KJV BIBLE & OTHER TRANSLATIONS
Peter Green
Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV. No, I'm not about
to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.
Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.
Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
Thanks in advance,
Peter.
--
Peter Green s75...@zeus.usq.edu.au
*******************************************************************************
* "Wit, you know, is the unexpected copulation of ideas..." (Samuel Johnson ) *
*******************************************************************************
Mark Ellingham
cjs
--
Carlin Sappenfield - Science Library, Vanderbilt University
sap...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu sap...@vuctrvax.bitnet
Ann
> about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
I recently purchased a copy of the Lorimer translation from J.Smith
in what I think is called "the Doric"
Extremely expensive, but worth every penny.
I challenged my nieces to read some of it to me - the older one
had most trouble - she can only talk "posh" - but the younger one sounded
convincing - she said reading "Oor Willie" had helped her.
Bargain books also has a translation of the Psalms, inexpensive.
Ann
Charles E Thorne
>Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV. No, I'm not about
>to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
>more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.
>Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
>with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
>reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
>A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.
>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
I personally prefer the Jerusalem version for a number of reasons. The last
I checked, it was one of the few, readily available translations which used
modern sources. It also seems to be less biased in many areas.
The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.
I particularly object to sections that mistranslate alleged references
to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
word in a translation?
Charliel
Evelyn C. Leeper
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY recently had an article comparing Bible translations. (Alas,
it made not be available in Australia.) As far as translations go, I might
suggest the recent Jewish re-translation of the Old Testament as perhaps more
accurate, and having less of an "agenda," than Christian translations, and (if
you know any Greek) a interlinear text of the New Testament.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." --Galileo
Rita Marie Rouvalis
>to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
>more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.
The New International Version (NIV) is a nice translation. It
takes into account modern sources (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), and
stays very faithful to the Greek for the NT (I can't speak for the
Hebrew in the OT) -- to the point where it errs in favor of an awkward
construciton in English to keep the exact meaning of the Greek.
I hear the New American Standard (NAS) is also a good version
and also very readable.
>Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
>with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
>reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
>A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.
This is more a reflection of the publisher than the actual
translation. I know the NIV comes under a hardbound, brown cover -- no
red words or maps or illustrations -- for about $4.
>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
Zondervan publishes an volume that compares the KJV, NIV, and
original Greek of the NT line-by-line.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis ri...@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | EFF administrivia to: off...@eff.org
155 Second Street | Flames to:
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | women-not-to-...@eff.org
Francis Muir
It might be nice to have an edition that pointed out the
politically motivated translation decisions, but it's the
original KJV that's had the historical impact on English-
speaking societies, not its successors. If you want to
understand that impact, surely that makes it the one to
go for?
Is the Geneva Bible available in cheap editions from anywhere?
As that was the one Shakespeare used and the one that powered
the English and Scottish Reformations, it has even more historical
significance.
I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
philomath
fra...@sep.stanford.edu
En quoi cognoissez-vous la folie anticque?
En quoi cognoissez-vous la sagesse presente?
Jack Campin
> I personally prefer the Jerusalem version for a number of reasons. The last
> I checked, it was one of the few, readily available translations which used
> modern sources. It also seems to be less biased in many areas.
> The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
> time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
> similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.
It might be nice to have an edition that pointed out the politically
motivated translation decisions, but it's the original KJV that's had the
historical impact on English-speaking societies, not its successors. If
you want to understand that impact, surely that makes it the one to go for?
Is the Geneva Bible available in cheap editions from anywhere? As that
was the one Shakespeare used and the one that powered the English and
Scottish Reformations, it has even more historical significance.
Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
for more than a minute coterie of scholars, and the chances of a new
version having the influence on everyday life that the Geneva and
Authorized Versions had are nil. Not that its irrelevance to any ongoing
historical process is likely to stop the Bible translation industry. Of
the making of many books there is no end...
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Rita Marie Rouvalis
>I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
>the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
>in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
>issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
>the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
Interesting. The KJV was covered as part of my Great Books of
Antiquity requirement in college. Probably the cheapest text I bought
that semester.
Mikhail Zeleny
ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
> and the chances of a new
>version having the influence on everyday life that the Geneva and
>Authorized Versions had are nil. Not that its irrelevance to any ongoing
>historical process is likely to stop the Bible translation industry. Of
>the making of many books there is no end...
>--
>-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
>Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
>JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
>INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish anarchist, after 1938) |
| Mikhail Zeleny Harvard |
| 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 doesn't |
| Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 think |
| (617) 661-8151 so |
| email zel...@math.harvard.edu or zel...@zariski.harvard.edu |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Brent Davies
>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.
In my opinion, the newest revision of the New English Bible (finished last
year, I think) is by far the best of the lot. The board of translators
was quite impressive, including both Christian and Jewish scholars. New
Jerusalem is pretty good, if a little free; Good News is definitely hippy
stuff--very accessible, if you're willing to lose *completely* the poetry
of the original. I find the RSV a stodgy dilution of the KJV. The KJV,
of course, is a classic in the same league as Shakespeare, even if it does
occasionally wax unintentionally humourous by reason of almost four centuries
of evolution of English ("Thou shalt have no bull in thy house..." "Bailaam
tied his ass to a tree and walked a mile..."). The NASV (New American Standard
Version) is an extremely reputable translation, essentially the scholarly
standard in the Protestant Bible Belt there... but, though I've read it, I
vastly prefer (as I've mentioned) the New English. The NASV is... well, very
*American*. The New English preserves the poetry of the Hebrew better than
any of the others. (And I'm Jewish, so I'm not guessing!)
Also, try out some of the ancient translations. Wycliffe's Middle English
translation is fascinating, even startling, in the way that it casts new light
on some verses. The Douay Bible is interesting, but VERY Catholic. The
Great Bible (Henry VIII's translation) is also extremely interesting, again
mostly for linguistic reasons.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Brent Davies
Melbourne, Australia
br...@mlacus.oz.au
Francis Muir
Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek
original has never had any meaning for more than a minute
coterie of scholars,
...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.
Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
Jack Campin was posting.
Liam R. E. Quin
> Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV.
> translations.
Perhaps this ought to be in soc.religion.christion too, but since it
isn't, I shall assume that you want to treat the Bible as a work of
literature rather than (or as well as) an object of veneration.
The finest edition of the KJB gospels is probably that of the Golden Cockerel
Press, but you are looking at spending several hundred dollars even for a
fac simile, and the originals cost more than a modest SPARCstation :-)
The finest modern translations of which I am aware are
* The Jerusalem Bible
excellent on the NT, although the NEB (see below) is better on the poetry
* The New English Bible
This has been revised recently, and the only gripe I have against
* The Revised English Bible
is that the there are no markers in the text to indicate footnotes.
The translation, is very good indeed.
Both the NEB and the REB use a deliberately neutral British English, and
the result is very readable and yet retains somthing of the poetry.
* The Good News Bible
is a paraphrase, and is aimed at the `low-church' people
And no, that isn't a derogative term, if you're wondering!
* The New International Version
is perhaps not quite as fine a tranlation as the REB or NEB.
I'd suggest getting either
the NEB (with Apocrypha), which has good footnotes and is a fine
translation, although perhaps not as fine as the New Jerusalem in
parts of the New Tesatament,
or
The REB (again, with Apocrypha, & try to get one with clear footnote
markers and verse numbers if you can), *together* with
A King James or (better) Revised Standard Version (RSV), which has
much clearer English in some places, and will be somewhat less misleading
in others to modern readers. Get an RSV with cross-references -- often
a column in the middle of the page, giving pointers to other verses.
Why?
Because the later books of the Bible were written by people surrounded by
and living in a culture in which the earlier parts of our Bible were as
universally known as, say, Mark Twain, Tolkien, and Stephen King today.
A writer will allude to somthing sometimes half-consciously, just as we're
not always aware that we're quoting Dickens when we say `not to put too fine
a point on it', and sometimes consciously. The cross-references can be a
big help.
Another slightly more expensive thing to do is to get one of the computerised
hand-held bibles, which have automatic searching.
Or get a text retrieval package and use it to browse the Bible from time
to time.
One way of comparing translations is to get something like the Church of
England's Alternate Service Book, and see which translation was used for
the readings prescribed for a given day. The text is there, and you can
compare it with the others.
Liam
PS: what did I mean by `misleading to modern readers?' See the quote in my
signature below. The meaning's obvious, right? Well, in the 16th and 17th C.
maybe it was.
--
Liam Quin, l...@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, 416 239-4801; the barefoot programmer
`Jacob sod pottage' [Gen. 25 xxix, King James Bible]
Wayne Citrin
>the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
>in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
>issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
>the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
>
George Steiner, in "After Babel," makes the interesting point that the one
book that, arguably, has influenced the development of the English language
more than any other, is a translation: the King James Version.
Wayne
Wayne Citrin
cit...@soglio.colorado.edu
cit...@cs.colorado.edu
Mikhail Zeleny
fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Mikhail Zeleny writes:
> Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
JC:
> Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
> reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek
> original has never had any meaning for more than a minute
^^^^^ ^^^
> coterie of scholars,
MZ:
> ...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.
> Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
FM:
>What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
>about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
>Jack Campin was posting.
I am well aware of the context; I am also fully capable of interpreting the
meaning of the above statement in accordance with its quantifiers. I might
have allowed another possibility, that Mr Campin was altogether unable to
express himself in writing; however, on a moment's reflexion it will become
quite evident to the reader that this unfortunate handicap is completely
subsumed by (and identical with) his being too stupid for words.
Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
> philomath
>fra...@sep.stanford.edu
> En quoi cognoissez-vous la folie anticque?
> En quoi cognoissez-vous la sagesse presente?
Francis Muir
Francis Muir writes:
What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst.
... my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
understanding of manners is that they are absolutely
incompatible with censuring others for lack thereof.
Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.
Sharon Foster
to retain the flavor - the poetry - of the KJV.
I'm rather partial to the Revised Standard Version for understandability,
and to the New RSV for more nearly gender-inclusive language,
but there are a few passages that just don't sound right to
me in anything but the KJV. I guess it has to do with when
I first read them.
There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
Lattimore which are very interesting. My impression is that
his approach may have been more nearly objective than some
others have been - that is, I don't think he had any particular
denominational ax to grind. This is just my impression - the books
aren't in front of me, so I can't really tell you what his
background is. I know I've seen his name on some ancient
Greek translation.
There is a translation of the book of Job by Stephen Mitchell which
is quite poetic. I think he *is* a poet, and has
translated and/or anthologized other ancient religious poetry.
I've also read from the Jerusalem Bible (of which there is also
a New version), New International, Good News (which
often strikes me as being at about a fourth grade
reading level), and others, but none of them grab
me as much as the RSV or the KJV, probably for the
reason mentioned above.
--
/* Sharon Foster....First Generation Trekkie * fos...@gdc.com */
/* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions (tm) and no one else's! */
/* According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 33.6 million Americans, nearly */
/* one in seven of us, were living below the poverty line, which in 1990 */
/* was defined as a family of four earning $13,359 or less before taxes. */
/* This number is an increase of 2.1 million over the previous year (1989).*/
/* One-fifth of the nation's children live in poverty. So I ask again, */
/* when is "kinder, gentler" going to kick in? After a decade of "Politics*/
/* of the Rich and Famous", are YOU better off than you were before? */
Fred Drinkwater
Don Knuth's book '3:16', which is a series of translations,
commentaries, and artworks, one set for each of the verses
3:16 in each book of the (some version of) bible. At Adobe
this has been described as Don's 'my summer at Adobe' project.
