological to boot! :-P
And I do also want to point out and I don't typically remember Bev being so bitchy. Indeed many people strike out in anger and almost lynch mob mentality to things like this out of office message as well as things like spammers. That's why my first response, if you were so inclined to actually read it or care to go back to look at it, was gentle effectively saying "yeah but in civil societies you can't do that". I fully expected Bev to respond with "Yeah but I am that frustrated that I feel like doing that" but instead she responded with "well you'll be on my todo list" which, again, I saw as uncharacteristic. However it was a direct attack and I decided to call her on it. So yes, it escalated, but I didn't up the ante as it were - she did.
And apparently you think it's just find for somebody to attack somebody else with impunity and whenever that other person strikes back then they are the one to be admonished. Wonderfully illogical philosophy there bud.
When in reality/What/ violence? -- The violence of the (written) word? of discourse?
the only person who guilty here at all on this issue is the originator of the violence, [ . . . ]
I'm not sure how much good lugging tomes of Barthes, Derrida, Lacan, &c into court would help you, since all of them (and most linguists over the past hundred years or so) argue that the word is not (identical to) the thing, which kinda wreaks havoc with assumptions of authorial intent. . . .
[ . . . ] Bev, who, probably because she's a girl [ . . . ]My suspicion is that Bev is of an age at which the use of the term 'girl' to describe here probably isn't entirely appropriate. .
[ . . . ] and in this emasculated society [ . . . ]'Emasculated'? Oh, dear. . . .
While I've never agreed with the use some feminists make of the word 'patriarchy' -- our society is clearly /not/ patriarchal (save in a figurative/Imaginary sense (/e.g./, the phantasmatic Phallus as the (absolute) Other that structures the social/Symbolic order)), although it /can/ be considered 'paternalistic' in a non-gendered, oligarchical sense -- , to claim that (y)our society is 'emasculated' seems rather to over-state the case, and certainly (and this is one of the few points on which I agree with Foucault) does so in respect of discourses of power; that is to say, power and its exercise is neither implicitly nor inherently masculine/masculinist.
[ . . . ] is allowed to threaten violence against another with impunity.You still haven't shown that there /was/ a threat. . . .
Right... Sorry I'm not buying that bullshit!Of course, unless you can cite an appropriate law to support your claims,
I know Bev's statement was generalized,No, Bev's statement was illegal...
everything you've written can be construed as at least implicitly libelous -- at any rate, you certainly are maligning her and impugning her character.
*ROTFLMAO!!!* -- Jeez, Andrew, I suspect you're going to have a hell of a time finding someone who's going to throw the book /for/ you.but she was actually conversing with Andrew;No, she was threatening me.
that alone earns her some slack in the pejorative department, in my book.Actually nobody cares about *your* book - it's the book that should be thrown at her but isn't that is most telling...
Or are you so emasculated that you lack the /cojones/ to do so yourself? :-D
I'm just quite amazed that she is allowed to threaten people and not one of you pussies out there called her on her obvious bad behavior so I did.
The Real Bev
> On 2007-04-12 09:54 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
>> a husband beater and child abuser!
>
> And here I thought she just sounded like a (Heinleinian) grumpy misanthrope. :-P
In that "anth--" indicates humanity in general rather than males in
particular, OK. Heinleinian? Not likely! Interesting ideas, but he really
never got past puberty...
> BTW, I can't recall her ever having written anything demeaning about her
> mother, husband, or children . . . although she seems to be a bit more
> ambivalent regarding her 'grand-spawn'.
Ambivalent? I don't remember that. My spawn and grandspawn may have their
faults, but certainly none awful enough to cause ambivalence.
>> NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
>> talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
>> people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
>> The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
I'm sorry, I've never believed that it was necessary to be "nice" in the
face of offensive stupidity. Perhaps it would be easier to overlook if
there weren't quite so much of it.
> Agreed. By the same token, haven't all of us, at one point in time or
> another, wanted to write an e-mail along the lines of:
>
> 'Dear Sir or Madame:
>
> 'Your Web monster is clearly a moron [&]'
>
> ?
>
>> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
>> others the way Bev does.
>
> No, he actually stoops to personal invective far more often than does Bev
> and usually does so in an insulting and abusive fashion, while Bev's
> misanthropy tends to be liberally lavished in a non-personal manner. . . .
That's only because I have no life. I'm sure if I knew more people I'd
spread it around closer to home. Or maybe not. I'm actually a pretty nice
and helpful person.
>> She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
>> post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
>> so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
>> the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
>
> I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'. :-P
Somebody would probably be outraged because I didn't pay for it.
Thank you, Brian, for your spirited defense. But Andrew has managed to post
one of the most vitriolic rants I've read for a long time and I think he
should actually be praised for his creativity rather than censured -- you
don't come across such bile-laced invective very often.
Bravo, Andrew!
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I was in college, the only job I could get was
shitting on people's lawns. Sure, the owners complained,
but it was honest work and it kept me off welfare..."
-- M. Tabnik in mcfl (paraphrased)
Andrew DeFaria
Agreed. By the same token, haven't all of us, at one point in time or another, wanted to write an e-mail along the lines of:Sure. But thinking and doing are completely different.
'Dear Sir or Madame:
'Your Web monster is clearly a moron [&]'
?
But Bev was doing more than that by advocating beheading of people fer cryin out loud!
When a driver with a cell phone is oblivious to their environment, I want to smack them upside the head! They're a threat to society! But do I do it? No.
Because I don't want to go to jail for failure to control myself.
It's one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel that in Bev's comments.
I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean others the way Bev does.No, he actually stoops to personal invective far more often than does Bev and usually does so in an insulting and abusive fashion, while Bev's misanthropy tends to be liberally lavished in a non-personal manner. . . .
Usually not unless he's provoked. Some of Bev's recent (only) comments:
Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind of satisfying.
Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be on my to-do list?
Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
I'd like to think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting severe beatings, but that probably won't happen.
My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I was overly generous.
Those people sure don't cast humanism in a good light, though...
NO provoking. I think a prescription of Zoloft is in order...
But, again, I don't remember Bev being this bitchy. Has something happened to her lately?
;-)She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here, so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'. :-P
The Real Bev
> I'll grant you it's not an open and shut case as far as the threats go.
> Aside from proving they were a threat, one would need to show reasonable
> fear. But trust me I do have more than enough cojones for the job.
Enough cojones to show reasonable fear? Admirable, most guys would be
afraid of being called a pussy.
> However I also have more than enough cojones not to be worried about the
> threat either - even if I were able to show she was geographically close
> to me and had the means to complish her threat. IOW it'd be hard to win
> the case - not hard to bring suit.
<sigh> I am reminded of a loon who accuses an entire newsgroup (individually
and as a group) of stalking him, issuing death threats and false accusations
of child molestation against him, and perjuring themselves in (and out of )a
court of law. He also challenges people to aquire sufficient cojones to
appear on his porch and say those things to his face, but he never offers to
spring for the air fare. He's been doing this for 8 years now. Even if he
quits tomorrow, you still have a way to go to beat his record.
> I'm just quite amazed that she is allowed to threaten people and not one
> of you pussies out there called her on her obvious bad behavior so I did.
Haven't you realized by now that there's a big difference between a threat
and an insult? I'm sure that there are hordes of people who might line up
to insult you, but not a single one who really wants to thraten you.
> Hard work has a future payoff - Laziness pays off now.
That's the smartest thing I've ever seen you say. Who said it first?
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared
not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I
ever said it." -- T. Lehrer
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>>> Agreed. By the same token, haven't all of us, at one point in time
>>> or another, wanted to write an e-mail along the lines of:
>>>
>>> 'Dear Sir or Madame:
>>>
>>> 'Your Web monster is clearly a moron [&]'
>>>
>>> ?
