E-mail Terrorists and Spam
AltNews
The e-mail bomb is most unfortunate and unfair. However, it would have
made a nice addition to the Boulder Weekly article about your activism
and the outrage it stirs. Maybe we'll mention it in a follow-up.
Gary:
Not giving you at least an honorable mention was indeed an oversight.
You won't be ignored or forgotten if the saga of Internet debate
continues in the pages of Boulder Weekly and Boulder Weekly's world
wide edition.
Without you guys and a few others who argue a lot, this newsgroup
would be nothing more than used car ads, "help me move to Colorado"
posts and those disguised messages by Internet service providers who
ask and answer the question: "Which ISP is best?" Keep up the good
work, and keep us all laughing and learning -- Wayne Laugesen
WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE URL FOR A STORY ABOUT SCOTT WEISER IN BOULDER
WEEKLY. THIS ALL CAPS MESSAGE IS, ESSENTIALLY, AN AD FOR AN ONLINE
STORY THAT NOBODY PROFITS FROM. IF THIS PRACTICE OFFENDS YOU, STOP
READING IMMEDIATELY. THE STORY IS AT: http://www.altnews.com/~altnews
Bob Thomas
>
> Just a note, someone who doesn't have the balls to engage in a debate and
> can't stand it when I get the best of them in a discussion has taken
> Borschty's advice and e-mail bombed my account, subscribing me to some
> 1700 (at present count) mail lists.
>
Scott,
Why would anybody want to do this to you--the voice of reason, prudence, and
moderation? It just isn't fair! Why do the nice guys always get picked on?
Word has it that the prepatrator has Spam breath.
Bob Thomas
Scott Weiser
can't stand it when I get the best of them in a discussion has taken
Borschty's advice and e-mail bombed my account, subscribing me to some
1700 (at present count) mail lists.
CNS is investigating, and if they find the perpetrator, they will
terminate him/her.
This is merely an annoying demonstration of the abject cowardice of
ignorant malcontent pinheads who have no wit and less intelligence.
It also won't succeed in censoring me. If anything, it stiffens my
resolve to continue to challenge assumptions and stir controversy.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a laywer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 by Scott Weiser
All rights of reproduction or distribution are retained by the author.
PGP 2.62 public key fingerprint:
A6 BD 79 21 A4 24 7B 10 F1 4C 2E BF D1 40 2A 0A
Gary Strand
sw> Just a note, someone who doesn't have the balls to engage in a debate and
can't stand it when I get the best of them in a discussion
How do you know this? Perhaps they simply dislike you, and haven't said a
thing here.
sw> has taken Borschty's advice and e-mail bombed my account, subscribing me
to some 1700 (at present count) mail lists.
Immature on their part, but quite funny. An oldie but a goodie to annoy
someone.
sw> CNS is investigating, and if they find the perpetrator, they will termin-
ate him/her.
And if it's not a CU user? What then? A lawsuit?
--
Gary Strand
gst...@indra.com http://www.indra.com/~gstrand
Scott Weiser
>sw> Scott Weiser
>
>sw> [T]ry not to smirk too hard, remember, you are a target too....
>
> I don't think so. I don't pride myself on being a pain-in-the-ass. Indeed,
> you pretty much set yourself up for this kind of tricksterism. Those of us
> who've been around USENET for a wee bit longer than you think it's dumb
> and immature, but usually not too obnoxious. If someone really wanted to
> get you, it would be quite trivial to forge some *really* nasty stuff and
Thank goodness for PGP. And for the reasonableness of the participants here.
But, let's hope you haven't spoken too soon. You're right though, it's a
relatively minor annoyance. Mostly a pain for the sysadmin, who's the true
innocent victim.....but, that's why they pay him the BIG bucks I guess....
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a lawyer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 All Rights Reserved
Scott Weiser
> can't stand it when I get the best of them in a discussion
>
> How do you know this? Perhaps they simply dislike you, and haven't said a
> thing here.
Not that many people know me except through this forum, so it's a pretty
obvious connection, but, you could be right, though it really doesn't matter.