It is a very personal work in several senses,
starting with the selection of 3:16 as the key. Don prefaces
the book by saying that he was looking for a new approach to
studying the whole bible; I'd say he succeeded. The artwork
for the verses is worth the price alone. Those of you in the
Stanford area may have seen the originals displayed at Don's
talk last March (carrying things just a bit too far, the talk
was 3/16/91 at 3:16 PM).
Fred Drinkwater
"Fathers are not interested in FAIR; fathers are interested
in QUIET." W. Cosby
Mikhail Zeleny
Mikhail Zeleny writes:
Francis Muir writes:
FM:
What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst.
MZ:
... my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
understanding of manners is that they are absolutely
incompatible with censuring others for lack thereof.
FM:
Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.
Texts have no manners; implied authors may.
However, I agree that, at least in the case of FM's cunning deployment of
personal pronouns, the Foucauldian notion of the death of the author makes
perfectly good sense.
I remain, etc.
MZ
Mike Godwin
>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
Barney C. McCartney
>
> I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
> the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
> in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
> issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
> the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
>
> philomath
The "Texas List of Unrequired Reading", a list of some 100 books suggested
as "starting points" by the College of Liberal Arts at UT Austin, includes,
among works by Shakespeare, de Tocqueville, Plato, C.S. Lewis, B. Russell,
Tolstoy, Faulkner, Melville, Marx, Orwell, Camus, Boorstin, Kant, Twain,
H. Adams, Rousseau, Conrad, Voltaire, Tuchman, etc, etc., the following
KJV books:
Old Testament- Genesis, Exodus, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Isaiah, & Amos
New Testament- Luke, John, Act, Galatians, & Ephesians
Also, I seem to recall a "Bible as Literature" course being taught at
Cal State Long Beach in late 60's. Are such courses still taught there
or elsewhere?
--Barney C. McCartney
barney.emx.utexas.edu
Chuck Smythe
*
*There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
* Lattimore which are very interesting. My impression is that
* his approach may have been more nearly objective than some
* others have been - that is, I don't think he had any particular
* denominational ax to grind. This is just my impression - the books
* aren't in front of me, so I can't really tell you what his
* background is. I know I've seen his name on some ancient
* Greek translation.
Richard Lattimore, perchance? Author of my favorite translations of Homer?
This bears investigation.
Chuck Smythe
Vance Maverick
|> In article <30...@gdc.com> fos...@gdc.com (Sharon Foster) writes:
|> *
|> *There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
|> * Lattimore which are very interesting.
|>
|> This bears investigation.
Same guy, and his given name is Richmond. Here is the local info:
7. Bible. N.T. Gospels. English. Lattimore. 1979
The four Gospels and the Revelation / newly translated from the
Greek by Richmond Lattimore
New York : Farrar, Straus, Giroux, c1979
Lattimore, Richmond Alexander, 1906
and of course
16. Homer.
The Iliad; translated with an introd. by Richmond Lattimore.
[Chicago] University of Chicago Press [195l]
Lattimore, Richmond Alexander, 1906
among much else.
Vance
Clayton Cramer
> In article <1991Oct29.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
# #the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
# #in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
# #issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
# #the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
#
# George Steiner, in "After Babel," makes the interesting point that the one
# book that, arguably, has influenced the development of the English language
# more than any other, is a translation: the King James Version.
#
# Wayne Citrin
I understand that Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German
had almost as dramatic an influence on Modern German as the KJV did
on Modern English. At least at Sonoma State University, a literature
class I took a while back involved reading from the KJV. It was
sort of disconcerting to realize the level of cultural illiteracy that
has developed when students had absolutely no concept that the word
"Psalm" contains a silent "P" -- it's obvious that the liberal goal
of eliminating all religion from American society has come perilously
close to succeeding.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
"Congresses of sheep, passing resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, are of no
value, as long as wolves refuse to be similarly bound."
Mikhail Zeleny
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Oct30....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
MG:
>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.
Jack Campin
> it's obvious that the liberal goal of eliminating all religion from
> American society has come perilously close to succeeding.
Given that the people most of us would think of as exemplifying US
liberalism would be (born-again) Jimmy Carter, the American Friends
Service Committee and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, this sounds about
as much in contact with reality as the generality of Clayton's postings.
Charles E Thorne
> Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
> Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
> reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek
> original has never had any meaning for more than a minute
> coterie of scholars,
> ...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.
> Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
>What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
>about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
>Jack Campin was posting.
If you want to treat the KJV as "literature", that's an acceptable answer.
However, if you're making the presumption that the KJV (and the more recent
translations which are based on that one) that this is somehow related to
the Hebrew and Greek "bible" of early Christian times, then this is in fact
not a translation per se (i.e., not accurate) but is someone's "political"
diatribe.
Mike Godwin
>
>MG:
>>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
>
>Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
>readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
>of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.
If I think you're being unmannerly, and I express disapproval of
your bad manners, am I "censuring" you? If so, you've made a distinction
without a difference.
By the way, since you're interested in reading-comprehension skills,
you may want to know that "adequate" doesn't take the modifier "more."
Something either is adequate or is not.
Julie Lim
>
>Also, I seem to recall a "Bible as Literature" course being taught at
>Cal State Long Beach in late 60's. Are such courses still taught there
>or elsewhere?
UDel has a "Biblical & Classical Literature" course that I sampled
last year. It was scarcely comprehensive in either half-- well, how much of
either can one study in depth in four months?-- but it was okay.
--
MUDname: Sidera "...If I seem to give a damn, please tell me. I would
University of Delaware hate to be giving the wrong impression."
Mikhail Zeleny
>zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
>>waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
JC:
>>>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>>>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MZ:
>>...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
>>really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
BD:
>Hey, that's a bit rich! Careful, Mikhail--
>
>(a) Most Jews can't read Biblical Hebrew
>(b) Most Greeks can't read Koine
Please refer to the original statement in order to understand why your
comments, regardless of their relation to the truth of the matter, are of
no relevance whatsoever. (Hint: the salient terms are `never', `any', and
`meaning'.)
Clayton Cramer
> The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
> time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
> similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.
>
> to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
> word in a translation?
>
> Charliel
If the word you are referring to is "arsenokoites", it's not clear
what the word meant. My understanding is that there are just two
examples of its use, one from 2nd century Greek, the other from
6th century Greek. The 2nd century meaning was something like
"homosexual prostitute", the 6th century meaning was "pederast".
Since we don't know which was meant, or perhaps a third meaning,
it is not unreasonable to assume, based on Paul's culture and
what it thought about homosexuality, that the word means what the
English cognates suggest, "Arse + coitus".
I notice that the NIV translates "arsenokoites" in different
contexts to different phrases. In one place, it uses the phrase
"homosexual offender", in another, a phrase akin to "sexual
depravity".
The process of translation is apparently rather contentious. A
friend worked for the Lockman Foundation (who did the NIV
translation); he tells me that the translators would argue for
MONTHS about how to translate a particular word, and still not
reach consensus about it.
Mikhail Zeleny
>In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MG:
>>>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>>>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>>>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>>>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
MZ:
>>Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
>>readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
>>of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.
MG:
>If I think you're being unmannerly, and I express disapproval of
>your bad manners, am I "censuring" you? If so, you've made a distinction
>without a difference.
A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
and Norbert Elias.
MG:
>By the way, since you're interested in reading-comprehension skills,
>you may want to know that "adequate" doesn't take the modifier "more."
>Something either is adequate or is not.
This is true only if one rather pedantically takes the word in its original
sense, indicating exact equality or sufficiency; if, however, the word is
taken in its modern sense, as a synonym of `satisfactory' (approved by the
exemplary authority of the OED), it certainly can be so modified.
Brent Davies
>In article <1991Oct29....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
>ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:
>>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
>really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?
Hey, that's a bit rich! Careful, Mikhail--
(a) Most Jews can't read Biblical Hebrew
(b) Most Greeks can't read Koine
=============================
Brent Davies, ACUS Melbourne
700 Blackburn Rd
Clayton North, Victoria
=============================
Mike Godwin
>
>A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
>Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
>like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
>and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
>manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
>attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
>be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
>and Norbert Elias.
"Actionable" in what way? Legally? Certainly not, if the charge
is true (and charges that you are a mannerless boor are invariably
true).
Or do you mean by dueling? Sigh. Everyone knows that you are coward
on this score--pumping yourself up by challenging people in other
countries to duels.
>This is true only if one rather pedantically takes the word in its original
>sense, indicating exact equality or sufficiency; if, however, the word is
>taken in its modern sense, as a synonym of `satisfactory' (approved by the
>exemplary authority of the OED), it certainly can be so modified.
Only a very muddy thinker supposes that one can conflate the meanings
of "adequate" and "satisfactory" without loss to the language. It does
not surprise me to find further confirmation of your status as such.
Now, Mikhail, run along and pretend to read some more Aristotle.
Mark Taranto 36095
>At least at Sonoma State University, a literature
>class I took a while back involved reading from the KJV. It was
>sort of disconcerting to realize the level of cultural illiteracy that
>has developed when students had absolutely no concept that the word
>"Psalm" contains a silent "P" -- it's obvious that the liberal goal
>of eliminating all religion from American society has come perilously
>close to succeeding.
When my former SO was a TA for a "KJV as Literature" class at the University
of Minnesota, she had just the opposite problem. She received papers which
started out with phrases like "The Bible is the inspired word of God and
cannot be treated like literature." The class was filled with a number of
students who were "born again" and thought that this would be an easy A.
They were in for a rude awakening.
Similarly, I remember one of my Philosophy professors complaining about
the inability of several self proclaimed socialists, who were taking his
Marx class, to look critically at the texts.
Mark
Hmmm, SO, TA, KJV -- I feel just like Dick Vitale.
INFIDEL
>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
Don't get your spindly-windly dick in a knot, Hypocritical Scum.
John Wojdylo
Perth
Western Australia
p.s. "Noddy Gets a New Car" is an excellent book.
Robert Firth
>I particularly object to sections that mistranslate alleged references
>to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
>word in a translation?
Rubbish. Paul uses the koine word 'arsenokoitai', which certainly
did exist in his time and does mean (male) homosexuals. I suggest
you read the original text and see for yourself how well, or badly,
the AV translates it.
Mary Ellen Foley
in which "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" was presented
as "All those using swords will be killed".
Talk about losing the poetry!
--
WARNING!! Opinions in posting are farther away than they appear
^^^^^^^^^
Mary Ellen Foley (m...@netcom.com)
Mikhail Zeleny
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
>>Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
>>like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
>>and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
>>manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
>>attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
>>be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
>>and Norbert Elias.
MG:
>"Actionable" in what way? Legally? Certainly not,
Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.
MG:
> if the charge
>is true (and charges that you are a mannerless boor are invariably
>true).