>> Sure. But thinking and doing are completely different.
> It's more than that. Sending an email saying your web monster [sic! and
> he complains about my cost/cause typo! This is, again, rich - ROTFLMAO]
> is a moron is nothing and dare I say justified if the web master was
> indeed a moron. Indeed I fully believe in not only given credit where
> credit is due - but blame where blame is due. That's the only way to
> progress!
>
> But Bev was doing more than that by advocating beheading of people fer
> cryin out loud!
>> When a driver with a cell phone is oblivious to their environment, I
>> want to smack them upside the head! They're a threat to society! But
>> do I do it? No.
> You might be shocked when I say generally I wouldn't either - unless
> they almost hit me or somebody else - then I would say something (see above)
>> Because I don't want to go to jail for failure to control myself.
> Shocking news but: Failure to control yourself is *not*, I repeat *not*,
> against the law.
Semantics. Sure, it's against the law if I beat the hell out of someone
who is driving like a drunk while using their cell phone. Or against
the law if I just shoot them. But BOTH are a failure to control myself
and that's where it begins. I would know it was wrong before I did it,
but it wouldn't stop me.
>> It's one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel
>> that in Bev's comments.
> Bingo! I got that feeling too from Bev's last couple of statements. As I
> said, if Bev would have responded with "yeah I know you can't really
> behead them but I fell like it at times" I would have thought her sane,
> human, compassionate and would not have commented further. But Bev's
> response is "yeah and you're next on my list". Apparently Dave can't see
> how that's not considered polite. Oh yeah, sure, if Bev and I switched
> places I really, really doubt he'd be bashing her. No, he'd still be
> bashing on me.
>>>> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and
>>>> demean others the way Bev does.
>>> No, he actually stoops to personal invective far more often than does
>>> Bev and usually does so in an insulting and abusive fashion, while
>>> Bev's misanthropy tends to be liberally lavished in a non-personal
>>> manner. . . .
>>
>> Usually not unless he's provoked. Some of Bev's recent (only) comments:
> Bingo! Of course Dave doesn't think that being provoked (AKA doing it
> first to somebody) is ample justification...
>> Doesn't matter. Rudeness through ignorance is worse than rudeness
>> through malevolence because punishment isn't really practical -- you
>> can't behead people just for being ignorant, although it might be kind
>> of satisfying.
>>
You've mentioned Dave twice. You do mean Brian, don't you? (unless I
missed something)
>> Has it ever occurred to you that come the revolution you might be on
>> my to-do list?
>>
>> Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
>> Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
>>
>> I'd like to think of those idiots (probably the same idiot) getting
>> severe beatings, but that probably won't happen.
>>
>> My subject was "Two of your employees are morons". Upon reflection, I
>> was overly generous.
>>
>> Those people sure don't cast humanism in a good light, though...
>>
>> NO provoking. I think a prescription of Zoloft is in order...
> Or a killfile...
>
> But, again, I don't remember Bev being this bitchy. Has something
> happened to her lately?
I remember the occasional comments in secnews. But nothing of this
magnitude.
>>>> She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this post started. She's had
>>>> more slack than anyone else who's posted here, so if she wants to
>>>> call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to the moon so she
>>>> won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
>>> I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'.
>>> :-P
>> ;-)
> <starting donation for Russian's to take Bev up next trip...>
There's my 2 cents...
Andrew DeFaria
Thank you, Brian, for your spirited defense. But Andrew has managed to post one of the most vitriolic rants I've read for a long time and I think he should actually be praised for his creativity rather than censured -- you don't come across such bile-laced invective very often.
Bravo, Andrew!
Andrew DeFaria
Shocking news but: Failure to control yourself is *not*, I repeat *not*, against the law.Semantics.
Sure, it's against the law if I beat the hell out of someone who is driving like a drunk while using their cell phone.
Or against the law if I just shoot them. But BOTH are a failure to control myself and that's where it begins. I would know it was wrong before I did it, but it wouldn't stop me.
And yes these are semantics and word smithing, etc. It's just when you say "go to jail for failure to control myself" is just sounds wrong, incorrect or whatever.
Final example, if you could not control yourself after winning the lottery and we yelling loudly you would not be arrested.
You've mentioned Dave twice. You do mean Brian, don't you? (unless I missed something)
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> It's
> one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel that in
> Bev's comments.
While I do feel that she's joking, or at least being sarcastic. I know
people -- men, mostly -- who make similar statements that are meant to be
understood in a more-or-less humorous vein. In fact, I've been known to do
so myself from time to time. . . .
<snip />
Andrew DeFaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
I'll grant you it's not an open and shut case as far as the threats go. Aside from proving they were a threat, one would need to show reasonable fear. But trust me I do have more than enough cojones for the job.Enough cojones to show reasonable fear? Admirable, most guys would be afraid of being called a pussy.
Brian accused me of being emasculated so much that I lack the balls to bring suit, which is funny as Brian appears to be emasculated to start with. The last statement obviously answered that direct claim. The first statement says it's not an open and shut case to win however. The second statement says that one must first prove it's a threat and that one has a reasonable expectation that that threat might be carried out.
But do call again if you need something explained to you dear. We know how hard it can be to keep up in your old age...
However I also have more than enough cojones not to be worried about the threat either - even if I were able to show she was geographically close to me and had the means to complish her threat. IOW it'd be hard to win the case - not hard to bring suit.<sigh> I am reminded of a loon who accuses an entire newsgroup (individually and as a group) of stalking him, issuing death threats and false accusations of child molestation against him, and perjuring themselves in (and out of )a court of law. He also challenges people to aquire sufficient cojones to appear on his porch and say those things to his face, but he never offers to spring for the air fare. He's been doing this for 8 years now. Even if he quits tomorrow, you still have a way to go to beat his record.
I'm just quite amazed that she is allowed to threaten people and not one of you pussies out there called her on her obvious bad behavior so I did.Haven't you realized by now that there's a big difference between a threat and an insult?
I'm sure that there are hordes of people who might line up to insult you, but not a single one who really wants to thraten you.
Hard work has a future payoff - Laziness pays off now.That's the smartest thing I've ever seen you say. Who said it first?
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>>> Shocking news but: Failure to control yourself is *not*, I repeat
>>> *not*, against the law.
>> Semantics.
> A lot of law is about semantics.
>> Sure, it's against the law if I beat the hell out of someone who is
>> driving like a drunk while using their cell phone.
> Nah, it's the assault that's against the law. Stated differently, you
> could have controlled assault and you'd still be arrested! ;-)
>> Or against the law if I just shoot them. But BOTH are a failure to
>> control myself and that's where it begins. I would know it was wrong
>> before I did it, but it wouldn't stop me.
> It's been said that "... gun control requires two hands". That said,
> again, you could have very coolly, calculated and with both hands
> decided the shoot him. It's the murder part that's against the law.
>
> And yes these are semantics and word smithing, etc. It's just when you
> say "go to jail for failure to control myself" is just sounds wrong,
> incorrect or whatever.
It may sound wrong and society would like to dismiss it, but I believe
that anything that causes someone to break a law must first be found in
the fact that they failed to control themselves. Obviously not that
*every act* of ones inability to control themselves is breaking the law.
>
> Final example, if you could not control yourself after winning the
> lottery and we yelling loudly you would not be arrested.
But yelling loudly isn't breaking the law (unless you're in front of a
hospital zone) ;-)
>> You've mentioned Dave twice. You do mean Brian, don't you? (unless I
>> missed something)
> Probably.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
> On 2007-04-12 15:49 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> It's one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel
>> that in Bev's comments.
>
> While I do feel that she's joking, or at least being sarcastic. I know
> people -- men, mostly -- who make similar statements that are meant to
> be understood in a more-or-less humorous vein. In fact, I've been known
> to do so myself from time to time. . . .
>
> <snip />
>
have.