>sw> has taken Borschty's advice and e-mail bombed my account, subscribing me
> to some 1700 (at present count) mail lists.
>
> Immature on their part, but quite funny. An oldie but a goodie to annoy
> someone.
Yup, hilarious. Remember, Gary, it's YOUR taxpayer dollars at work as the CNS
people work overtime to prevent a crash of the entire mail server and thus
service to thousands.
>sw> CNS is investigating, and if they find the perpetrator, they will termin-
> ate him/her.
>
> And if it's not a CU user? What then? A lawsuit?
Maybe an injunction.
But, try not to smirk too hard, remember, you are a target too....
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a laywer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 by Scott Weiser
All rights of reproduction or distribution are retained by the author.
PGP 2.62 public key fingerprint:
Scott Weiser
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a lawyer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 All Rights Reserved
Gary Strand
sw> [T]ry not to smirk too hard, remember, you are a target too....
I don't think so. I don't pride myself on being a pain-in-the-ass. Indeed,
you pretty much set yourself up for this kind of tricksterism. Those of us
who've been around USENET for a wee bit longer than you think it's dumb
and immature, but usually not too obnoxious. If someone really wanted to
get you, it would be quite trivial to forge some *really* nasty stuff and
make your name mud for a long, long, time.
Scott Weiser
Scott Grigsby
In article <312E73...@altnews.com>, AltNews <webm...@altnews.com> wrote:
>
>Without you guys and a few others who argue a lot, this newsgroup
>would be nothing more than used car ads, "help me move to Colorado"
>posts and those disguised messages by Internet service providers who
>ask and answer the question: "Which ISP is best?"
So, really, this newsgroup consists of are car ads, "help
me move," "which ISP?" and Gary and Scott arguing endlessly
and repeatedly the same subject. How exciting. I'm surprised
neither of them have written a cron job to post prepared rebuttals
a few times a day. Or maybe they have!
Thank Elvis my 'n' key hasn't worn out yet.
>...Keep up the good
>work, and keep us all laughing and learning -- Wayne Laugesen
Uh, doubtful. How about a mailing list for those very few who
might be interested in their incessant tautology?
>WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE URL FOR A STORY ABOUT SCOTT WEISER IN BOULDER
>WEEKLY. THIS ALL CAPS MESSAGE IS, ESSENTIALLY, AN AD FOR AN ONLINE
>STORY THAT NOBODY PROFITS FROM. IF THIS PRACTICE OFFENDS YOU, STOP
>READING IMMEDIATELY. THE STORY IS AT: http://www.altnews.com/~altnews
Gosh, thanks for saving me from reading those last 49 characters.
Scott
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott Grigsby /\
University of Colorado \/ "You can't polish a turd, Beavis!"
Boulder /\ --Butthead
AltNews
content on local newgroups. Your timing seems unfortunate. The handful
of posts since yours include: "Sell your house in 24 hours," "Toyota
mini-motorhome for sale," "Fly rod for sale," "Gibson guitar for
sale," and a post asking which Web browsers are best. Fascinating
stuff. Again, thank god for Gary, Scott and a few others who try to
elevate the level of conversation.
Perhaps they should start mailing lists. Let's hope they don't quit
posting here, however, as it would render the local newsgroups as mere
bulletin boards for the sale of junk cars and stuff that didn't go
away at the last garage sale.
As for the last 49 characters: Scott, you read the last 49 characters.
You know it, I know it and, dammit, the American people know it --
Wayne Laugesen
Mariano Goluboff
>sw> Scott Weiser
>sw> CNS is investigating, and if they find the perpetrator, they will termin-
> ate him/her.
> And if it's not a CU user? What then? A lawsuit?
Actually, Gary, even if that person were not a CU user s/he can be
terminated easily. As a SysAdmin, I would terminate (or give a VERY
serious warning) to anybody who did that to a user on another system.
Mariano Goluboff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find censorship indecent and patently offensive. Senator Exon should
be indicted.