I agree wholeheartedly that charges that you are a mannerless boor are
invariably true, and offer the following charge by my antipodean friend as
evidence:
In article <1991Nov1.1...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>
inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
JW:
>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...
JW:
>Don't get your spindly-windly dick in a knot, Hypocritical Scum.
Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.
>John Wojdylo
>Perth
>Western Australia
MG:
>Or do you mean by dueling? Sigh. Everyone knows that you are coward
>on this score--pumping yourself up by challenging people in other
>countries to duels.
Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
life form, such as yourself. However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.
Please note that any geographical considerations are quite negligible: if
your extinction is at stake, my overwhelming humanitarian sentiments would
make me free to travel at a moment's notice. Furthermore, the attorney in
you will be happy to know that such gentlemanly diversions are still legal
is the glorious state of Maryland.
Heidi Wolf
Book recommendation: THE ART OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE by Robert Alter.
(Came out in hardback 5-10 years ago, I believe.)
Alter dealt exclusively with the Old Testament in this book,
basing his analyses on the original Hebrew texts. His thesis
was that the total vocabulary of words used in the O.T. was
deliberately quite small, and that the author(s) took great care
in their choice of particular words over others with a similar
meaning. He includes a lot of examples. This is the sort of
close analysis more commonly given to poetry; I thought it made
for fascinating (and *not* overly PhD-thesis-ish) reading.
Heidi Wolf
Mike Godwin
>Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
>think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
>about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.
The thought of a self-styled "philosopher" disparaging anyone else's
work is rather charming, if also pathetic.
It is worth pointing out that Mikhail's philosophical bent has led
him to conclude that homosexuality is immoral since homosexual acts
cannot produce children. Since this is also true of most heterosexual
acts (all heterosexual acts, if reliable contraception is used), this
may explain why Mikhail is so unable to get laid that he feels compelled
to seek sex equivalents in spurious challenges.
>Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...
Poor Mikhail. Somebody needs to teach him what "litigious" means. I'd
try, but he's still hung up over "adequate."
>Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
>himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
>presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.
Only a very, very poor reader (and Mikhail surely counts as one) could
conclude that anything I've posted in this newsgroup was intended to
distinguish me from most men, unwashed or otherwise.
>Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
>to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
>consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
>life form, such as yourself.
Of course you can't. If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd
have to challenge me to a duel. And since I actually live in the same
town and could accept your challenge, your cowardice forbids you to be
insulted. It must be hard to disguise such a spineless soul in such a
blustery facade.
Your lengthy justification for your fear of physical confrontation
reminds me a bit of Touchstone's "If" speech. Of course, yours
is much more poorly written. (Note: Ob. books reference in this graf.)
> However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
>stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
>prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
>opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.
Me, insulted? Hardly. I'm quite thankful that you give me the opportunity
to spar a bit, although I eagerly await someone with real skill. Roger
Lustig on a bad day could trounce all your postings combined. And even
poor INFIDEL has a certain flair that your constipated prose lacks.
>Furthermore, the attorney in
>you will be happy to know that such gentlemanly diversions are still legal
>is the glorious state of Maryland.
Ah, another manifestation of your pitiable cowardice. Since I'm in the same
town, you'd want me to fight you in Maryland, so that it would take me
a full day, including travel time, to humiliate you rather than the
20 minutes or so it would take me to do it in Cambridge. (I'd add
a few minutes to my lunch hour and polish you off on the walk back
from Legal Seafood.)
My advice to you, Mikhail, is to get laid. If it weren't for the backed-up
semen clogging your brain, you wouldn't feel such an obsessive need to
dwell on pseudo-sexual encounters like duels.
Of course, to get laid you'll have to give up some of your pathetic
notions about sexuality, but you can cross that bridge when you, uh,
come to it.
--mnemonic
Mike Godwin
>>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?
Is he perhaps referring to my ability to post without references
to "nurturing, faggot-fuck lawyer-ese gobfuckery" or to "two-faced,
self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting cunt-effluent"? If so, I agree
that it's a social advantage.
--Mike
--
Mikhail Zeleny
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov1.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
>>think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
>>about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.
MG:
>The thought of a self-styled "philosopher"
A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!
MG:
> disparaging anyone else's
>work is rather charming, if also pathetic.
Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.
MG:
>It is worth pointing out that Mikhail's philosophical bent has led
>him to conclude that homosexuality is immoral since homosexual acts
>cannot produce children. Since this is also true of most heterosexual
>acts (all heterosexual acts, if reliable contraception is used), this
>may explain why Mikhail is so unable to get laid that he feels compelled
>to seek sex equivalents in spurious challenges.
You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
occupied. Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
hone them into something that might pass for English prose.
MZ:
>>Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...
MG:
>Poor Mikhail. Somebody needs to teach him what "litigious" means. I'd
>try, but he's still hung up over "adequate."
`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.
MZ:
>>Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
>>himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
>>presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.
MG:
>Only a very, very poor reader (and Mikhail surely counts as one) could
>conclude that anything I've posted in this newsgroup was intended to
>distinguish me from most men, unwashed or otherwise.
And so I cite the epicene twit once again:
>In article <1991Oct18.1...@eff.org>
>mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
MG:
>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that there may not be a hierarchy.
Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.
MZ:
>>Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
>>to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
>>consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
>>life form, such as yourself.
MG:
>Of course you can't. If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd
>have to challenge me to a duel. And since I actually live in the same
>town and could accept your challenge, your cowardice forbids you to be
>insulted. It must be hard to disguise such a spineless soul in such a
>blustery facade.
Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...
MZ:
>> However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
>>stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
>>prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
>>opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.
MG:
>Me, insulted? Hardly.
But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
such a dull writing style.
MG:
> I'm quite thankful that you give me the opportunity
>to spar a bit
This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
to hold my attention a bit longer.
MG:
>My advice to you, Mikhail, is to get laid.
Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.
Clayton Cramer
> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) wrote:
> > it's obvious that the liberal goal of eliminating all religion from
> > American society has come perilously close to succeeding.
>
> Given that the people most of us would think of as exemplifying US
> liberalism would be (born-again) Jimmy Carter, the American Friends
> Service Committee and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, this sounds about
> as much in contact with reality as the generality of Clayton's postings.
>
> -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Actually, Jackson is the only one that "exemplifies" American
liberalism to very many people. (How many years has it been since
the "Rev." Jackson pastored a church? At least 25 years. Oh yes,
the man whose anti-Semitic slurs severely damaged his 1984 Presidential
campaign. Some liberal!)
Most Americans' response to the AFSC is "Who?" Most liberals do their
best to pretend that Jimmy Carter wasn't one of them, to the extent of
calling him the most conservative Democratic President since Grover
Cleveland, or "an unguided missle."
The ACLU and Norman Lear's People for the American Way are better
exemplifications of American liberalism.
Mike Godwin
>
>A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!
A poor student, apparently.
>Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
>noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
>Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
>the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
>could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.
Your comment, Mikhail, reflects the bitterness of a person who's unfit
for a real job.
I can understand why a person of your, uh, "gifts" would be inclined
to hide at a university rather than face the world at large. After all,
too many people out here laugh uproariously at blowhards who tout
their duelling abilities.
By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
in the school yard.
I'm willing to bet you can't produce a shred of evidence that you've
fought a duel, or even challenged someone in the same country.
>You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
>just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
>gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
>occupied.
Ah, your repressed homosexual longings--expressed, as always, by (1) your
public opposition to homosexuality and (2) your fantasies
of physical intimacy with men who threaten you.
If you could overcome your resistance to your own homosexuality--
expressed as always by these two manifestations--you might free yourself
of the need to talk about your wonderful duelling ability. (The Freudian
significance of the man who obsessively implies skill with gun or
sword is obvious.)
>Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
>facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
>provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
>geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
>hone them into something that might pass for English prose.
Talk is so cheap, Mikhail. Everyone knows that you dare not challenge
someone who might actually meet you. What's amazing is that you suppose
that anyone believes you when you make excuses about how no one can insult
you.
Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.
>`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
>fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
>courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
>banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.
No wonder you're stuck as a student. You don't know how to do your
research. Can't expect INFIDEL to feed you enough half-remembered gossip
to fudge your way into the pretense of knowledgeability, Mikhail.
>MG:
>>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that there may not be a hierarchy.
>
>Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
>nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
>the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.
Poor Mikhail. The evidence is right in front of his eyes, and he can't
even read it. Obviously, English is not Mikhail's first language.
Suffice it to say that not one word of the quoted material stands
in support of the argument that I claimed to be "separated" from
"the multitudinous masses."
>Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
>unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
>mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
>contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...
Still can't admit it, eh? You never fight anyone. You just pretend
to be a brave duellist. Well, it's a nice fantasy for you, I suppose,
but *every single time you refer to it*, readers of this newsgroup
know you for the cowardly fraud you are.
>But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
>something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
>available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
>insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
>such a dull writing style.
The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
fight a duel.
I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
blowhard coward.
>This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
>have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
>to hold my attention a bit longer.
Heh. I knew you weren't man enough to take it.
>Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
>not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
>your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.
It is a measure of your own failure to recognize your sexual orientation
that you are willing to interpret so much of what other men write as
a sexual come-on.
Why not come to terms with yourself, Mikhail? It's apparent to any
reasonable person that your noxious, irrational statements about
homosexuality indicate a person deeply uncomfortable with his own
sexual feelings. If you're so inhibited that you can't express yourself
here, perhaps a counselor could help.
I notice that you were too cowardly to repeat your stupid statements
about homosexuality here. This stands as further evidence of your essential
timidity.
--Mike
Andrew Clayton
In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:
> >So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
[The rest of "John goes mad with a drill and sex" deleted]
> I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
[Am I the *only* person to be of the opinion that Mike must
manage a killfile that is slightly smaller than the entire spool
directory of most Internet sites?]
> Most of this is pretty entertaining
I cheered. Especially when Mikhail Zeleny used John's text as a
bludgeon, which he used to smash into your torpid egobloated
persona. (Actually, I cheered twice.)
> but can anyone tell me what he's referring to when he talks
> about my "social advantage"?
"Being dint of being a laywer, Mike Godwin has social advantage."
Replete with clue, I fully expect you to digress, part, sift, and
generally pounce on any perceived quiddity within this missive,
in another attempt to brush off yet-another-hater-of-pedantry.
Perhaps Dan'l can remind us all about your fantabulous quote re
pedant?
There are very few ways to treat lawyers so that they don't find
fault with what you utter; One way is to agree with anything they
say and do, and another is to resort to lawyer-ese, and write
impermeable, invunerable, sentences.
In double-spaced, 40 column lines,
whilst charging exhorbitant fees
for five minute units.
The easiest way is to tell them to fuck off, in latin.
Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac David Andrew Clayton. // _| _ _
prolix!dac%ey...@labtam.oz.au Canberra, Australia \X/ (_](_](_
d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au . . I am. +61 6 285 2537
Mark Brader
> Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
> posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
> not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.
This is, I think, a commendable attitude. In my own postings I try to
emphasize it by *not* citing the name of the person whose text I'm quoting,
unless I'm doing so in praise. (Or unless I have to quote several people
and things would get too confusing otherwise.)