Say or write something, and if written read it back to myself a dozen
times and it sounds right to me. But when other hear or read it they
take it a completely different way.
My Dad when living, my mother would always be asked by his friends,
whether he was joking or insulting them. At times I have the same problem.
So its possible other people do to. If so I can take comfort I am not
alone. :-(
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Heinrich
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>> On 2007-04-12 09:54 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
<snip />
> I'm sorry, I've never believed that it was necessary to be "nice" in the
> face of offensive stupidity. Perhaps it would be easier to overlook if
> there weren't quite so much of it.
Terry: /This/ is where she so resembles certain friends of mine. ;-)
Personally, I gave up being offended by stupidity as such a long time ago --
it made me much less bitter and cynical, much happier, and much easier to
get along with -- , altho' I still find myself offended by /wilful/ stupidity.
<snip />
>> I can see the headlines already: 'Grandmother given ticket to moon'. :-P
>
> Somebody would probably be outraged because I didn't pay for it.
Hah!
> Thank you, Brian, for your spirited defense. But Andrew has managed to
> post one of the most vitriolic rants I've read for a long time and I
> think he should actually be praised for his creativity rather than
> censured -- you don't come across such bile-laced invective very often.
Bilious, yes. Vitriolic or creative, not so much: it's pretty much just
the same sophomoronic name calling to which he so often stoops. . . .
Then again, inventive invective is an art-form that seems sadly to have been
lost. . . . :-P
> Bravo, Andrew!
Terry R.
> On 2007-04-12 15:49 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> It's
>> one thing to realize when someone is joking, but I never feel that in
>> Bev's comments.
>
> While I do feel that she's joking, or at least being sarcastic. I know
> people -- men, mostly -- who make similar statements that are meant to be
> understood in a more-or-less humorous vein. In fact, I've been known to do
> so myself from time to time. . . .
>
> <snip />
>
I usually can pick up when one is joking, or sarcastic. That list of
comments did not suggest either. And if they were, I would think Bev
would certainly pop in and clarify it, wouldn't you? I responded to
someone today in another group and the poster *immediately* replied
stating, "I was being sarcastic". That's all it took. It didn't sound
like it (to anyone), but he responded and everyone moved on.
And I know you do the same. But there is always the smilie that sets the
tone.
Andrew DeFaria
It may sound wrong and society would like to dismiss it, but I believe that anything that causes someone to break a law must first be found in the fact that they failed to control themselves. Obviously not that *every act* of ones inability to control themselves is breaking the law.
Final example, if you could not control yourself after winning the lottery and we yelling loudly you would not be arrested.But yelling loudly isn't breaking the law (unless you're in front of a hospital zone) ;-)
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> It's more than that. Sending an email saying your web monster [sic! and
> he complains about my cost/cause typo! This is, again, rich - ROTFLMAO]
> is a moron[ . . . ].
Unfortunately, I can't take credit for 'Web monster'; that was Daniel Wang's
neologism. . . .
<snip />
> Apparently Dave can't see
> how that's not considered polite.
Who the hell's Dave? :-P
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Haven't you realized by now that there's a big difference between a
> threat and an insult?
*ROTL!!*
> I'm sure that there are hordes of people who
> might line up to insult you, but not a single one who really wants to
> thr[e]aten you.
<snip />
Terry R.
But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is
determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control
themselves and *not* do it. So "every instance" of breaking the law is a
result of not being able to control oneself. If they could control
themselves, they wouldn't break the law. If not, the only explanation
could be they don't know right from wrong. And only a child can use
that excuse, but not forever.
Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping
control of onself?
Terry R.
> On 2007-04-12 17:27 (-0600 UTC), The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Haven't you realized by now that there's a big difference between a
>> threat and an insult?
>
> *ROTL!!*
Don't forget that F ;-)
>
>> I'm sure that there are hordes of people who
>> might line up to insult you, but not a single one who really wants to
>> thr[e]aten you.
>
> <snip />
>
--
Andrew DeFaria
But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control themselves and *not* do it. So "every instance" of breaking the law is a result of not being able to control oneself. If they could control themselves, they wouldn't break the law. If not, the only explanation could be they don't know right from wrong. And only a child can use that excuse, but not forever.
Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping control of onself?
You also state that if they do the illegal thing that they "don't know right from wrong". That's also based on the incorrect premise there that all laws are "right", none of them are wrong or injust, and that everybody agrees with that. I don't buy that either. Do you?
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>> But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is
>> determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control
>> themselves and *not* do it. So "every instance" of breaking the law is
>> a result of not being able to control oneself. If they could control
>> themselves, they wouldn't break the law. If not, the only explanation
>> could be they don't know right from wrong. And only a child can use
>> that excuse, but not forever.
>>
>> Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping
>> control of onself?
> I don't buy your premise! You define "control themselves" to mean "do
> the right thing" and "do the right thing" to mean "do the legal thing".
> But if somebody honestly things "doing the right thing" is to do the
> "illegal thing" then proceeds to do that they will be, from their
> viewpoint, in "control of themselves" the whole time. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I would agree with your example. If someone believes they're doing
the right thing and *then* finds out they broke the law, they broke the
law while being in control of themselves (re: the child example). But
it they know the law *beforehand*, that's not the same.
>
> You also state that if they do the illegal thing that they "don't know
> right from wrong". That's also based on the incorrect premise there that
> all laws are "right", none of them are wrong or injust, and that
> everybody agrees with that. I don't buy that either. Do you?
I may not believe all laws are right, but regardless they are laws and I
am to abide by them. I don't agree with driving 55 MPH in areas that
should be 65 MPH, and I may drive 65 regardless. But just because I
don't believe the law is right won't help me if I get pulled over. I
knew what was right but disregarded it. I was not controlling myself
and I have no one to blame but me.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is
> determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control
> themselves and *not* do it.
I'd say that this polarises the binary opposition between free will and
determinism by denying the possibility of any deterministic factors. . . .
> So "every instance" of breaking the law is a
> result of not being able to control oneself.
Not necessarily. One of the contributions of Marxian cultural critics was
to show how behaviour and choices are influenced (/i.e./, partly
(pre)determined) by external cultural, economic, political, and social
factors (or conditions) -- although they often over-stated precisely /how/
deterministic these factors/conditions are.
In other words, much like freedom itself, free will is always already
constrained.
> If they could control
> themselves, they wouldn't break the law.
But that depends on the extent to which behaviour is determined by the
socius in which the subject/agent is imbricated.
> If not, the only explanation
> could be they don't know right from wrong.
No, because behaviour is socialised without regard to law.
Much of our law is based on the idea of respect for the other and her or his
property; it is also (as you indicate) clearly based on the idea of
(self-)[con|re]straint -- in fact, the Law (/i.e./, the conception of some
sort of external coercive/co-optive authority) is something that needs to be
internalised by individual social subjects/agents.
> And only a child can use
> that excuse, but not forever.
Well, part of the problem we seem to be facing is that, as a society, we (in
North America) have now raised a couple generations of effective sociopaths,
because the Law, to the extent that it has been internalised at all, has
been internalised in a weakened form.
As much as I hate to say it, there is a kernel of truth/wisdom in the old
adage about sparing the rod spoiling the child. In other words, to the
extent that we are not born inherently moral (and, indeed, to the extent
that morals and ethics aren't things that children can intellectually grasp
before the age of nine), we /become/ moral -- become (self-)disciplined --
through the internalisation of the Law.
But at an age when children are as yet unable to think in moral and ethical
terms, this interalisation can occur through the imposition of external
(usually parental) proscriptive authority. And I'm not talking about time
outs; I'm talking about corporal discipline -- and, more to the point, the
/threat/ of such discipline.