PGP public key and blue ribbon link for freedom of speech on:
http://hep-www.Colorado.EDU/~goluboff/
hug...@refuge.colorado.edu
Scott Weiser <Scott....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>Not that many people know me except through this forum, so it's a pretty
>obvious connection, but, you could be right, though it really doesn't matter.
Weezer, you misspelled "I have no friends" above. HTH.
>But, try not to smirk too hard, remember, you are a target too....
<smirk> Only those who make themselves targets, buddy. <smirk>
>--
>******
> I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
>******
>
So far, that's the only claim you've made that appears to have
been validated by outside sources.
Warner Losh
>Again, thank god for Gary, Scott and a few others who try to
>elevate the level of conversation.
You forgot the smiley face on this. I'm serious.
boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless drivel
drove the really interesting and fun people away. It used to be full
of talk about Moths, open ranges, flaming objects in the sky, what the
best way to fix your bus was. All kinds of interesting subjects that
were fun to read about. Anymore, it is nothing but bland, boring
tirade against Boulder, smoking and other politically incorrect
things. That isn't fun. That isn't elevating. That is alt.flame.
Sorry to disagree with your opinion of Scott and Gary...
Warner
--
Warner Losh i...@village.org
Scott....@colorado.edu
> boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless drivel
> drove the really interesting and fun people away. It used to be full
> of talk about Moths, open ranges, flaming objects in the sky, what the
> best way to fix your bus was. All kinds of interesting subjects that
> were fun to read about. Anymore, it is nothing but bland, boring
> tirade against Boulder, smoking and other politically incorrect
> things. That isn't fun. That isn't elevating. That is alt.flame.
Ah, quitcherbitchen Warner. If you don't like the subjects, then start one of your
own. You want to talk about moths, go right ahead. You want to talk about your
broken bus, do so.
What do you want us to talk about, "politically correct things"?
Why don't you stir up Evan again about phone voting?
This is a *party* line, and ANYBODY can join in, or start their own conversation.
Believe me, if you want to talk about moths, I'll leave you alone.
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a laywer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 by Scott Weiser
All rights of reproduction or distribution are retained by the author.
PGP 2.62 public key fingerprint:
Todd Bradley
: boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless drivel
: drove the really interesting and fun people away.
Some of them are still here. They just can't be heard
very well anymore. By the way, I thought of a new alias
for Mr. Weiser--the Puck of boulder.general. Scott and
Puck (the guy from the San Francisco season of MTV's "The
Real World") seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Todd.
--
Todd Bradley -- A7 Audio Research Lab -- to...@rmii.com
Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy and Administrator of boulder.general
Alek O. Komarnitsky
Sam Weaver <sa...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>--> "Wayne" == AltNews <webm...@altnews.com> writes:
>
>Wayne> Scott: You obviously take issue with my unflattering assessment
>Wayne> of the content on local newgroups. Your timing seems
>Wayne> unfortunate. The handful of posts since yours include: "Sell
>Wayne> your house in 24 hours," "Toyota mini-motorhome for sale," "Fly
>Wayne> rod for sale," "Gibson guitar for sale," and a post asking
>Wayne> which Web browsers are best. Fascinating stuff. Again, thank
>Wayne> god for Gary, Scott and a few others who try to elevate the
>Wayne> level of conversation.
>
>Good Gawd Ahmighty, it shore is good that Scott showed up, with Wayne
>around to hear!! One who has been reading boulder.general for more
>than the apparent 6 months of Laugesen might remember a whole series
>of discussions, political and otherwise, which have occurred here. In
>particular, the 100 posts/day about the tobacco tax, Amendment 2, the
>Bruce amendment, growth control, defunct ski areas, hiking spots,
>helmet laws, etc. that have come and gone have been rightly deemed
>figments of the imaginations of a fevered populous. Let the REAL
>discussion begin!! Thanks, Wayne! Thanks, Scott!