The practice of regularly including an identification line with quoted
text was introduced with the news reader rn, as a default feature of its
F command. I think it was one of the few mistakes in rn, as it seems to
me to have contributed to the level of argumentativeness on the net.
I recommend that people not use it.
The References line is available if the reader wishes to see who posted
the original article, or for that matter to see the quoted material in
its full context.
--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, m...@sq.com
"The conversation never became heated, which would have been difficult
in any argument where there is a built-in cooling-down period between
any remark and its answer." -- Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT
This article is in the public domain.
INFIDEL
INFIDEL writes:
>>>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>>>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>>>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>>>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
Yes it's nice, really pretty, especially the quote on the right. I'm
sure that if you flash your .sig in the right places, it'll help open many
doors for you. After all, the world's full of suckers that'd trust you, hey
Mike.
Of course, if they fuck you over (the two-faced lying mannerless shits!)
then you can always sue them, and bemoan their lack of grace.
>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
>I knew I would find John ...
I love it when you call me by my first name, you know. Adds that certain
personal touch. If this continues we'll be snuggling up together in no
time... and then ANYTHING could happen. Mmmmm. But, Michael, y' know, I
have no influential friends and I certainly don't hold any important
positions (although I could make an exception in your case, snugglepot...
but only if you ask REALLY nicely... but then your .sig _is_ OH SO pretty...)
- so don't get too carried away, will you.
(I'm sure you won't - that's right, atta boy, you're thinking the right
thoughts now, I trust.)
>...worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>Most of this is pretty entertaining, ...
... and it contains a error of grammar - but let's not dwell on that...
> ... but can anyone tell me what he's
>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?
Now what on earth could I have meant by that ? I really-truly have no idea
myself. Deary me.
>Is he perhaps referring to my ability to post without references
>to "nurturing, faggot-fuck lawyer-ese gobfuckery" or to "two-faced,
>self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting cunt-effluent"?
Now what on earth could Michael have meant by that ? I truly-really have no ideamyself. Deary me.
What an amazing ability you have Michael! Your left hand doesn't know
what your right hand is doing with your spindly windly dick. Of course,
as long as it all remains under the table it's O.K. .
>--Mike
Richard Caley
mg> Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
mg> referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?
Well, you don't post from Australia, that counts for a lot :-).
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
James Davis Nicoll
>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
>
>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
>
>I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?
I think he's refering to your lack of Tourette's, although
he could also be jealous of your articulateness, or education. I
doubt he's referring to you being a Texan, although I hesitate to
guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.
James Nicoll
Mike Godwin
>
>[Am I the *only* person to be of the opinion that Mike must
>manage a killfile that is slightly smaller than the entire spool
>directory of most Internet sites?]
Probably not. But your opinion would be mistaken. I've only put three
people in killfiles during my entire tenure on the Net, and two of
them have since been removed.
A more careful reader than you would have concluded that I'm more likely
to argue with someone disagreeable than to ignore him. Take this posting
for example.
>I cheered. Especially when Mikhail Zeleny used John's text as a
>bludgeon, which he used to smash into your torpid egobloated
>persona. (Actually, I cheered twice.)
Whatever gets you off. At least you're not humiliating yourself
with fraudulent duel challenges.
>"Being dint of being a laywer, Mike Godwin has social advantage."
> [text deleted]
>Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
Sigh. It is perfectly apparent to anyone but you that you have
adduced social *disadvantages* for lawyers, not social advantages.
Your own posting is inconsistent on this.
Someone with a bit more feeling for the zeitgeist can instruct you,
perhaps, on the current social disapproval of lawyers.
Or check out misc.legal or rec.humor for the latest in lawyer jokes.
"A small-town lawyer spent an hour counselling an elderly woman
about the terms of her newly updated will. At the close of the
hour, the woman left, handing the lawyer the agreed-upon fee, a
hundred-dollar bill. After she left, the lawyer looked at the
hundred-dollar bill and noticed that, stuck to that bill, was a
*second* hundred-dollar bill that the woman had unwittingly given.
Immediately, this raised the obvious ethical question in his mind:
"'Do I tell my partner?'"
Mikhail Zeleny
your prodigious verbal charms
tempt me again and again
to chastise you soundly
with my eloquent malediction:
In article <1991Nov2.0...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov1.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!
MG:
>A poor student, apparently.
Yet in spite of his poverty, fully capable of trouncing a plutocratic shyster.
MZ:
>>Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
>>noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
>>Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
>>the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
>>could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.
MG:
>Your comment, Mikhail, reflects the bitterness of a person who's unfit
>for a real job.
Correct that to `pride', and you've got it, insignificant wage slave.
MG:
>I can understand why a person of your, uh, "gifts" would be inclined
>to hide at a university rather than face the world at large. After all,
>too many people out here laugh uproariously at blowhards who tout
>their duelling abilities.
Not abilities, but readiness to oblige, my good epicene; just as I would be
ready to oblige Your Sliminess on the *champ d'honneur*. Alas, your
understanding of spiritual matters is altogether inadequate to the task of
comprehending the notion of honor, or the utter insignificance of the
opinion of risible *canaille* like yourself.
MG:
>By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
>challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
>fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
>in the school yard.
I take the Fifth, old chap; it may never occur to a slow-witted git like
yourself that such encounters are considered illegal in most jurisdictions.
MG:
>I'm willing to bet you can't produce a shred of evidence that you've
>fought a duel, or even challenged someone in the same country.
You hardly have the means to interest me in producing a shred of anything
for your express benefit; the only way a despicable poltroon like you can
test my resolve is by issuing a challenge; but your yellow liver would
hardly permit that, would it?
MZ:
>>You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
>>just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
>>gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
>>occupied.
MG:
>Ah, your repressed homosexual longings--expressed, as always, by (1) your
>public opposition to homosexuality and (2) your fantasies
>of physical intimacy with men who threaten you.
>
>If you could overcome your resistance to your own homosexuality--
>expressed as always by these two manifestations--you might free yourself
>of the need to talk about your wonderful duelling ability. (The Freudian
>significance of the man who obsessively implies skill with gun or
>sword is obvious.)
Anything that is obvious to your small mind is ipso facto suspect to anyone
unencumbered by your debilitating reasoning deficiency. The speculations
about my sexuality were initiated by you, so your vulgar pseudo-Freudianism
comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following this thread. Nor are
those projections of sexual inversion unexpected in the light of your
light-footed occupation as a logorrheic mouthpiece for an utterly
purposeless corporate entity.
MZ:
>>Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
>>facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
>>provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
>>geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
>>hone them into something that might pass for English prose.
MG:
>Talk is so cheap, Mikhail. Everyone knows that you dare not challenge
>someone who might actually meet you. What's amazing is that you suppose
>that anyone believes you when you make excuses about how no one can insult
>you.
You are right: talk is cheap, and so is alluding to alleged common
knowledge. Moreover, you are committing a fallacy of arguing from the
particular to the general once again: just because I refuse to be insulted
by a saponaceous, oleaginous worm like you, doesn't in any way entail that
I can't be insulted by a human being. Moreover, if at any point *you*
should feel insulted by my characterization of what passes for your person,
you can get satisfaction by challenging me; rest assured that I'll oblige
personally, instead of responding in accordance with your station by
sending my lackeys to cane you.
MG:
>Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
>an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
>the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.
How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?
MZ:
>>`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
>>fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
>>courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
>>banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.
MG:
>No wonder you're stuck as a student. You don't know how to do your
>research. Can't expect INFIDEL to feed you enough half-remembered gossip
>to fudge your way into the pretense of knowledgeability, Mikhail.
I know enough about the EFF; more to the point, I can judge its
effectiveness by your pathetic performance in this exchange.
MG:
>>>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>that there may not be a hierarchy.
MZ:
>>Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
>>nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
>>the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.
MG:
>Poor Mikhail. The evidence is right in front of his eyes, and he can't
>even read it. Obviously, English is not Mikhail's first language.
>Suffice it to say that not one word of the quoted material stands
>in support of the argument that I claimed to be "separated" from
>"the multitudinous masses."
Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.
MZ:
>>Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
>>unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
>>mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
>>contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...
MG:
>Still can't admit it, eh? You never fight anyone. You just pretend
>to be a brave duellist. Well, it's a nice fantasy for you, I suppose,
>but *every single time you refer to it*, readers of this newsgroup
>know you for the cowardly fraud you are.
Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
manifestly, are *not*.
MZ:
>>But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
>>something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
>>available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
>>insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
>>such a dull writing style.
MG:
>The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
>of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
>(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
>fight a duel.
The joke, of course, Mikey dearest, is that in your hubristic, ignoble
pretentiousness, all too typical of the members of your malignant brood,
you are forgetful of the difference between *poietike* and *praktike*
(ObBooks: cf. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea VI.4, 1140a); comfortably
ensconsed in the bogus world of writs and torts, you fail to distinguish
between your own degenerate *flatus vocis*, represented in depressing
variety within this long-suffering newsgroup (as it is undoubtedly
represented in the legal bills of your long-suffering clients) and resolute
action, of which you are repeatedly demonstrating yourself to be incapable.
MG:
>I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
>blowhard coward.
There you go projecting again... a coward, Mikey dearest, is anyone who
would dream of assimilating his pathetically witless verbigeration to noble
combat, thereby implying that his imminent defeat in this exchange is
tantamount to loss of life. Were your obdurate obstreperousness in any way
substantiated by gallant fortitude, you wouldn't have limited its meager
expression to this inconsequential medium; nor would have you wound up as
an inconsequential attorney.
MZ:
>>This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
>>have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
>>to hold my attention a bit longer.
MG:
>Heh. I knew you weren't man enough to take it.
I daren't ask what you consider yourself to be man enough to take, you big
sissy.
MZ:
>>Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
>>not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
>>your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.
MG:
>It is a measure of your own failure to recognize your sexual orientation
>that you are willing to interpret so much of what other men write as
>a sexual come-on.
Mikey darling, this is the third time you are committing a fallacy of
arguing from the particular to the general: it's not my interpretation of
other men's writings, but my reading of your own inimitably charmless
screeds, especially your coitous advice to try to get laid (which you all
too conveniently omit), that's being questioned here. Or are you so taken
by the claims of your multiple, yet equally obnoxious personalities, that
you view yourself as ``other men''?
MG:
>Why not come to terms with yourself, Mikhail? It's apparent to any
>reasonable person that your noxious, irrational statements about
>homosexuality indicate a person deeply uncomfortable with his own
>sexual feelings. If you're so inhibited that you can't express yourself
>here, perhaps a counselor could help.
As befits a barrister, you can't abstain from self-promotion. Thanks, but
I am fully capable of expressing and otherwise representing myself.
MG:
>I notice that you were too cowardly to repeat your stupid statements
>about homosexuality here. This stands as further evidence of your essential
>timidity.
A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.
All flames are directed to alt.sex.
Mike Godwin
>
>Yet in spite of his poverty, fully capable of trouncing a plutocratic shyster.
Ah, this explains much. You lack money, so you resent those whom you
suppose to have some.