If (self-)discipline is not internalised -- that is, if children to not
learn that actions carry consequences -- at a fairly young age, you end up
with a populace of self-centred egoists who have no respect for others /as/
others. (In this sense, they differ little from Sadeian libertines.)
> Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping
> control of onself?
Apart from those laws of which one might be ignorant, there are those that
can be broken though inattention -- speeding, running a [yellow|red] light,
&c, &c. (That is, if maintaining (self-)discipline is a way of avoiding
sins of commission, it still doesn't necessarily prevent us from sins of
omission. . . .)
Andrew DeFaria
On 4/12/2007 7:00 PM On a whim, Andrew DeFaria pounded out on the keyboard
Terry R. wrote:Yes, I would agree with your example. If someone believes they're doing the right thing and *then* finds out they broke the law, they broke the law while being in control of themselves (re: the child example). But it they know the law *beforehand*, that's not the same.
But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control themselves and *not* do it. So "every instance" of breaking the law is a result of not being able to control oneself. If they could control themselves, they wouldn't break the law. If not, the only explanation could be they don't know right from wrong. And only a child can use that excuse, but not forever.I don't buy your premise! You define "control themselves" to mean "do the right thing" and "do the right thing" to mean "do the legal thing". But if somebody honestly things "doing the right thing" is to do the "illegal thing" then proceeds to do that they will be, from their viewpoint, in "control of themselves" the whole time. Wouldn't you agree?
Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping control of onself?
You also state that if they do the illegal thing that they "don't know right from wrong". That's also based on the incorrect premise there that all laws are "right", none of them are wrong or injust, and that everybody agrees with that. I don't buy that either. Do you?I may not believe all laws are right, but regardless they are laws and I am to abide by them.
I don't agree with driving 55 MPH in areas that should be 65 MPH,
and I may drive 65 regardless. But just because I don't believe the law is right won't help me if I get pulled over. I knew what was right but disregarded it. I was not controlling myself and I have no one to blame but me.
Dave Kelsen
> On 4/12/2007 3:58 AM On a whim, Dave Kelsen pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 4/11/2007 7:27 PM Terry R. spake these words of knowledge:
>>
>>> On 4/11/2007 3:39 PM On a whim, The Real Bev pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>> seen on an australian "girls' " van touring Europe:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B= Beautiful
>>>>>> I= Intelligent
>>>>>> T= Talented
>>>>>> C= Charming
>>>>>> H= Horney
>>>>>> "BITCH'es on tour"
>>>>> Yeah bitches often *think* they are "all that" - but the truth is they
>>>>> are usually exactly the opposite!
>>>> Mostly we're just really pissed off because we're surrounded by idiots.
>>>> Remember, if there were a third sex most men would be irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Bev,
>>>
>>> Could you please lay off calling everyone an idiot? We're aware that
>>> you're friggin perfect, okay? And you've got bigger balls than any of
>>> us. Good grief woman...
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing...
>>
>> I challenge you to read a number of Andrew's posts and *not* come to the
>> same conclusion, about him at least, and perhaps men in general by
>> extrapolation. I know Bev's statement was generalized, but she was
>> actually conversing with Andrew; that alone earns her some slack in the
>> pejorative department, in my book.
>>
>>
>> RFT!!!
>> Dave Kelsen
>
> Dave,
>
> Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
> a husband beater and child abuser! NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
> talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
> people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
> The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
>
> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
> others the way Bev does. She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
> post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
> so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
> the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
>
I used to read every post in this group, although I no longer do.
Although I recognize that her general tone and verbal demeanor may have
changed recently, my memory of Bev's posts historically gives me a
predisposition to like her. Plus, you may be right about the size (and
perhaps the number?) of her balls...
In any event, I am still somewhat mystified that there are any people
who read the newsgroup who don't have Andrew killfiled. It takes all
kinds, I suppose. Likewise, if I felt this way about Bev and/or her
posts, I would just quit reading them.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the fuck
happened!
Andrew DeFaria
I used to read every post in this group, although I no longer do.
Although I recognize that her general tone and verbal demeanor may have changed recently, my memory of Bev's posts historically gives me a predisposition to like her.
In any event, I am still somewhat mystified that there are any people who read the newsgroup who don't have Andrew killfiled.
Talk about the ultimate in lazy and being hypocritical...
It takes all kinds, I suppose. Likewise, if I felt this way about Bev and/or her posts, I would just quit reading them.
Terry R.
I see your point. But to me, saying "I couldn't control myself" is
admitting guilt. There is no defense.
People may consciously and willingly do something, but that doesn't
prove they were in control of themselves. I believe that everyone has
two natures, so maybe that's where my opinions differ from yours?
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> On 4/12/2007 6:13 PM On a whim, Brian Heinrich pounded out on the keyboard
>
>
>> On 2007-04-12 17:27 (-0600 UTC), The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>
>>> Haven't you realized by now that there's a big difference between a
>>> threat and an insult?
>>>
>> *ROTL!!*
>>
>
> Don't forget that F ;-)
>
>
>>> I'm sure that there are hordes of people who
>>> might line up to insult you, but not a single one who really wants to
>>> thr[e]aten you.
>>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>
>
>
>
meow mepussy meow
reg
Andrew DeFaria
I commend you for following the law. In general I think it's a good and prudent thing to do. But if a person choices to disregard a law consciously it simply does not follow that he could not control himself. Such a statement would always be the ultimate defense for any violator of any law ("But you're honor - I could not control myself - just ask Terry!"). People can and do consciously and willingly, in full control of themselves violate laws. It's a choice - not a lose of control (which implies no choice).I see your point. But to me, saying "I couldn't control myself" is admitting guilt. There is no defense.
People may consciously and willingly do something, but that doesn't prove they were in control of themselves.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk?
Terry R.
> On 2007-04-12 19:41 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> But this is where we're on a carousel. Even though a criminal is
>> determined to violate a law, they *still* have the choice to control
>> themselves and *not* do it.
>
> I'd say that this polarises the binary opposition between free will and
> determinism by denying the possibility of any deterministic factors. . . .
>
>> So "every instance" of breaking the law is a
>> result of not being able to control oneself.
>
> Not necessarily. One of the contributions of Marxian cultural critics was
> to show how behaviour and choices are influenced (/i.e./, partly
> (pre)determined) by external cultural, economic, political, and social
> factors (or conditions) -- although they often over-stated precisely /how/
> deterministic these factors/conditions are.
>
> In other words, much like freedom itself, free will is always already
> constrained.
>
I understand what you're saying. But I guess I wasn't attempting to
compare different cultures or other factors in relating to this. What
may be a law here, isn't in other cultures and THAT is understandable
(we never allowed our 18-20 year olds to drink here in CA (only 1 that
age now out of 5), but we allow them to do so when we vacation in Cabo,
since the drinking age is 18 (I'm fully aware they did so here
regardless).
Your comment about "free will is already constrained" is a good point,
but I guess we need /some/ constraints so we know that we are in fact
free. Otherwise we'd never know, would we? I am free to do whatever I
choose, and I also know that I could choose to do something that
violates a law or isn't right, but I could possibly have to face the
consequences of my actions. That could be where Andrew feels that
making a choice is being in control of oneself (at least I think he
feels that way from our discussion). I can choose to break a law or
abide by it. I can choose right from wrong (not by what I think is
right or wrong but by what governs what is around me). Hopefully I'm
making sense. If not, sorry.
I can't agree more with you here. After raising 5 children and now
having 2 grandchildren, I'm saddened by how the past two generations are
(not) raising children. I don't agree with the psychos on time-outs vs.
spanking. When's the last time you saw a young person hold the door open
for a woman, or say "thank you" when opening a door for one? There's no
manners, discipline, nothing. The children are raising themselves,
without being told what's right/wrong, good/bad. It's everyone for
themselves. Very sad. But they're still accountable to learn the laws
of the land. Whether or not they abide by them is a choice to either
succeed or fail.