Sam is correct - we talk about lots of things - from the boulder.general "FAQ":
3.2 What is the charter of {co,boulder}.general?
The ".general" newsgroups are meant to be used as general discussions
groups for Colorado/Boulder related items. Typical topics seen are:
DIA, Water Levels, Weather in general, Honesty of Car Dealers,
why Boulder/Colorado is great, Entertainment happenings,
why speed limits are bad, why speed limits are good, etc.
Also, a number of items .for-sale are often posted ... but these
often cause additional traffic ... which usually cumulates in some
strong words (and the original poster saying "show me the charter")
I guess I should update the above to include mention of Scott ...
but he is allready mentioned once in the FAQ:
Subject: 4.2 What is the fastest time from DIA to Boulder?
Alek Komarnitsky (your humble FAQ maintainer) left the United Baggage
claim area and entered the Table Mesa Boulder Exit 36:45 later.
This included a (fairly quick) stop at the parking plaza.
Route taken was all freeway: Pena -> 70 -> 76 -> 36.
Distance travelled was 44.1 miles (according to my odometer) which
means that the Turbo Snaab had an average speed of 72MPH.
Fortunately, Scott Weiser was not in front of me! ;-) ;-) ;-)
>Note to Wayne, et al - newcomers to discussion groups often feel like
>the REAL talk didn't start til they showed up. It's the egotistical
>mark of a true neophyte, and it's fairly insulting to most of the
>other readers. Not that I'd want this to keep you from telling us how
>it is, mind you...
Yep!
>Some of the longer-time (and less voluminous) commentators of old
>include Bear Giles, Warner Losh, Vernon Schryver, and our local
>moderator, Todd Bradley, who is doing a less-than-sterling job at
>keeping the newcomers up to date. Better get on the stick, Todd, or
>we'll elect Scott to fill your shoes !!
Sam has a good point here ... but I would suggest that if
Scott and/or Wayne want to "take-over" they'll have to do
it in a game of DOOM - see below.
Even though I haven't played DOOM in at least 6 months;
Todd and I are ready anytime ... ;-)
alek
Subject: 4.1 Who is the Administrator of boulder.general?
Occasionally, the question will be asked who is the administrator of
boulder.general. Todd (the Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy) has stated
previousely that he (with support from Alek) is the administrator of
boulder.general. However, Jill and Chris recently challenged that
authority, and a 2 vs. 2 DOOM Deathmatch was played on 2/5/95 to
decide who should really be the Administrator ...
Play was on Level 7 of DOOM2 (version 1.8) on four Pentium-90's,
three of which had sound (Alek went w/o). Kudo's to Chris for
allowing us the use of his facility. It should perhaps also be
mentioned that Jill was a relative newcomer to DOOM, but she was a
real trooper and put up a good fight - excellent throat clutching! ;-)
Final team score was 79-22, with the scores distributed as follows:
56 - Alek (i.e. Alek had 56 kills (only one fratercide against Todd))
23 - Todd
16 - Chris
6 - Jill
So status quo remains unchanged - Todd *is* the administrator of
boulder.general and any questions should be addressed to him in this forum.
Scott....@colorado.edu
>
>
> Good Gawd Ahmighty, it shore is good that Scott showed up, with Wayne
> around to hear!! One who has been reading boulder.general for more
> than the apparent 6 months of Laugesen might remember a whole series
> of discussions, political and otherwise, which have occurred here. In
> particular, the 100 posts/day about the tobacco tax, Amendment 2, the
> Bruce amendment, growth control, defunct ski areas, hiking spots,
> helmet laws, etc. that have come and gone have been rightly deemed
> figments of the imaginations of a fevered populous. Let the REAL
> discussion begin!! Thanks, Wayne! Thanks, Scott!
Just for the record, please note that *I* don't claim to be the savior of the
republic....but thanks anyway, Wayne, it made for a good story.
> Note to Wayne, et al - newcomers to discussion groups often feel like
> the REAL talk didn't start til they showed up. It's the egotistical
> mark of a true neophyte, and it's fairly insulting to most of the
> other readers. Not that I'd want this to keep you from telling us how
> it is, mind you...
Who, me? I never claimed any such thing....