>Not abilities, but readiness to oblige, my good epicene; just as I would be
>ready to oblige Your Sliminess on the *champ d'honneur*. Alas, your
>understanding of spiritual matters is altogether inadequate to the task of
>comprehending the notion of honor, or the utter insignificance of the
>opinion of risible *canaille* like yourself.
Nice to see you're improving your handling of multisyllable words.
>I take the Fifth, old chap; it may never occur to a slow-witted git like
>yourself that such encounters are considered illegal in most jurisdictions.
This, of course, is an admission that you've never fought anyone,
anywhere. I notice that no one expresses any belief that you're anything
but a strutting blowhard. Why pretend? The only challenge you've ever
faced is that of your own inferiority complex.
>You hardly have the means to interest me in producing a shred of anything
>for your express benefit; the only way a despicable poltroon like you can
>test my resolve is by issuing a challenge; but your yellow liver would
>hardly permit that, would it?
Still another admission that you've never fought anyone. What a hypocrite
you are to challenge people to duels.
>Anything that is obvious to your small mind is ipso facto suspect to anyone
>unencumbered by your debilitating reasoning deficiency. The speculations
>about my sexuality were initiated by you, so your vulgar pseudo-Freudianism
>comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following this thread.
For once you read correctly. What I posted was precisely "vulgar
pseudo-Freudianism."
>You are right: talk is cheap, and so is alluding to alleged common
>knowledge. Moreover, you are committing a fallacy of arguing from the
>particular to the general once again: just because I refuse to be insulted
>by a saponaceous, oleaginous worm like you, doesn't in any way entail that
>I can't be insulted by a human being.
Actually, the truth is that you can't be insulted by anyone, human or
otherwise, whom you might actually risk meeting. Everyone knows this.
We had some laughs at your expense today at the r.a.b. lunch.
> Moreover, if at any point *you*
>should feel insulted by my characterization of what passes for your person,
>you can get satisfaction by challenging me; rest assured that I'll oblige
>personally, instead of responding in accordance with your station by
>sending my lackeys to cane you.
You can't send "lackeys"--you have none.
>How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
>issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
>yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?
Ah, but reputation is a function of public opinion. And since you lack any
reputation, except as a loud-mouthed wimp, a poll was the elementary
solution. By the way, no one has posted on your behalf. Not even your
"lackeys."
>Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
>parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
>``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
>the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.
Ah, now you admit that the message wasn't in the text--it was merely in
your own silly reading of it. If you had any intellectual honor, you'd
admit your error.
>Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
>however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
>manifestly, are *not*.
In other words, you only find people worthy of a challenge if there's no
chance they'll answer it.
>There you go projecting again... a coward, Mikey dearest, is anyone who
>would dream of assimilating his pathetically witless verbigeration to noble
>combat, thereby implying that his imminent defeat in this exchange is
>tantamount to loss of life. Were your obdurate obstreperousness in any way
>substantiated by gallant fortitude, you wouldn't have limited its meager
>expression to this inconsequential medium; nor would have you wound up as
>an inconsequential attorney.
These sentences illustrate the obsessions of a boy who thinks that
word length is a substitute for penis size.
>As befits a barrister, you can't abstain from self-promotion. Thanks, but
>I am fully capable of expressing and otherwise representing myself.
Indeed. You've represented yourself perfectly here.
>A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
>justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.
Forgive us if we don't accept attempts at moral reasoning from a hypocrite
and coward.
Mikhail Zeleny
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov2.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MG:
>Actually, the truth is that you can't be insulted by anyone, human or
>otherwise, whom you might actually risk meeting. Everyone knows this.
Just you wait, my good nitwit:
I still might react to your pathetic contortions.
MG:
>You can't send "lackeys"--you have none.
If you can participate in a battle of wits, I certainly can send lackeys.
MZ:
>>How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
>>issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
>>yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?
MG:
>Ah, but reputation is a function of public opinion.
Honor, however, is not;
but I don't expect you to understand or appreciate it.
MZ:
>>Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
>>parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
>>``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
>>the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.
MG:
>Ah, now you admit that the message wasn't in the text
I admit nothing of the sort; the message was implicit in the text in a way
evident to anyone endowed with elementary interpretive skills.
MZ:
>>Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
>>however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
>>manifestly, are *not*.
MG:
>In other words, you only find people worthy of a challenge if there's no
>chance they'll answer it.
Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
move, pussycat.
MZ:
>>A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
>>justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.
MG:
>Forgive us if we don't accept attempts at moral reasoning from a hypocrite
>and coward.
You and your tapeworm are hereby forgiven; what excuse will you bring up to
avoid my challenge, you pusillanimous poltroon?
Mike Godwin
>
>Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
>you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
>not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
>the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
>Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>move, pussycat.
The fact that you think you're a smart guy dictates the choices
here:
Choice of jurisdiction: Somerville, Massachusetts. My living
room. Eight p.m., Monday, Nov. 4, 1991. Your second, if you have
one, can reach me for further details at the phone number in my
.signature.
(If you don't have a second, I can find you one.)
Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces. My second in spirit
is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.
Humiliation by TRIVIAL PURSUIT is still legal in this jurisdiction.
Best two out of three. The loser must post a statement composed by
the winner to rec.arts.books, soc.couples, soc.men, soc.women, and
alt.flame. Failure to comply with these terms is a sign of lack of
honor, and failure of the loser to honor this agreement will mean
the utter destruction of his public standing (well, of course, that
doesn't mean much for you, but still....).
You are honor-bound not to study the questions beforehand, as
am I.
>You and your tapeworm are hereby forgiven; what excuse will you bring up to
>avoid my challenge, you pusillanimous poltroon?
Oh, but I thought it was obvious that I was hoping you'd challenge
me. I've been trying to get you to do it for days now.
My guess is that you can't risk the certain humiliation of losing
to one of your betters, and that you will find some kind of cowardly
excuse to avoid this confrontation.
Let's see if your brain can keep up with the challenges of your
mouth. If you refuse to engage in this contest, you stand dishonored
before all the world.
INFIDEL
>In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov1.1...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au> inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
>>
>>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
>>
>>I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>>Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
>>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?
>I doubt he's referring to you being a Texan,
Hey James, thanks - I never thought of that. Around here,
calling someone a "Texan" means telling them that they're a
"self-engrossed, pedantic blowhard." Perfect!
But why on earth would such a thing be fitting for Mike Godwin ? Just
dunno. Hmmph.
>although I hesitate to
>guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
>a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.
"Mind" is the perfect word for it, James. Well done. Glad to see that
with all that AI you're doing you can still relate to the real world.
Don't squint in the bright sunshine, James.
jw
Janet M. Lafler
As I was desultorily skimming through one of these exchanges, my computer,
by some alchemy, substituted random characters for the next screenful of
the message, thus transforming it into meaningless gibberish.
It seemed peculiarly appropriate.
/Janet
--
send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
"Well, for my money," said Repnomar, "a mountain of ice is worth two of rock;
for we can make our own toeholds where we want them."
--The Wheel of the Winds, by M.J. Engh
Mikhail Zeleny
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov2.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
>>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
>>you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
>>not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
>>the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
>>Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>>move, pussycat.
MG:
>The fact that you think you're a smart guy dictates the choices
>here:
>
>Choice of jurisdiction: Somerville, Massachusetts. My living
>room. Eight p.m., Monday, Nov. 4, 1991. Your second, if you have
>one, can reach me for further details at the phone number in my
>.signature.
>
>(If you don't have a second, I can find you one.)
>
>Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces. My second in spirit
>is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
>genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.
>
>Humiliation by TRIVIAL PURSUIT is still legal in this jurisdiction.
>Best two out of three. The loser must post a statement composed by
>the winner to rec.arts.books, soc.couples, soc.men, soc.women, and
>alt.flame. Failure to comply with these terms is a sign of lack of
>honor, and failure of the loser to honor this agreement will mean
>the utter destruction of his public standing (well, of course, that
>doesn't mean much for you, but still....).
>
>You are honor-bound not to study the questions beforehand, as
>am I.
Evidently, your reading disability has gotten the best of you: both my
challenge, and all extant duelling codes stipulate deadly weapons, which
means that you may choose pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow and arrow, crossbow,
cutlass, rapier, smallsword, broadsword, katana, sword and dagger, sword
and cloak, sword and lantern, pike, spear, or more common items, better
suited to your base character, like cudgel, mallet, chainsaw, hammer, or
screwdriver; moreover the point is to injure, wound, disable, maim, kill,
or exterminate your opponent, rather than humiliate him; indeed, in your
case humiliation is quite superfluous. If you refuse to follow the code,
you thereby proclaim yourself to be a dastardly recreant, a wheyface
milquetoast, a sissy piker, and a true member of the American Bar
Association. Submit to the rules, or forever be known as all of the above;
my guess is that you will find some kind of cowardly excuse to save your
skin, and, in spite of your predictably contorted elucubrations aimed at
proving the contrary, will thereby confirm the obvious conclusions
concerning the craven nature of your character; but before you soil your
Giorgio Armani pants in public, look in the mirror, and think about
Schelling's dictum that a man not prepared to play boldly with his life on
occasion, cannot be possessed of life in its higher human vigor. But then
you already knew that about yourself, didn't you?
Mark Robert Thorson
(the world's oldest publisher of Bibles). It's written using a word
list of 1000 words, the 850 words of Basic English and another 150
"Bible words" to ease in the translation (words like "angel").
Basic English is not baby talk. It reads like unusually clear, normal
English. The book is currently available in paperback (there might be
a hardback version too, but I don't know).
Anyone care to place bets on whose Bible will be the first to be fed
into a computer with natural-language understanding capabilities? :-)
Andrew Clayton
> In article <1a067d1e...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> >
> >[Am I the *only* person to be of the opinion that Mike must
> >manage a killfile that is slightly smaller than the entire spool
> >directory of most Internet sites?]
>
> Probably not. But your opinion would be mistaken. I've only put three
> people in killfiles during my entire tenure on the Net, and two of
> them have since been removed.
Persumably by dint of a hitman, no doubt hired via a carefully
concealed circuitous route?
> A more careful reader than you would have concluded that I'm more likely
> to argue with someone disagreeable than to ignore him. Take this posting
> for example.
Oh, to be sure, Mikey boy, I've been at the receiving end of your
splenetic missives on a number of memorable occasions. Each time
you were more convolved than the last.
> >Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
>
> If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
One needs to be an intellectual giant to press the button marked
'nuke'? Golly, the good ol' US of A [especially those darn
Texans] must be figuratively awash with "intellectuals," hovering
over their Big Red Buttons, whilst reciting Proust, and
dissecting Bertrand Russell.
> Sigh. It is perfectly apparent to anyone but you that you have
> adduced social *disadvantages* for lawyers, not social advantages.
Perfect apparitions lie in the realm of lawyerspeak, Mike. A more
down to earth person would take his lumps, and live to mewl
another day.
> Someone with a bit more feeling for the zeitgeist can instruct you,
> perhaps, on the current social disapproval of lawyers.
Waffle is your forte, why detract from your -fun-, Mike. Go on,
spoil yourself, let your windbaggery flood the net; let the
polysyllables fly, the archaic verbiage tumble forth haphazardly,
the turgid prose and conceited puffery; I am sure you could
overwhelm the capacity of any single newsgroup to contain your
innate quaffiditty.