>> Can you think of breaking a law that couldn't be avoided by keeping
>> control of onself?
>
> Apart from those laws of which one might be ignorant, there are those that
> can be broken though inattention -- speeding, running a [yellow|red] light,
> &c, &c. (That is, if maintaining (self-)discipline is a way of avoiding
> sins of commission, it still doesn't necessarily prevent us from sins of
> omission. . . .)
>
Sure, inattention, I feel that's different, similar to not-knowing. But
how many run a red light not being attentive to it (cell phone users
exempted here)? And it you're /not/ attentive, are you in control?
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>>> I commend you for following the law. In general I think it's a good
>>> and prudent thing to do. But if a person choices to disregard a law
>>> consciously it simply does not follow that he could not control
>>> himself. Such a statement would always be the ultimate defense for
>>> any violator of any law ("But you're honor - I could not control
>>> myself - just ask Terry!"). People can and do consciously and
>>> willingly, in full control of themselves violate laws. It's a choice
>>> - not a lose of control (which implies no choice).
>> I see your point. But to me, saying "I couldn't control myself" is
>> admitting guilt. There is no defense.
> Well in the American Justice System, if you can prove you really can't
> control yourself it is a legal defense.
Can't control yourself implies all the time, doesn't it? If someone was
known as such, I guess it would be up to those around them to ensure
they were under control. Couldn't control yourself would be for a
particular instance. But if you didn't mean it that way, sorry for the
rambling. It was just the way I read it.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
> this group?
>
Ooops, I'm a real bad boy. I did something real bad. Since
all these messages came to my gmail account, I selected them
and reported them as Spam. Oh well, that will teach that
bugger not to have Out-of-Office messages! ;-) :-D
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
squaredancer
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>> this group?
>>
>>
> Ooops, I'm a real bad boy. I did something real bad. Since
> all these messages came to my gmail account, I selected them
> and reported them as Spam. Oh well, that will teach that
> bugger not to have Out-of-Office messages! ;-) :-D
>
>
you *naughty boy* you!
reg
Andrew DeFaria
That could be where Andrew feels that making a choice is being in control of oneself (at least I think he feels that way from our discussion).
If (self-)discipline is not internalised -- that is, if children to not learn that actions carry consequences -- at a fairly young age, you end up with a populace of self-centred egoists who have no respect for others /as/ others. (In this sense, they differ little from Sadeian libertines.)I can't agree more with you here. After raising 5 children and now having 2 grandchildren, I'm saddened by how the past two generations are (not) raising children. I don't agree with the psychos on time-outs vs. spanking. When's the last time you saw a young person hold the door open for a woman, or say "thank you" when opening a door for one?
There's no manners, discipline, nothing.
The children are raising themselves, without being told what's right/wrong, good/bad. It's everyone for themselves. Very sad. But they're still accountable to learn the laws of the land. Whether or not they abide by them is a choice to either succeed or fail.
--
Andrew DeFaria
I said "NO" to drugs, but they didn't listen.
Andrew DeFaria
Well in the American Justice System, if you can prove you really can't control yourself it is a legal defense.Can't control yourself implies all the time, doesn't it?
If someone was known as such, I guess it would be up to those around them to ensure they were under control. Couldn't control yourself would be for a particular instance. But if you didn't mean it that way, sorry for the rambling. It was just the way I read it.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
don't start until the go home school bell rings, then walk home, even if
it 5 miles. ;-)
Brian Heinrich
On 2007-04-13 09:49 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
> On 4/12/2007 9:19 PM On a whim, Brian Heinrich pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 2007-04-12 19:41 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
<snip />
>>> So "every instance" of breaking the law is a result of not being able
>>> to control oneself.
>>
>> Not necessarily. One of the contributions of Marxian cultural critics
>> was to show how behaviour and choices are influenced (/i.e./, partly
>> (pre)determined) by external cultural, economic, political, and social
>> factors (or conditions) -- although they often over-stated precisely
>> /how/ deterministic these factors/conditions are.
>>
>> In other words, much like freedom itself, free will is always already
>> constrained.
>
> I understand what you're saying. But I guess I wasn't attempting to
> compare different cultures or other factors in relating to this.
But cultures aren't homogeneous. I know a guy from a pretty crappy town in
southern Ontario that really wanted to be Detroit. He had dragged himself
out of the booze/drug/party culture that was a large part of how he'd grown
up, eventually realising that the only way he could stay out of it was
physically to move elsewhere.
Anyway, hip-hop culture was very much part of how he'd grown up and how he
lived, and he once commented to me that how he dressed was part of his
culture. As tempting as it was to laugh, the fact was that it was rather
sad, because he couldn't see that what he was (self-)identifying with was
the part of hip hop culture that has become part of consumer culture and is
actively marketed to the hip hop community.
I see others -- mainly wiggas where I live -- who buy into the same thing,
but it's no more part of his culture than wearing hockey jerseys is part of
my culture. What he seems to've missed is that what /is/ part of his
'culture' is a certain sense of community and of, well, celebration.
That might not be the best example, but it's a useful one none the less,
because hip-hop culture is decentralised. Hip-hop culture has a reputation
in mainstream media for violence (which often isn't helped by
self-representations), but that wasn't the case with him and some friends of
his whom I'd met, presumably because in their cases the idea of a posse
hadn't become conflated with the idea of a gang, which is a separate culture
entirely.
This actually shows the weakness of Althusser's Ideological State
Apparatuses, which are usually understood as being monolithic rather than as
variable and combinatory.Never the less, he was a la
For Althusser, for instance, religion is an ISA, but only in a monolithic
sense. But if someone is raised as/self-identifies with/whatever
Catholicism, that's very different than if one is raised as/self-identifies
with/whatever Mormonism, or an Evangelical denomination, or a conservative
Protestant denomination, &c, &c . . . extending, of course, to include not
just denominations/groups/sects of other religions (Judaism, Islam,
Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, &c, &c) but also those who are agnostic or
actively and assertively atheistic.
> What
> may be a law here, isn't in other cultures and THAT is understandable
> (we never allowed our 18-20 year olds to drink here in CA (only 1 that
> age now out of 5), [ . . . ]
I don't understand your parenthetical comment. . . .
> [ . . . ] but we allow them to do so when we vacation in Cabo,
> since the drinking age is 18 (I'm fully aware they did so here regardless).
I grew up in a province in which the drinking age is 18, and it's always
struck me as being a reasonable compromise, although far from perfect. . . .
> Your comment about "free will is already constrained" is a good point,
> but I guess we need /some/ constraints so we know that we are in fact
> free. Otherwise we'd never know, would we?
Well, to the extent that freedom always already implies some kind of
constraint (if not explicitly external (/e.g./, law), then at least an
acceptance that the other, too, has freedom), free will implies that one's
decisions are based on some sort of calculus of choice.
But for choice to /be/ choice -- that is, for it to be /meaningful/ -- ,
those possible choices have to have some sort of value attached to them,
although the values themselves don't necessarily have to exists within an
ethical calculus ({good . . . bad}).
Indeed, doing 'the right thing' doesn't necessarily mean taking the decision
that falls within a normative ethical calculus. For instance, freedom
fighters, within the normative ethical calculus of their society, would
normally -- that is, normatively -- be considered terrorists.
But if freedom and free will can be shown to be related, the question
remains of what the cognate of liberty would be. I'm unaware of a specific
word for it. Basically, if free will is desire mediated by a calculus of
choice, which choices most often have normative ethical values attached to
them, the cognate of liberty would be unmediated desire.
For the longest time, I accepted that masochism and sadism are
assymetrically situated within a calculus of power (that is, the masochist,
in trying to recreate a state of primary narcissism, invests the other with
power/authority, all the while reserving to her- or him-self the ultimate
power/authority to over-rule that invested power/authority (/i.e./, break
the contract), while the sadist -- the Sadeian libertine -- reserves all
such power/authority to her- or him-self and denies that the other is other.