> Some of the longer-time (and less voluminous) commentators of old
> include Bear Giles, Warner Losh, Vernon Schryver, and our local
> moderator, Todd Bradley, who is doing a less-than-sterling job at
> keeping the newcomers up to date. Better get on the stick, Todd, or
> we'll elect Scott to fill your shoes !!
No way! Not in a million years! Not a chance in Hell! I wouldn't take the post if
you handed it to me on a silver platter! Why, then I'd have to be RESPONSIBLE
for something. No Pundit could possibly survive such a thing......
Scott....@colorado.edu
> Warner Losh (i...@rover.village.org) wrote:
>
> : boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless drivel
> : drove the really interesting and fun people away.
>
> Some of them are still here. They just can't be heard
> very well anymore. By the way, I thought of a new alias
> for Mr. Weiser--the Puck of boulder.general. Scott and
> Puck (the guy from the San Francisco season of MTV's "The
> Real World") seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Oh baloney Todd, this isn't like a town meeting where one loudmouth can shout
down the others, anybody can post anything anytime they want.
"Puck you".......;-)
Dan Duncan
: very well anymore. By the way, I thought of a new alias
: for Mr. Weiser--the Puck of boulder.general. Scott and
: Puck (the guy from the San Francisco season of MTV's "The
: Real World") seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Not even close. Scott, while often frustrating, always offers input.
Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't, but it tends to be
on-topic and constructive. Puck is merely a buffoon.
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com
# Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again. -Lazarus Long
Alan Silverstein
Thanks to the URL posted earlier and the article behind it, I have a
better idea now who this Weiser-guy is. As usual, when you know more
about a person, the easier it is to relate to them and perhaps respect
them. However, one line in particular caught my attention. Scott said
he will argue a point he doesn't even agree with, just to get people
thinking.
Well, I love a debate as much as anyone, as a form of intellectual
intimacy, but I have little use for formal debates. I think it's
ethically corrupt, or at least stupid, to argue for a position you don't
even agree with yourself. If you are going to do this, you should at
least give fair warning of the context -- "I'm going to take this
position for the purpose of debate" -- so you don't draw people into the
debate thinking you are serious. It's unfair, it's rude, to sucker them
like that.
Oh, but it's for their own good? Let them be the judge of that, with
full awareness of the pretense of your position. I for one won't waste
my time sparring with a person who doesn't even believe their own
arguments. (Bad enough that I let myself get drawn into debates with
people who are serious...)
The article indicates that Scott IS serious about driving slow in the
left lane. OK, then in my mind he gets credit for defending his
position and doing it admirably, but he still gets discredit for being
purposefully rude to others who disagree with him. Based on observable
results, the speed limits on many roads are patently in error,
regardless of the fact that they are "the law". In principle Scott is
within his rights; in practice (at least in my opinion) he is making
life miserable for others for no higher purpose.
Todd Bradley
: Some of the longer-time (and less voluminous) commentators of old
: include Bear Giles, Warner Losh, Vernon Schryver, and our local
: moderator, Todd Bradley, who is doing a less-than-sterling job at
: keeping the newcomers up to date. Better get on the stick, Todd, or
: we'll elect Scott to fill your shoes !!
Newbies can kiss my ass.
Especially newbies under age 18 who feel that previous statment
is obscene or indecent (just kidding).
Scott....@colorado.edu
> > Scott, while often frustrating, always offers input...
>
> Thanks to the URL posted earlier and the article behind it, I have a
> better idea now who this Weiser-guy is. As usual, when you know more
> about a person, the easier it is to relate to them and perhaps respect
> them. However, one line in particular caught my attention. Scott said
> he will argue a point he doesn't even agree with, just to get people
> thinking.
Thanks. It works too.
> Well, I love a debate as much as anyone, as a form of intellectual
> intimacy, but I have little use for formal debates. I think it's
> ethically corrupt, or at least stupid, to argue for a position you don't
> even agree with yourself.