> Or check out misc.legal or rec.humor for the latest in lawyer jokes.
Pah. You revel in your uglyness, Mike. Far too happy with your
lot, you should be made to suffer the slings and arrows of the
Mikhails of the world, on a more or less continuous basis.
The CFV for alt.mike.godwin.sucks has passed, with zero NO votes.
Coming soon to a site near you.
Andrew Clayton
> In article <1991Nov2.2...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> >
> >Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
> >Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
> Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces. My second in spirit
> is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
> genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.
How about Scrabble via the network, with a third person
doling out the tiles via Email. Board posted every turn to
soc.men, soc.women, alt.flame, and alt.tasteless?
Dictionary - Either the Concise Oxford, or Collins Concise.
Winner gets to gloat a lot.
Dac
--
Fiona Oceanstar
>> Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
>> posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
>> not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.
Mark Brader writes:
>This is, I think, a commendable attitude. In my own postings I try to
>emphasize it by *not* citing the name of the person whose text I'm quoting,
>unless I'm doing so in praise. (Or unless I have to quote several people
>and things would get too confusing otherwise.)
>
>The practice of regularly including an identification line with quoted
>text was introduced with the news reader rn, as a default feature of its
>F command. I think it was one of the few mistakes in rn, as it seems to
>me to have contributed to the level of argumentativeness on the net.
>I recommend that people not use it.
Oh!! I disagree, Mark. Francis' attitude is indeed commendable,
especially because he pulls it off so gracefully, but you don't have to
drop the attribution line in order to separate the author, qua person,
from the text. It's always important to know where the words are coming
from, and Francis, like most everyone in this group, is careful to
make that clear.
There are multiple layers in all forms of human discourse. Addressing
the text itself is only one way of making the distinction--only one
level of the filo pastry, if you will. Francis is being a wee bit
disingenuous, indeed, to claim that his custom is to address the text
only. He frequently includes subtle allusions to the author qua author,
if not the author qua person. The problem of argumentativeness on
the net is not due to attribution lines, oh no: it's due to people being
so blunt in their perceptions that they can't tell the difference
between a comment addressed to them as the author of a set of words, and
a comment addressed to them as an emotional, physical, spiritual human
being.
In other words, people shouldn't take comments *personally*, just
because their name is included. The name is a courtesy, a pointer.
I am writing these words to Mark Brader the author of a given posting
on rec.arts.books, not Mark Brader the man. I wouldn't presume to be
able to address you at that level, since we haven't been introduced.
--Fiona
Erin Zhu
>By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
>challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
>fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
>in the school yard.
Poor Mikey baby, still indignant at his inability to effectively remedy
certain primary school indignities, I see.. Didn't you mention that
your mommy kissed it and made it all better?
>I'm willing to bet you can't produce a shred of evidence that you've
>fought a duel, or even challenged someone in the same country.
Feel free to hand over whatever pittance you might have staked on this
sincere claim; unless, of course, that last sentence holds no more
substance than your normal issuance of puerile babble infused with
pretentious pop-psychoanlysis propelled by copious supplies of
spit-saturated hot air and graced with the name of a net posting.
>If you could overcome your resistance to your own homosexuality--
>expressed as always by these two manifestations--you might free yourself
>of the need to talk about your wonderful duelling ability. (The Freudian
>significance of the man who obsessively implies skill with gun or
>sword is obvious.)
Not to mention that of a person fixated on the necessity of slandering
the possibility of another possessing more skills and balls than his
own dastardly and oh-so-Politically-Correct person.
>Talk is so cheap, Mikhail. Everyone knows that you dare not challenge
>someone who might actually meet you. What's amazing is that you suppose
>that anyone believes you when you make excuses about how no one can insult
>you.
Sure looks like cowardice is cheaper, Mikey dear. Everyone knows that
you dare not actually risk anything as significant as your life to
back up your daily dosage of oft-repeated fine words purely designed
to boost your own fragile, delicate, and altogether breakable ego.
>Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
>an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
>the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.
No need for you to expend your precious energy, o
Trivial-Pursuit-wielding warrior. While you are so happily engaged in
pointing your manicured, pampered, and lily-white fingers at Misha,
have you perhaps neglected to notice that intrusion up the fragrant
canal of your expansive rectum, namely of a certain body part
supposedly housing the sorry and hardly existent piece of what passes
as your brain...
>Poor Mikhail. The evidence is right in front of his eyes, and he
>can't even read it. Obviously, English is not Mikhail's first
>language.
I assume that a certain high and mighty authority on English language
would care to enlighten us non-native speakers of English as to the
obscure and no-doubt-scholarly interpretation of the mysterious
adjective "deadly" which renders it suitable for describing Trivial
Pursuit.
>The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
>of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
>(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
>fight a duel.
Would someone who believes he would be willing to not only fight a
duel but do so with weapons placing him slightly more at risk than a
game do for your purposes? Come on now, Mikey, stop bluffing, just
because Trivial Pursuit was your only way to settle memorable 6th
grade squabbles doesn't mean life is going to stay a grade school
playground shaped by your own conceited fancy.
>I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
>blowhard coward.
Oh don't be shy, do accept the grandiose title for yourself. It sounds
_sooo_ much more appropriate affixed to your august and deserving
person.
Doug Philips
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov1.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
> zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
>challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
>fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
>in the school yard.
I hope we'll see an answer to this, but realisticly...
>Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
>an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
>the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.
Sorry, can't help you out there.
>The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
>of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
>(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
>fight a duel.
Again, sorry, can't help you out here either.
>I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
>blowhard coward.
That's about right.
Thanks for the amusement Mike.
-Doug
Doug Philips
f...@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) writes:
>Oh!! I disagree, Mark. Francis' attitude is indeed commendable,
>especially because he pulls it off so gracefully, but you don't have to
>drop the attribution line in order to separate the author, qua person,
>from the text. It's always important to know where the words are coming
>from, and Francis, like most everyone in this group, is careful to
>make that clear.
Well said. I find it almost impossible to follow posts when the
authors are nested more than two levels and no attribution is given.
> The problem of argumentativeness on
>the net is not due to attribution lines, oh no: it's due to people being
>so blunt in their perceptions that they can't tell the difference
>between a comment addressed to them as the author of a set of words, and
>a comment addressed to them as an emotional, physical, spiritual human
>being.
Indeed. Of course the emotional content (or rather lack thereof) of
the medium makes it a little bit tougher. :-)'s alleviate this, but
only somewhat.
>In other words, people shouldn't take comments *personally*, just
>because their name is included.
Indeed. I think that part of the problem is that too many people are
like that on the net (taking criticisms of ideas to be criticisms of
people) are also like that off the net. Where have they learned such
things? (or where have they not learned the opposite?).
-Doug
Preston Briggs
Reminded by some recent discussion, I went to the library
and check out a copy of _Sir Nigel_, by Doyle.
It's sad to contrast the style of the heroes in the book
to the style displayed in this newsgroup.
Consider Dame Ermyntrude lecturing a young Nigel about conduct:
... but if perchance there was anyone who spoke louder than the rest
and seemed to be eager for honour, then afterwards you father would
him softly by the sleeve and whisper in his ear to learn if there
was any small vow of which he could relieve him, or if he would
deign to perform some noble deed of arms upon his person. And if
the man were a braggart and would go no further, your father would
be silent and none would know it. But if he bore himself well,
your father would spread his fame far and wide, but never make
mention of himself.
Of course, the book is hopelessly romantic,
and these modern times make different demands.
In these circumstances, I'd vote for a traditional Texan solution
(actually due to Jim Bowie, pre-Texas). Put 'em face to face,
astraddle a log, nail their pants to the log, give them knives
(say 18 inches each), and stand back.
Preston Briggs
Mike Godwin
>
>Feel free to hand over whatever pittance you might have staked on this
>sincere claim; unless, of course, that last sentence holds no more
>substance than your normal issuance of puerile babble infused with
>pretentious pop-psychoanlysis propelled by copious supplies of
>spit-saturated hot air and graced with the name of a net posting.
Not only do I not believe "Erin's" assertion that Mikhail actually
fought a duel (who was the other combatant?), but it is rather
pathetically apparent that the person posting from Erin's account
is the same person posting from Mikhail's account.
I guess this is one way for you to create friendships, Mikhail.
>Sure looks like cowardice is cheaper, Mikey dear. Everyone knows that
>you dare not actually risk anything as significant as your life to
>back up your daily dosage of oft-repeated fine words purely designed
>to boost your own fragile, delicate, and altogether breakable ego.
I've named the time, place, and manner. If Mikhail/Erin can't make
himself show up to face certain public humiliation, that's his problem,
not mine.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
Mike Godwin
>
>Thanks for the amusement Mike.
Here's some more amusement, Doug. There's no such person as "Mikhail
Zeleny" listed in the Cambridge phonebook. There is a "Michael
Zeleny," though, and he's at the same Mass. Ave address that "Mikhail"
uses in his .signature.
Less conclusive of "Mikhail's" fakery is the fact that there is *no*
listing in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville for an "Erin Zhu."
Mike Godwin
Amazingly, after I posted that last message, I got a call here
at my house. It was late, but acting on a hunch I answered the phone
anyway.
"Hello?"
"Godwin. Ith that you? You, you ... *awful perthon*!"
"Mikhail? Don't you think you should be sleeping it off or
something?"
"I jutht want you to know that I think your pothtingth are
tho ... tho *mean*."
"Well, Mikhail, it's not as if you weren't asking for trouble.
I mean, not only do you have these bizarre notions about manhood,
sexuality, and duelling, but you keep lunging for your thesaurus
whenever you get your dander up."
"I didn't thay I wath Mikhail."
"True, you didn't. But it seems the most logical inference.
Besides, I was expecting a call from you. One could almost see
the little wisps of steam curling up from your ears, and I knew the limits
of this medium were about to be too constraining for you. I figured it was
only a matter of time before you went voice."
"Jutht like a lawyer--thmarty-panth talking all the time."
"You know, Mikhail, it's, like, a no-brainer to criticize me for being a
lawyer. I mean, it shows a lack of imagination on your part, don't you
think? Maybe when you're older (19 or 20, say), you'll be more
creative."
"Nyaah, nyaah, you lawyerth are all thcum. If you would let me uthe
my pithtol or thword, inthtead of that thtupid game, I could kill
you, and that would prove who'th the better man."
"Look, I think it's well-established that the desire to kill people
speaks of deep maladjustment, insecurity, and probable psychosexual
problems. A big sword is no cure for a small dick."
"WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY DICK? Uh, I mean .... Oh, thut up you big
ath-hole!" <This was followed by the sound of the handset being
slammed into its cradle.>
Ah, well. I take it that Mikhail's apparent attempt to hash
this out over the phone means an end to his attempts to spar
with me here. Thus, back to my killfile he goes.
All rec.arts.books people are invited to my house at 8 o'clock
Monday evening to sip a scotch or two and watch Mikhail fail
to show up for the duel. Send e-mail for directions.
James Davis Nicoll
Can anyone recommend a good book on Aaron Burr, and just why he
and Hamilton had that tiff in 1804?