(The masochist, canonically, is male, while the greatest of de Sade's
libertines are female; I can only assume that these gendered inversions are
related to the Law (as putatively 'patriarchal'), but it eventually occurred
to me that it was, to some extent, more productive to look at the two
canonical perversions in terms of /desire/, since desire and power/authority
have a complex relation to each other.
The Sadeian libertine acts on her or his desire because he or she denies
(forecloses?) any external power/authority (the Law; the Other). This
actually makes a lot of sense in Lacanian terms, where 'feminine' desire is
construed as the desire to /be/ the Phallus (which is on the side of the
Other/Law), which helps explain why the greatest of de Sade's libertines are
female.
The masochist, contrariwise, resists (I'd hesitate to say 'forecloses';
'disavows' would be closer the mark, although it's a disavowal that is in
some respects intricated with sublation) her or his desire to the extent
that desire is set into motion by the Phallic Law of the Other. Again, this
makes a lot of sense in Lacanian terms, where 'masculine' desire is
construed as the desire to /have/ the Phallus.
But the only way in which the (proto-)subject can /have/ the Phallus is to
attempt to recreate a state of primary narcissism, the 'unmediated', unary
mother/child pair, before the traumatic intervention of the Other.
(Obviously, from this it is relatively easy to construe parallel sets of
neuroses, perversions, and psychoses based on the differentiation of
/Lustprinzip/ and /Unlustprinzip/, sadism being on the side of the former
and masochism on the side of the latter.
(Yes, there are other perversions, but they were marginal to my research,
whereas masochism//das Unlustprinzip/ and sadism//das Lustprinzip/ were
central to it. And, yes, I'm well aware that there are in fact cases of
masculine sadism and feminine masochism, but they were of less interest to
me, since they are high-level (re)structurings of socialised/Symbolised
desire and would seem to be more clearly related to neuroses. . . .)
Anyway, assuming that the 'apposite' of liberty is 'unmediated desire', the
exercise of one's free will becomes a matter of the pursuit of one's desire
(whatever that might happen to be at any given time), and any willingness on
the part of the subject to accept external constraint (/e.g./, to comply
with the law, normative ethical values, &c) is calculated to allow one (to
continue) to pursue one's desire. Which, when you think of it, is pretty
much the definition of a sociopath. :-)
> I am free to do whatever I
> choose, [ . . . ]
. . . within the horizon of the possible . . .
> [ . . . ] and I also know that I could choose to do something that
> violates a law or isn't right, but I could possibly have to face the
> consequences of my actions.
By the same token, you could do something that violates a law of which you
were unaware.
Case in point: Some years ago, I drove a certain stretch of road to get
to/from work. On that particular stretch of road, no speed limit was
posted, although, at a different point on it, the speed limit was given as
60 km/h. I once got a ticket for driving just over 60 km/h on a stretch of
road on which, as far as I knew, the speed limit /was/ 60 km/h.
> That could be where Andrew feels that
> making a choice is being in control of oneself (at least I think he
> feels that way from our discussion). I can choose to break a law or
> abide by it. I can choose right from wrong (not by what I think is
> right or wrong but by what governs what is around me). Hopefully I'm
> making sense. If not, sorry.
It makes sense, although I think you're framing it a bit simplistically.
Think of it like this: Within orthodox Christian doctrine, one comes to
believe only through the Holy Spirit. Simplistically, one's free will is
exercised only in taking the decision /not/ to believe (the sin against the
Holy Spirit).
Where the doctrine of predestination or pre-ordination traditionally imputed
to Calvinism goes wrong is in suggesting that salvation is independent of
faith (works, of course, arising from faith). In other words, if by grace
we have been saved through faith, God's gift of grace to us is precisely the
gift of the Holy Spirit that lets us believe.
In other words -- to return to the general societal case -- , the choice to
break a law or abide by it, or to choose right from wrong, is always already
not just /mediated/ by various ideological discourses but is also
/over-determined/ by them, just as the choice to believe or not to believe
is always already mediated and over-determined by the Holy Spirit, which is
why I've suggested the free will is always already constrained, because our
agency -- our ability to act upon the choices available to us and the
possible decisions that we can take -- isn't /absolutely/ determined but is
mediated by all the other discourses to which we find ourselves subjected.
This leads to a fundamental contradiction in the application of law, which
tends to function not in terms of conditionals but in terms of absolutes
(bearing in mind that law tends to be cast in proscriptive rather than
prescriptive terms: 'Thou shalt not' rather than 'Thou shalt'), such that
one can take the 'right' decision or make the 'right' choice within one's
ideologically/discursively mediated 'ethical horizon' (for lack of a better
term), and /still/ violate both the letter and the spirit of the law as
such. But I guess that's why there's room for precedent. . . .
<snip />
>> As much as I hate to say it, there is a kernel of truth/wisdom in the
>> old adage about sparing the rod spoiling the child. In other words,
>> to the extent that we are not born inherently moral (and, indeed, to
>> the extent that morals and ethics aren't things that children can
>> intellectually grasp before the age of nine), we /become/ moral --
>> become (self-)disciplined -- through the internalisation of the Law.
>>
>> But at an age when children are as yet unable to think in moral and
>> ethical terms, this interalisation can occur through the imposition of
>> external (usually parental) proscriptive authority. And I'm not
>> talking about time outs; I'm talking about corporal discipline -- and,
>> more to the point, the /threat/ of such discipline.
>>
>> If (self-)discipline is not internalised -- that is, if children to
>> not learn that actions carry consequences -- at a fairly young age,
>> you end up with a populace of self-centred egoists who have no respect
>> for others /as/ others. (In this sense, they differ little from
>> Sadeian libertines.)
>
> I can't agree more with you here. After raising 5 children and now
> having 2 grandchildren, I'm saddened by how the past two generations are
> (not) raising children. I don't agree with the psychos on time-outs vs.
> spanking.
OK, I kinda over-stated the case for rhetorical effect. I also think the
(Foucauldian) distinction between 'discipline' and 'punishment' is useful
here: 'discipline' is corrective; 'punishment' exacts a penalty, often one
involving pain or torture. (Foucault begins /Discipline and Punish/ with a
description of the execution of a (failed) regicide (of Louis XV?).)
'Corporal discipline', however, doesn't necessarily imply spanking (although
that was primarily what I was thinking of); it simply means some sort of
externally applied corrective measure in some way involving the body,
including restriction of movement (grounding, detention, even being sent to
one's room).
(The reason I would, as a rule, consider spanking to be disciplinary rather
than punitive is that its intent is to correct rather than to use pain to
extract some sort of penalty. If (consistently) over-exerted, spanking is
no longer disciplinary but abusive. I guess the difference could be
summarised in the distinction between /fearing/ someone (/cf./ the fear of
God) and being /afraid/ of that person. . . .)
The problem with time outs are that they're a weak disciplinary technique:
you misbehave and you . . . sit on a chair for eight minutes? Huh?
> When's the last time you saw a young person hold the door open
> for a woman, or say "thank you" when opening a door for one?
Occasionally. At any rate, often enough that I'm not remarking on the
noticeable absence of such behaviour.
> There's no
> manners, discipline, nothing.
I know. I love it when some snot-nosed eight-year-old decides to get it
into his brain to tell me to f*** off or some such. Apparently, I'm
supposed to recoil in shock and horror or summat like that. Apparently,
no-one ever bothered to tell me that. . . . :-P
> The children are raising themselves,
> without being told what's right/wrong, good/bad.
I think that's a bit over-stated. At any rate, after having spent close to
two years dealing with 18-22 year olds (people born roughly between 1982 and
1988), I've become a /bit/ less disenchanted of 'the younger generation'.