(snip)
I tried that at first, but I found that the stimulation factor is much higher if people
are free to catagorize me in unflattering ways. It also provides ample opportunity
for deflating pretentious assumptions which people tend to make. It also, I hope,
tends to foster both tolerance of different opinions as well as inspection of one's
own prejudices and biases. It's also difficult to keep repeating such disclaimers,
as I tried to do in the beginning.
Further, I got a fair amount of "oh, you really DON'T believe what you say" along
with the inevitable "tell us what you REALLY think". In many cases, showing any
weakness in an argument results in deflection from the point while people pick
away at the "personal belief" aspects, usually in an attempt to impeach the writer.
So, I find it easier and more effective to simply play the curmudgeon. Seems to be
pretty effective, too.
> Oh, but it's for their own good? Let them be the judge of that, with
> full awareness of the pretense of your position. I for one won't waste
> my time sparring with a person who doesn't even believe their own
> arguments. (Bad enough that I let myself get drawn into debates with
> people who are serious...)
Well, I do believe in many of my arguments, and in others I believe in the
fundamental concepts but may argue the fine points from a position of opposition
to my true beliefs. I wonder why you are so unwilling to argue philosophically
about issues of importance? In fact, I wonder that of many of the posters. It's
easy to spout one's personal opinion, but it's much harder to defend it, and it's
harder yet to deliberately divorce onesself from one's personal opinions and
biases and argue an issue from the side of the opposition.
Hard as it may be, it's tremendously enlightening and informative. Breaking one's
mind out of those ossified pathways of rhetorical dogma (of whatever ilk) is an
educational experience and keeps the mind supple and limber.
> The article indicates that Scott IS serious about driving slow in the
> left lane. OK, then in my mind he gets credit for defending his
> position and doing it admirably, but he still gets discredit for being
> purposefully rude to others who disagree with him.
Not to re-inflame the issue, I, on the other hand, believe that I am behaving
perfectly correctly, and it is the speeders who are being purposefully rude.
> Based on observable
> results, the speed limits on many roads are patently in error,
> regardless of the fact that they are "the law". In principle Scott is
> within his rights; in practice (at least in my opinion) he is making
> life miserable for others for no higher purpose.
And isn't it a good thing that we are all entitled to our own opinions...
Alan Silverstein
> issues of importance?
I'm quite willing to do that, but with the emphasis on "philosophically"
rather than "argue" -- a cooperative mapping of new territory rather
than a competitive debate that just increases frustration, adding more
heat than light. I've already "enjoyed" a lifetime's worth of argument
and bickering, thank you...
I think it's important to set context properly. For example, if you
said, "I will argue the position that it's a good idea to block the left
lane against speeders, and let's see where that takes us," that's very
different than coming across as a close-minded sermonizer (albeit in
your case, backed by lots of research and logic). I think the
difference is the extent to which you trigger my "mental immune system"
and get my dander and defenses up. While it's true that psychological
change nearly requires emotional involvement in the person being
changed, it's kind of rude to do that to someone without their
permission, even if you are very good at provoking the reaction and at
arguing your case. I don't think you really do people any good if you
JUST make them angry and frustrated.
> It's easy to spout one's personal opinion, but it's much harder to
> defend it, and it's harder yet to deliberately divorce onesself from
> one's personal opinions and biases and argue an issue from the side of
> the opposition.
Gee, doesn't that say something important about our true natures as
human beings? We are 90% or more unconscious, full of patterns and
feelings and intuitions, and no amount of logic can raise us out of who
we really are. I know, because I have been there, tried that... I've
learned that often it's more important to improve or preserve an
intimacy, a sharing, than to win a debate. (I could dance loops of
logic around my wife, but all that got me was a divorce some years ago.)
> Hard as it may be, it's tremendously enlightening and informative.
> Breaking one's mind out of those ossified pathways of rhetorical dogma
> (of whatever ilk) is an educational experience and keeps the mind
> supple and limber.
Sure, but just like physical exercise, there are ways to do it that are
healthy, and those which produce injury...
George Boggs
(Warner Losh) wrote:
>[...]
>
> boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless drivel
> drove the really interesting and fun people away.