James Nicoll
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <1991Nov2.1...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:
>
>> >Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
>>
>> If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
>
>One needs to be an intellectual giant to press the button marked
>'nuke'? Golly, the good ol' US of A [especially those darn
>Texans] must be figuratively awash with "intellectuals," hovering
>over their Big Red Buttons, whilst reciting Proust, and
>dissecting Bertrand Russell.
Clearly someone who has never tried to bypass the PAL on a
nuclear device. Anyone know if the older mechanical safety systems
are still used on anyone's nukes, and how well guarded they are?
Taylor was optimistic.
James Nicoll
James Davis Nicoll
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
Material deleted
>>although I hesitate to
>>guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
>>a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.
>
>"Mind" is the perfect word for it, James. Well done. Glad to see that
>with all that AI you're doing you can still relate to the real world.
I take you think I'm a programmer. Tee hee. Nice to see your take
on this is as accurate as on anything else. It's counterproof of the
stopped watch model of INFIDEL cognition.
James Nicoll
Mikhail Zeleny
pre...@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes:
>In these circumstances, I'd vote for a traditional Texan solution
>(actually due to Jim Bowie, pre-Texas). Put 'em face to face,
>astraddle a log, nail their pants to the log, give them knives
>(say 18 inches each), and stand back.
This is a bit crude, but quite acceptable. The only trouble I can foresee
is that Godwin's pants would be all too slippery with his bodily fluids to
stay in one place. Otherwise, I'm game.
>Preston Briggs
Honing my knives,
MZ
Mikhail Zeleny
f...@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) writes:
>>Francis Muir writes:
FM:
>>> Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
>>> posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
>>> not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.
I have dealt with Mr Muir's hypocritical pretension elsewhere;
at this time I shall occupy myself with his camp followers.
>Mark Brader writes:
MB:
>>This is, I think, a commendable attitude. In my own postings I try to
>>emphasize it by *not* citing the name of the person whose text I'm quoting,
>>unless I'm doing so in praise. (Or unless I have to quote several people
>>and things would get too confusing otherwise.)
You may commend whatever you wish; the net result will invariably amount to
misinterpretation. Contrary to Mr Muir's position, words don't exist in a
vacuum; in removing the addresser's name, you will only succeed in
subverting the meaning of the message by altering its context.
[...]
FO:
>There are multiple layers in all forms of human discourse. Addressing
>the text itself is only one way of making the distinction--only one
>level of the filo pastry, if you will. Francis is being a wee bit
>disingenuous, indeed, to claim that his custom is to address the text
>only. He frequently includes subtle allusions to the author qua author,
>if not the author qua person. The problem of argumentativeness on
>the net is not due to attribution lines, oh no: it's due to people being
>so blunt in their perceptions that they can't tell the difference
>between a comment addressed to them as the author of a set of words, and
>a comment addressed to them as an emotional, physical, spiritual human
>being.
Perhaps your mind is sufficiently limber to allow for the contortions
implicit in a homuncular theory of personality; as for me, I find any
distinction between the author qua author and the author qua person to be
intellectually bankrupt and indefensible, bereft as it is of any shred of
philosophical or psychological justification. If personal identity exists
at all, it must persist through the creative process; any claims to the
contrary can only be maintained at the expense of dispensing with the
notion of a person; of course, as I have suggested earlier, examples of
dissimulating self-promotion through self-effacement offered by Mr Muir can
be construed as lending weight to the latter hypothesis. But in this case
all proper names and personal pronouns or definite descriptions should be
taken as denoting nothing more substantial than sundry collections of
assorted token-utterances, so all talk about the author qua author would
become quite incoherent.
FO:
>In other words, people shouldn't take comments *personally*, just
>because their name is included. The name is a courtesy, a pointer.
>I am writing these words to Mark Brader the author of a given posting
>on rec.arts.books, not Mark Brader the man. I wouldn't presume to be
>able to address you at that level, since we haven't been introduced.
Your propriety is really quite charming; unfortunately for you, since the
hackneyed dichotomy suggested above is altogether groundless, so are your
mannerisms. Regardless of your presumptions or lack thereof, any words you
may happen to produce apropos someone else's writings are ipso facto
addressed to his person; if you don't like this fact, you have the option
of remaining silent.
> --Fiona
Preston Briggs
Hello out there in NetLand!
Maybe you guys can help me out.
I was looking for a newsgroup where the participants
discuss books they've read. Any clues appreciated.
Andrew Clayton
> In article <1a081905...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> >In article <1991Nov2.1...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:
> >
> >> >Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
> >>
> >> If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
> >
> >One needs to be an intellectual giant to press the button marked
> >'nuke'?
> Clearly someone who has never tried to bypass the PAL on a
> nuclear device.
Spot the Armenian terrorist!
> James Nicoll
^
- Supplied By Rent-A-Clue --------------------------------/~\
Dac
--
Tim Smith
I can't vouch for its accuracy, but Gore Vidal's _Burr_ is at
least entertaining. (More so than his later historical fiction.)
--Tim (tss...@netcom.com)
Jan Yarnot
--
---Jan Yarnot, net.grandma.--- How many graduate students does it take to
change a light bulb?
CSUS depends on my every word. Only one, but it takes 9 years.
Brent Davies
>meaning of the above statement in accordance with its quantifiers. I might
>have allowed another possibility, that Mr Campin was altogether unable to
>express himself in writing; however, on a moment's reflexion it will become
>quite evident to the reader that this unfortunate handicap is completely
>subsumed by (and identical with) his being too stupid for words.
>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
(retch) Mikhail, give over the self-important prattle.
To insult someone so blatantly without first ascertaining the meaning behind
the post was just plain RUDE.
Get some manners. You know, just enough to get by in society would be fine.
--Brent
Brent Davies
>In article <1991Oct30....@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
Bravo. Lift your game, Mikhail.
--Brent
Janet M. Lafler
There does seem to be a movement afoot to rename this group alt.posturing.
However, some of us are still interested in talking about books. Really.
It helps if there's a specific topic, though. Got any ideas? Almost every
time I try to start a thread it fizzles. Besides, I'm leaving for a week's
vacation tomorrow.
Janet M. Lafler
>Has everyone seen "Hagar the Horrible" for today?
>--
INFIDEL
>In article <1991Nov3....@uniwa.uwa.oz.au> inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> Material deleted
>>>although I hesitate to
>>>guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
>>>a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.
>>
>>"Mind" is the perfect word for it, James. Well done. Glad to see that
>>with all that AI you're doing you can still relate to the real world.
> I take you think I'm a programmer.
No, but I do take I think you're a pedantic cunt.
jw
INFIDEL
>However, some of us are still interested in talking about books. Really.
>It helps if there's a specific topic, though. Got any ideas? Almost every
>time I try to start a thread it fizzles.
Get real, Miss Lafler, and blame yourself - not other posters - for lack
of interest in your inanities. This newsgroup isn't like your favorite
meat-market nightspot, dear: is it that you're so used to getting lays
through artless conversationless prissy posturing that you expect others
to give you attention whenever you feel like it, even when you give them
trash?
John Wojdylo
Perth
Preston Briggs
>>However, some of us are still interested in talking about books.
inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
[the usual stuff omitted]
John Wojdylo
So, what do _you_ (JW) read?
Does it make interesting conversation?
We could use a little.
Preston Briggs
INFIDEL
>--
>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
Mike Godwin writes:
Mikhail Zeleny writes:
>>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons
[...]
>>Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>>move, pussycat.
God-fuck-Win contorts:
>Choice of jurisdiction: Somerville, Massachusetts. My living
>room. Eight p.m., Monday, Nov. 4, 1991. [...]
>Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces.
Thus the Pig-dog Godwin attempts to lure our Russian friend Misha to his
apartment for some "trivial pursuit". How long will the game last before
the two-faced TEXAN bogs the contest down in self-fuckfesting lawyer-ese
pedantry? It's the faggot-fuck poof-cunt's tactical equivalent of, "Uh
oh - the car's run out of petrol dear". Time for dog's-cunt-face Godwin
to slip in a suggestion for his favorite bloodsport. "Ahh ummm ahhh
aummm ooohhh ummm" he stutters cos he knows he's a two-faced lying shit
even in this regard (more on this later). Suddenly the precedents flash
before his eyes:
there was that time he let himself be fucked by Mr. ______ in
order to weasel his way into the inconsequential backwater called the
"Electronic Frontier Foundation", (which now constitutes his last stand in a
life of ennui, a failed-fuck faggot-fuck, his last chance to lie and cheat his
way to wealth at the expense of trusting clients) - but don't jump to any
conclusions, dear reader, about a certain aspect of the real Mike Godwin
(revealed later);
there was that time during a lengthy stint as public
stool-pidgeon at the Texan Lone Star, in which the boss's son (a young
lad barely in his teens) fucked Godwin in return for favors towards the
Legislature and financial rewards;
and other times.
Cunt-effluenting Mike Godwin blows his word-mongering gobfuckery out of his
dick in whichever direction the hand with the most dollars pulls.
He's given the chance to redeem himself by honourable duel, and what
does he do?
" Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces."
Mike Godwin, lawyer by profession, obfuscator by disposition, and an
utter cunt, attempts to manoever the situation towards the only game in
which his penchant for multiple shades of meaning from minutely altered
positions might find full expression: the full-frontal blood-sport of
dick-duelling.
Yep, poo-hole plugging ain't Michael Godwin's idea of a bloodless coup,
nosirree.
With the scales of justice tattooed on their penises, two angry,
one-eyed lawyers jostle for supreme position in the monetary stakes
amidst the sweat of their mutual exersions. (Such is God-cunt-win's idea of an honourable profession.)
Oh the poor innocent client whose circumstance is so unjust !
Pay money to Mike Godwin, he'll see you through. Nosirrreee, poo-hole plugging
ain't doggy Godwin's scene .
But - as you'd expect from the two-faced TEXAN - there's a catch with
Mike-fuck the "faggot-fuck". You see, in real life, he watches girlies and
lusts after tits and cunts just like the "real men" he says he despises. That'snot the scales of justice tattooed on his spindly-windly dick, it's a
rattle-snake coiled up and ready to pounce.
And THAT is where Mike Godwin's potency ends.
(Now you know why God-fuck-win is so entranced with the French symbologists
in posts to r.a.b.)
Anyone who believes his gauche trendy-talk and thinks that he really is a
"gay middle-aged Texan" has been had. It's a lie just like all the
others. The two-faced Texan worm's clients should feel
pissed off if they thought he really gave a flying fuck about their trivial
mundane squabbles.
Mike Godwin goes in the direction the hand with the most money pulls his
dick. Obfuscation and pedantry serve his selfish purposes. In
squalid self-fuckfestation he sucks the dicks and cunts of all those
who honour him with the social graces.
The only social grace that pig-dog TEXAN deserves is a spit in the face.
>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."