Not a lot, mind -- these were, after all, the ones smart enough to get into
university and remain there -- , but a bit.
Somewhere along the line, some of them /are/ developing some sense of
(self-)discipline, but it seems to me to be relatively weak. And then there
are the ones who come across like charming sociopaths. . . .
> It's everyone for
> themselves.
Fascinating choice of words; reminds me of Hobbes' /bellum omnium contra
omnes/. . . .
> Very sad. But they're still accountable to learn the laws
> of the land.
They're accountable /to/ the laws of the land; I'm pretty sure your average
16-year-old high-school-dropout gang-banger isn't spending his spare time,
either in or out of gaol, studying law. . . .
> Whether or not they abide by them is a choice to either
> succeed or fail.
Not necessarily. Why doesn't capital punishment work as a deterrent? --
Because the murderer (and I'm thinking of premeditated murder) believes in
the 11th Commandment and /doesn't expect to get caught/.
So the decision of whether to abide by law or not is -- in a strictly amoral
sense -- a calculation of the probability of getting caught. And even those
of us who would consider ourselves moral and ethical have, I'm sure, at one
time or another done something, through peer pressure or for the rush or
whatever, that contravened the law.
<snip />
> But
> how many run a red light not being attentive to it (cell phone users
> exempted here)?
I've run amber and red lights because my attention was distracted at the
point at which the light changed colour and I didn't have enough time to break.
> And it you're /not/ attentive, are you in control?
'Pends. If I'm not paying attention to the traffic light because I'm
fumbling for my lighter, that's rather different than if I'm not paying
attention because I /am/ paying attention to someone in the next lane who
seems to believe that my vehicle isn't occupying the space it is in and
desires that her or his own vehicle simultaneously occupy that space,
thereby violating the laws of physics. . . .
The Real Bev
> On 4/12/2007 10:54 AM Terry R. spake these words of knowledge:
>
>> Why don't you go back a bit and read some of her posts. She sounds like
>> a husband beater and child abuser! NO ONE measures up! If Bev wants to
>> talk off the top of her head, fine. But she'll have to live with other
>> people in the world telling her everyone else is NOT a piece of crap.
>> The email response she received by that company was very fitting.
>>
>> I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of andrew, but he doesn't attack and demean
>> others the way Bev does. She WASN'T conversing with Andrew when this
>> post started. She's had more slack than anyone else who's posted here,
>> so if she wants to call everyone useless, I say we give her a ticket to
>> the moon so she won't have to deal with anyone any longer.
>
> I used to read every post in this group, although I no longer do.
> Although I recognize that her general tone and verbal demeanor may have
> changed recently, my memory of Bev's posts historically gives me a
> predisposition to like her. Plus, you may be right about the size (and
> perhaps the number?) of her balls...
I have 8 of them, each is roughly 40 cubic inches, and I keep them under the
hood of my 1970 Dodge pickup.
I can't remember what especially pissed me off about Andrew, but it happened
long before I wrote anything. I deserve an A for restraint!
> In any event, I am still somewhat mystified that there are any people
> who read the newsgroup who don't have Andrew killfiled. It takes all
> kinds, I suppose. Likewise, if I felt this way about Bev and/or her
> posts, I would just quit reading them.
I've tried killfiling loons, but it always makes me uncomfortable. Sort of
like covering your eyes when Freddy attacks -- it just seems chicken! I
KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that engaging loons is as useless as giving
a fish a bicycle, but sometimes I just can't help it. I will try to be good
from now on, honest...
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge
The Real Bev
Now get down on your knees and lick my boots clean, worm. Both of you.
Don't make me tell you again.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> What makes you think that women deserve some sort of extra respect or
> nod necessitating that doors be opened for them? They don't! Open your
> own damn doors! You wanted equality - you got it! If you want us opening
> doors for you then get your ass back in the kitchen, make me my dinner
> and STFU. You want equality, open your own doors.
And you don't -- out of politeness or courtesy or whatever -- hold doors
open for others?
Of course, I pro'ly shouldn't be all that surprised that you're so insecure
and your /cojones/ are so shrivelled that you would somehow perceive
something as simple as showing politeness or courtesy to an other as somehow
being a threat to your presumed masculinity. :-P
(Oh, and lest you revert to your name-calling routine, I've actually let
doors slam on people, regardless of sex, who were rude to me for showing
them the courtesy. F*** 'em. Politeness and courtesy do, after all, cut
both ways, and there is nothing that reasonably obliges me to politeness in
the face of the rudeness and inconsideration of others. . . .)
<snip />
>> The children are raising themselves, without being told what's
>> right/wrong, good/bad. It's everyone for themselves. Very sad. But
>> they're still accountable to learn the laws of the land. Whether or
>> not they abide by them is a choice to either succeed or fail.
>
> The reason this is happening is the emasculated society that we are in.
This isn't the first time you've used the word 'emasculated' in respect of
'society', but you've not actually indicated what you /mean/ by it. . . .
> Society says getting in touch with your feminine side == good - getting
> in touch with your masculine side? No good.
*blink* -- It does?
Strangely, for most of the (younger) people I know, regardless of sex or
gender, this is pretty much a non issue. . . .
> For the first time > 50% of
> women are heading household and unmarried or no man around. So by and
> large women raise our children - not men. Where are the dads - those
> people who traditionally instill the discipline? Missing!
To some extent, irrelevant, since the position of the ffather (spelling
intentional) is /structural/; that is, there needn't be a (biological)
father as such, just someone who can occupy the subject-position of
authority. . . .
> Non-custodial
> and told not to "get in touch with their natural state of being".
?!
> Being
> a man, instilling discipline can land you in jail. Spanking your kid can
> land you in jail.
I have to admit that I have been surprised regarding the degree to which
corporal discipline has been anathematised in many Western/European nations.
> 85% of all custody (if not more) goes to women -
> largely without question nor challenge. But a single woman cannot raise
> a boy to be a man because she is not a man and therefore does not have a
> clue of how to be one.
I suspect you over-state the case here. . . .
> (And yes men can't really raise girls to be women
> either).
Again, I suspect you over-state the case. . . .
> The result is pussies - raising other pussies with a invalid
> sense of self entitlement (as many women have already - princess, knight
> in shinnign armor - need I say more?) and the thought that there will
> never be any punishment or consequences...
?! -- This is a /huge/ jump in 'logic', regardless of the underlying
assumptions. . . .
Andrew DeFaria
> On 2007-04-13 16:14 (-0600 UTC), Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> What makes you think that women deserve some sort of extra respect or
>> nod necessitating that doors be opened for them? They don't! Open
>> your own damn doors! You wanted equality - you got it! If you want us
>> opening doors for you then get your ass back in the kitchen, make me
>> my dinner and STFU. You want equality, open your own doors.
> And you don't -- out of politeness or courtesy or whatever -- hold
> doors open for others?
don't. I do not fell compelled to however. My normal mode of operation
is I open my own doors and I expect you do so likewise.
For a lady, because you and society says I, for some unspoken reason,
should? Not any more.
> Of course, I pro'ly shouldn't be all that surprised that you're so
> insecure and your /cojones/ are so shrivelled that you would somehow
> perceive something as simple as showing politeness or courtesy to an
> other as somehow being a threat to your presumed masculinity. :-P
It has nothing to do with that. You don't hear people advocating opening
the door in the normal course of things except if they are women. Now
ask yourself why women require or should be given special treatment. And
if you can provide a reasonable and rational explanation, I'll go along.
Besides any modern woman who has self esteem should be insulted by such
actions of favoritism.
> (Oh, and lest you revert to your name-calling routine, I've actually
> let doors slam on people, regardless of sex, who were rude to me for
> showing them the courtesy. F*** 'em. Politeness and courtesy do,
> after all, cut both ways, and there is nothing that reasonably obliges
> me to politeness in the face of the rudeness and inconsideration of
> others. . . .)