Ahhhh. I love nostalgia. Now, back to the present...
> It used to be full
> of talk about Moths, open ranges, flaming objects in the sky, what the
> best way to fix your bus was. All kinds of interesting subjects that
> were fun to read about.
Wow. How cool. I loved the "flaming objects in the sky" part, but I never
did understand the point. They never posted back in response to the
flames.
> Anymore, it is nothing but bland, boring
> tirade against Boulder, smoking and other politically incorrect
> things.
Now you're assuming that a tirade against Boulder is bland. Boring, even.
I agree, it may be a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but it does have
its Amusement Quotient.
> That isn't fun. That isn't elevating. That is alt.flame.
>
Well, damn. I keep reading about the Information Superhighway, and
expecting to get Elevated, but NO WHERE do I find Elevation. Maybe I
should turn to drugs.
> Sorry to disagree with your opinion of Scott and Gary...
>
'S'ok. Not Elevating, but brutally honest. It's the best we can do in
these trying times.
--
G. Boggs I'd rather be rich than stupid.
J. Handey
Tim Klein
> By the way, I thought of a new alias
>for Mr. Weiser--the Puck of boulder.general.
HEY! I think that you have just broken a relatively new law!
(...wait a minute, thats a "P")
Tim
---
Scott....@colorado.edu
> > I wonder why you are so unwilling to argue philosophically about
> > issues of importance?
>
> I'm quite willing to do that, but with the emphasis on "philosophically"
> rather than "argue" -- a cooperative mapping of new territory rather
> than a competitive debate that just increases frustration, adding more
> heat than light. I've already "enjoyed" a lifetime's worth of argument
> and bickering, thank you...
I understand completely. And I accept that your mode of debate may be different
than mine. (as presented here) I would be happy to engage in such discussions
with someone who's interest is in examining an issue with philosophical
detachment. I've been looking for such a discussion since I began posting here.
Unfortunately, this is a "public forum" which lends itself to knee-jerk opinion
making and insult hurling. I tried for some time to remain philosophical and plead
for civility, and was utterly ineffective, so I changed tack somewhat to a more
"populist" view, since that's what the "audience" seems to want.
> I think it's important to set context properly. For example, if you
> said, "I will argue the position that it's a good idea to block the left
> lane against speeders, and let's see where that takes us," that's very
> different than coming across as a close-minded sermonizer (albeit in
> your case, backed by lots of research and logic). I think the
> difference is the extent to which you trigger my "mental immune system"
> and get my dander and defenses up.
Ah, well, at least I did what I intended to do, which is exactly what you describe.
Now, however, since you have enunciated a desire to engage in a true debate, we
can indeed set whatever context you would like, on whatever subject you would
like to discuss, and I will argue whichever side you would like me to. I offer this
partly to see if I can do it as well as I think I can, and partly because I'm more than
a bit bored with the rhetoric myself, and need some refreshment.
> While it's true that psychological
> change nearly requires emotional involvement in the person being
> changed, it's kind of rude to do that to someone without their
> permission, even if you are very good at provoking the reaction and at
> arguing your case. I don't think you really do people any good if you
> JUST make them angry and frustrated.
Well, here I would disagree. By and large, it's my experience that you seldom
reach the fundamental person, or their beliefs, if you don't penetrate the facade
we all establish, especially here on the Net. Since this is not usually the place for
a "formal" debate, since virtually anyone who wants to can interrupt and be
provocative or insulting, it's somewhat difficult to stay focussed on the issue. So,
rather than beg and plead for civility, I do tend to provoke, but I provoke to
provoke *thought* not anger or frustration, although such emotions are often
artifacts of thought. Most people don't have much experience at debate, and find
it quite difficult to separate the person from the debate, or their emotions from
their reasoning. Here, in this new, growing forum, dry technical discussion and
arcane philosophical arguments tend to bore people, who either don't respond at
all, or tell the participants to "take it to e-mail". So a more populist version of
debate seems to be more effective in stimulating participation, even if it results in
the occasional flame war. It's a fine line though, and I have certainly been
culpable of crossing into excess flameage from time to time.