John Wojdylo
Perth
Western Australia
Fiona Oceanstar
>Perhaps your mind is sufficiently limber to allow for the contortions
>implicit in a homuncular theory of personality; as for me, I find any
>distinction between the author qua author and the author qua person to be
>intellectually bankrupt and indefensible, bereft as it is of any shred of
>philosophical or psychological justification. If personal identity exists
>at all, it must persist through the creative process; any claims to the
>contrary can only be maintained at the expense of dispensing with the
Yes, indeed, and a fascinating direction in which to direct the
discussion, I might add! It brings to mind the writings of Daniel
Dennett, such as his essay "The Concept of Personhood" (_Brainstorms_)
and also the popular anthology, _The_Mind's_I_, which he and Douglas
Hofstadter pulled together.
I'm afraid, however, that I had something much more prosaic in mind,
which is the workaday distinction that people make between those who
are in a social or professional role, and those who are being related
to in what's usually called a "personal" way. (Do you recall the
hilariously inept use of this meaning for the word that appeared in the
advertising for the fourth "Jaws" movie? "Jaws IV: This time, it's
*personal*." It conjures up the image of a great white shark with
a pouty scowl on its face, muttering under its breath as it goes
looking for revenge. What sharks do *not* do--which is part of
why they're so unnerving--is differentiate between a hunk of wiggly
meat, and a "person," in this more casual sense.) When we address
doctors, check-out clerks, politicians, etc., we initially relate
to them through the conventions of their social roles. If later
on, we come to interact with them as "people," this is a shift that
while not gradual, is not without its consequences. It's a continuum,
not an either-or sort of line that is crossed.
What's interesting about Usenet, which I think you're getting at here,
is that we so readily slip into thinking of each other as "people,"
rather than as "net-personae." The friendly tone of what we often
refer to as "conversations," the smiley faces, and most of all, the
speed of response to our contributions, make it easy to remember that
we are indeed fellow human beings, as well as "Usenet authors" or
"e-personae." It's part of the reason why I use an invented name
here: to help me maintain, within my mind, a courteous distance. Like
most of us, I'm sure, I don't always succeed. It's worth the effort,
though, if only because it means that when I get up from the computer,
I don't have to carry so much of an emotional burden from what others
have said to me.
But if you want to leave this all behind, and go off into discussing
the psychological and philosophical meaning of personhood, please do
so. It's a field of inquiry in which I have an abiding interest.
--Fiona
Mikhail Zeleny
br...@mlacus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>meaning of the above statement in accordance with its quantifiers. I might
>>have allowed another possibility, that Mr Campin was altogether unable to
>>express himself in writing; however, on a moment's reflexion it will become
>>quite evident to the reader that this unfortunate handicap is completely
>>subsumed by (and identical with) his being too stupid for words.
>
>>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.
BD:
>(retch) Mikhail, give over the self-important prattle.
I'm afraid that, unlike Mr Muir, I'm not fond of pretend self-effacement.
Sorry about your digestive difficulties.
BD:
>To insult someone so blatantly without first ascertaining the meaning behind
>the post was just plain RUDE.
I am well aware of (and comfortable with) my rudeness, which is in no way
mitigated by the fact that, unlike Mr Muir, I was able to immediately
understand Mr Campin's intended meaning, as witnessed by his own assent.
BD:
>Get some manners. You know, just enough to get by in society would be fine.
Furthermore, as noted above, I am well aware of the hypocritical rudeness
implicit in censuring others for lack of manners. Physician, heal thyself;
I'll get by in society without thine help.
>--Brent
Doug Philips
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>Here's some more amusement, Doug. There's no such person as "Mikhail
>Zeleny" listed in the Cambridge phonebook. There is a "Michael
>Zeleny," though, and he's at the same Mass. Ave address that "Mikhail"
>uses in his .signature.
>
>Less conclusive of "Mikhail's" fakery is the fact that there is *no*
>listing in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville for an "Erin Zhu."
Hmmm. Of course, at least in Pittsburgh, there is an option to be
listed with directory assistance but not printed in the phone book.
Creating his own playmates, how quaint. I suppose it does add to the
realism to give them their own net access though.
I suppose we ought to consider that this might be other than arrested
adolescence. Perhaps a strain of multi-personality disorder?
But then, why bother? (Ok, so I'm passing the odd moment..)
-Doug
Rita Marie Rouvalis
>Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
>noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
>Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
>the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
>could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.
Mikhail. There are other parties in this newsgroup who work
for EFF. Attack Mike and his anatomy all you like (and they say women
have penis envy. Humph.). But I'll thank you to leave the livlihoods
of disinterested parties quite out of this mess.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis ri...@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | You can't play with Deadsy unless you've
155 Second Street | got them great, big sex-o-thingies.
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | -- Deadsy
Rita Marie Rouvalis
>In article <1991Nov2.2...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>
>>Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
>>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
>>you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
>>not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
>>the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
>>Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>>move, pussycat.
>
>
>is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
>genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.
Sigh. This is what I get for staying off-line all weekend.
Curtis Yarvin
If the only reason you're posting is to get laid, John, you might as well
restrict your distribution to Oz. None of us will mind. It won't help your
chances, but it won't exactly hurt them, either; how could it?
c
Mike Godwin
>
>Furthermore, as noted above, I am well aware of the hypocritical rudeness
>implicit in censuring others for lack of manners. Physician, heal thyself;
>I'll get by in society without thine help.
That's "thy help," not "thine help." See Fowler on aspirated h's.
--Mike
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <1991Nov3.2...@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, James Davis Nicoll writes:
>
>> >In article <1991Nov2.1...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:
>> >
>> >> >Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!
>> >>
>> >> If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
>> >
>> >One needs to be an intellectual giant to press the button marked
>> >'nuke'?
>
>> nuclear device.
>
>
>> James Nicoll
> ^
>- Supplied By Rent-A-Clue --------------------------------/~\
Don't be a silly. The most recent common ancestor I have
with the Amenian branch of the family died almost a millenia ago.
Those Strachans really got around.
I *could* be a Jakobite, if I didn't think parking armies in
a bog wasn't obviously a silly idea. I won't even mention the pike/spear
question...
James Nicoll
Mike Godwin
>In article <1991Nov3.1...@eff.org>,
> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Here's some more amusement, Doug. There's no such person as "Mikhail
>>Zeleny" listed in the Cambridge phonebook. There is a "Michael
>>Zeleny," though, and he's at the same Mass. Ave address that "Mikhail"
>>uses in his .signature.
>>
>>Less conclusive of "Mikhail's" fakery is the fact that there is *no*
>>listing in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville for an "Erin Zhu."
>
>Hmmm. Of course, at least in Pittsburgh, there is an option to be
>listed with directory assistance but not printed in the phone book.
Same here. But there is no "Erin Zhu" listed with directory assistance,
either. I suspect that "Erin Zhu" is as much a fraud as "Mikhail's"
first name.
>Creating his own playmates, how quaint. I suppose it does add to the
>realism to give them their own net access though.
Sadly, he seems unable to give them their own writing styles.
Doug Philips
zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>You may commend whatever you wish; the net result will invariably amount to
>misinterpretation. Contrary to Mr Muir's position, words don't exist in a
>vacuum; in removing the addresser's name, you will only succeed in
>subverting the meaning of the message by altering its context.
And by the exact same logic, by eliding parts of previous posts you
have altered their meaning by altering their context. Not that you
need to alter context to misinterpret them.
>Your propriety is really quite charming; unfortunately for you, since the
>hackneyed dichotomy suggested above is altogether groundless, so are your
>mannerisms. Regardless of your presumptions or lack thereof, any words you
>may happen to produce apropos someone else's writings are ipso facto
>addressed to his person; if you don't like this fact, you have the option
>of remaining silent.
Oh the tireless advice of the morally superiour. Yawn. To bad you
don't have that option. Must be so easy when all your decisions are
already made for you. And as to the substance of that passage, such as
it is, even in introductory logic courses, that is under the dominion
of Philosophy, one learns that to counter an argument one needs to show
either or both that some premise is false, or that the form of the
argument is not valid. Mere assertion that a premise is false is
insufficient.
Ho Hum,
Doug
Fiona Oceanstar
>As I was desultorily skimming through one of these exchanges, my computer,
>by some alchemy, substituted random characters for the next screenful of
>the message, thus transforming it into meaningless gibberish.
Amusing on one level, but unfortunate on another: if you wish, I'll
send you the recent volleys of this exchange. The two participants,
named "Manners" and "Logorrhea," are really having a good time of
it, and as they settle into the fray, their swordplay is improving.
It's one of the best examples of flammage-as-art that I've seen on
the net in a long time, combining as it does witty writing, humorously
dated epithets, frequent references to duelling, professional slurs,
and (so essential in these modern times) accusations of sexual
insecurity, confusion, and/or immorality. I hope they keep it up
for a long time to come. Seriously!
--Fiona
Doug Philips
f...@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) writes:
>What's interesting about Usenet, which I think you're getting at here,
>is that we so readily slip into thinking of each other as "people,"
>rather than as "net-personae." The friendly tone of what we often
>refer to as "conversations," the smiley faces, and most of all, the
>speed of response to our contributions, make it easy to remember that
>we are indeed fellow human beings, as well as "Usenet authors" or
>"e-personae." It's part of the reason why I use an invented name
>here: to help me maintain, within my mind, a courteous distance. Like
>most of us, I'm sure, I don't always succeed. It's worth the effort,
>though, if only because it means that when I get up from the computer,
>I don't have to carry so much of an emotional burden from what others
>have said to me.
Excellent, I love the term "e-personae"! (But how does one pronounce
the leadoff 'e', long or short or ???)
One thing that you didn't quite say (or that I somehow missed getting)
is that machine-moderation of human interaction has a distinct impact.
It can lead to dehumanizing one's interlocutors and yet also lead one
to exposing greater intimacies. Email friendships, and hatreds, seem
to this observer/participant to form faster than those "off net," even
when considering the time dilation effect of "speed of response" and
the general lack of emotive bandwith (body language, intonation, etc.
all of which are crammed into ":-)". Which is all to say that, perhaps
one might take comments more personally than they were intended, as a
side-effect of the medium used to make the comments.
-Doug
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <1991Nov3....@rice.edu> pre...@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes:
>>
>>Hello out there in NetLand!
>>
>>Maybe you guys can help me out.
>>I was looking for a newsgroup where the participants
>>discuss books they've read. Any clues appreciated.
>
>There does seem to be a movement afoot to rename this group alt.posturing.
>However, some of us are still interested in talking about books. Really.
>It helps if there's a specific topic, though. Got any ideas? Almost every
>time I try to start a thread it fizzles. Besides, I'm leaving for a week's
>vacation tomorrow.
No problem, there's a thread in that. We could chat about books
suitable for reading in a vehicle, or great books about travel (Mosquito
Coast comes to mind), or we could go off on a tangent about the Blue Cube.
James Nicoll
Jeff Dalton
>It is worth pointing out that Mikhail's philosophical bent has led
>him to conclude that homosexuality is immoral since homosexual acts
>cannot produce children. Since this is also true of most heterosexual
>acts (all heterosexual acts, if reliable contraception is used),
But isn't that more or less the view of the Roman Catholic Church,
ie, that sex should allow the possibility of conception? And hence
the RC opposition to "reliable" contraception? I'd be surprised if
the Curch did not have a sophisticated philosophical justification
for this view, which would take it out of the realm of "Mikhail's
peculiar ideas" (so to speak) and into the realm of larger
philosophical disagreements.