As usual, you are missing the point. There is no reason to open doors
especially for ladies. There's no reason to open doors for anybody
really - we all have two hands and know how to open a door. You open
doors for people sometimes, when and if you feel like it, not because
society is trying to guilt you into it. You are not required to and to
try to use your bullying tactics as you have here to embarrass people
into it will not work on me.
>>> The children are raising themselves, without being told what's
>>> right/wrong, good/bad. It's everyone for themselves. Very sad.
>>> But they're still accountable to learn the laws of the land.
>>> Whether or not they abide by them is a choice to either succeed or
>>> fail.
>> The reason this is happening is the emasculated society that we are in.
> This isn't the first time you've used the word 'emasculated' in
> respect of 'society', but you've not actually indicated what you
> /mean/ by it. . . .
Must I explain everything to you? You obviously don't get it so it would
be a waste of my time. Try doing your own homework if you wish to figure
it out.
>> Society says getting in touch with your feminine side == good -
>> getting in touch with your masculine side? No good.
> *blink* -- It does?
Actually yes it does or are you trying to tell me that you've never,
ever heard the phrase "getting in touch with your feminine side"?!? Show
me an instance of the media saying "getting in touch with your masculine
side".
> Strangely, for most of the (younger) people I know, regardless of sex
> or gender, this is pretty much a non issue. . . .
Just because you, or a set of "younger" people are unaware of the
problem (and BTW there are lots of people aware of the problem - just
not you) does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>> For the first time > 50% of women are heading household and unmarried
>> or no man around. So by and large women raise our children - not men.
>> Where are the dads - those people who traditionally instill the
>> discipline? Missing!
> To some extent, irrelevant, since the position of the ffather
> (spelling intentional) is /structural/; that is, there needn't be a
> (biological) father as such, just someone who can occupy the
> subject-position of authority. . . .
My god, another emasculated pussy trying to tell everybody that men are
essentially irrelevant. You do realize that if you really believed that
then that makes you irrelevant too... You probably were taught to pee
sitting down...
(OK so what's with the crappy spelling?)
>> Non-custodial and told not to "get in touch with their natural state
>> of being".
> ?!
Having a problem understanding? My god what's so difficult for you here.
Most men are non-custodial parents, often by order of the court. As such
they don't have as much influence in the raising of their kids. As for
"get in touch with their natural state of being" I mean that man are not
allowed to be men as being a man is looked down upon in this society.
Indeed even you spurt out phrases like "there needn't be a father" in
obvious indifference to the importance of the role of the father.
And, BTW, that > 50% of the families being headed by women means there
is no dad or man around - biological no otherwise! Do you really think
that not having a dad around doesn't effect a boy and confuse him as to
what is the proper role of a man? You really don't get that from men who
just happen to be around or the men in town - you get it from your dad.
Speaking of which, where was your dad?
>> Being a man, instilling discipline can land you in jail. Spanking
>> your kid can land you in jail.
> I have to admit that I have been surprised regarding the degree to
> which corporal discipline has been anathematised in many
> Western/European nations.
Indeed!
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=California+spanking+law&btnG=Search+News.
>> 85% of all custody (if not more) goes to women - largely without
>> question nor challenge. But a single woman cannot raise a boy to be a
>> man because she is not a man and therefore does not have a clue of
>> how to be one.
> I suspect you over-state the case here. . . .
Great. Produce the stats to show that I'm overstating it...
>> (And yes men can't really raise girls to be women either).
> Again, I suspect you over-state the case. . . .
So deep down I guess you think there's no real difference between men
and women. So then custody should, by your logic, be set dead at 50/50
right? And women can teach boys how to be real men and men can raise
girls to be real women too. Right. Next thing you know we'll be getting
rid of urinals. No emasculation going on here at all...
>> The result is pussies - raising other pussies with a invalid sense of
>> self entitlement (as many women have already - princess, knight in
>> shinnign armor - need I say more?) and the thought that there will
>> never be any punishment or consequences...
> ?! -- This is a /huge/ jump in 'logic', regardless of the underlying
> assumptions. . .
Hardly at all. Tell me all about the male fantasies of the princess
riding in and saving the day for the man. That "one day my queen will
come". Tell me that men are now fighting because they are making 75
cents to the woman's $1. Tell me all the dads out there raising up their
boys by whispering in their ears that they should go to college for Mr.
degrees and that they should rope in a rich bitch to take care of them
for the rest of their lives. Where's the jump in logic here?
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
What happened to Preparations A through G?
Dave Kelsen
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2007 19:57, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Peter Potamus
>> the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>>>> this group?
>>>>
>>> Ooops, I'm a real bad boy. I did something real bad. Since
>>> all these messages came to my gmail account, I selected them
>>> and reported them as Spam. Oh well, that will teach that
>>> bugger not to have Out-of-Office messages! ;-) :-D
>>>
>> go stand in the corner and repent your sins...
>> you *naughty boy* you!
>
> Now get down on your knees and lick my boots clean, worm. Both of you.
> Don't make me tell you again.
Man, I love it when you talk dirty. Especially to Reg...
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every
constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of
Laws." -- Walt Whitman
squaredancer
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>
>> On 13/04/2007 19:57, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Peter Potamus
>> the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is anybody else getting them from a total stranger when you post into
>>>> this group?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ooops, I'm a real bad boy. I did something real bad. Since
>>> all these messages came to my gmail account, I selected them
>>> and reported them as Spam. Oh well, that will teach that
>>> bugger not to have Out-of-Office messages! ;-) :-D
>>>
>>>
>> go stand in the corner and repent your sins...
>> you *naughty boy* you!
>>
>
> Now get down on your knees and lick my boots clean, worm. Both of you.
> Don't make me tell you again.
>
>
this kind of post is acceptable ('cos it's all OT)-
You should be getting this post from Nir (he's doing the dirty work for
ChrisI):
reg
QUOTE:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation warning
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:46:18 +0530
From: Nir Sen <nir...@hotmail.com>
To: <square...@t-online.de>
CC: Chris Ilias <son...@ilias.ca>
reg
The following post of yours has been found to violate 'Mozilla Forum Etiquette'
("http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html")
Posts:
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/8ee2485b6b5ec973"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/0f6cffc5603b6915"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/e47ff67a227c1c57"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/b3aa7b154bd08ccf"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/fa2aeda2dd381427"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/d2c573976fb9af37"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.thunderbird/msg/d02506354a3ac301"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/6883325ef7b2b404"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/d91a5cb90ff281f9"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.thunderbird/msg/7c87e9394b7babad"
"http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.thunderbird/msg/fd451588d260bafc"
Why above listed message has been treated such?
mozilla.support.* newsgroups are support newsgroups to give support/help to end users. There are some rules to be followed while posting to these newsgroups [ See "http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html"]
"Stay on topic" is one of those basic rules that you have repeatedly violated in your posts .
What you can do if you need to post anything that is not on topic ?
set follow up to "mozilla.general" newsgroup so that any reply to your OT will be automatically moved to mozilla.general or move OT discussion to any place where it is not considered off-topic.
What if you still violates Mozilla Forum Etiquette ?
sorry to say but in that case we have to warn you publicly on corresponding newsgroup and any OT , posted by you after that warning , will be removed from server "without any further discussion" .
[""http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html"]
reg, please note we don't want to loose any volunteer but also can't let anyone to violate Forum Etiquette. So it will be real nice if we are not forced to remove any post of a person who regularly contribute lot to mozilla newsgroup .
so if you get this mail , please reply back so that we don't have to notify you on NG.
--
Nir
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
UNQUOTE
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
I think someone needs to get a better grasp of the English
language before emailing such messages. I found it
extremely hard to figure out just what he was discussing.
fu to mo.gen