Perhaps we can succeed in "elevating" the discussion, as Warner Losh so
fervently hopes for.
> > It's easy to spout one's personal opinion, but it's much harder to
> > defend it, and it's harder yet to deliberately divorce onesself from
> > one's personal opinions and biases and argue an issue from the side of
> > the opposition.
>
> Gee, doesn't that say something important about our true natures as
> human beings? We are 90% or more unconscious, full of patterns and
> feelings and intuitions, and no amount of logic can raise us out of who
> we really are. I know, because I have been there, tried that... I've
> learned that often it's more important to improve or preserve an
> intimacy, a sharing, than to win a debate. (I could dance loops of
> logic around my wife, but all that got me was a divorce some years ago.)
Then you have learned perhaps the most valuable lesson one can learn in life.
I salute you. Pity you had to learn the hard way.
I also disagree with you. However much we may be controlled by our "patterns",
as human beings we have the ability to step outside "instinct" and *reason*. This
is what makes us different from other animals. We are always subject to our
biases, but logic can help us to expand our conciousness and critically evaluate
our assumptions and beliefs. Such mental gymnastics also allow us to explore
the philosophical side of life without allowing it to negatively affect the emotional
side to our detriment.
> > Hard as it may be, it's tremendously enlightening and informative.
> > Breaking one's mind out of those ossified pathways of rhetorical dogma
> > (of whatever ilk) is an educational experience and keeps the mind
> > supple and limber.
>
> Sure, but just like physical exercise, there are ways to do it that are
> healthy, and those which produce injury...
True, but I haven't seen any injury to anyone so far, just spirited discussion and
rather a lot of ventilating. At least we can't duke it out at the bar, which is a good
thing.
Scott....@colorado.edu
Watch it fella, we'll have no "P"ing in THIS newsgroup. Use Depends if you have
a problem with incontinence.
Regards,
Scott "Puck Senator Exon" Weiser
Warner Losh
>>>>>Newsgroups: co.general
Why did you followup to co.general? This is about boulder.general.
imp> boulder.general used to be a fun place *UNTIL* the mindless
scott>drivel Ah, quitcherbitchen Warner. If you don't like the
scott>subjects, then start one of your own. You want to talk about
scott>moths, go right ahead. You want to talk about your broken bus,
scott>do so.
If you'd let me get in a word edgewise, I would do that. However, the
spamming nature of your posts (as well as two or three outher
individuals) have made it almost impossible to have an intellegence
discourse on anything. The "I'm going to win all arguments at any
cost" attitude is not appropriate in this group.
Therefore, I propose that we create boulder.normal. There are only
two rules to this moderated group:
1) 1 post per day per person. No exceptions. No saving up
either.
2) Anyone violating rule #1 due to holes in the USENET news
system will have their articles canceled and never be
approved again.
The moderation process will be automated. If you comply to the rules,
your post will be accepted. If you have too many posts today, then a
polite note will be returned to you. If you have violated the rules
in the past, a polite note will be returned to you.
Why? Because I'd like to create a place where one person or a small
number of people don't totally dominate the group. This is not
personally against anybody. This is to give more people the chance to
participate in discussions. It will also encourage people to choose
their words more carefully. This will also give a more democratic
feel to the group. This will hopefully eliminate the "I can shout
louder than you can" threads that have dominated the group lately.
This is more democratic than the shout until the other guy drops
nature of recent discourse.
The discussion period for this new group will last 30 days, per USENET
guidelines. However, there hasn't been a successful boulder group
created in quite some time, so I'm hoping to have enough momentum
built up (should people think this is a good idea) that there will be
wide distribution for this group.
Let the discussions begin.
Jennifer Powell
: Again, thank god for Gary, Scott and a few others who try to
: elevate the level of conversation.
: Perhaps they should start mailing lists. Let's hope they don't quit
: posting here, however, as it would render the local newsgroups as mere
: bulletin boards for the sale of junk cars and stuff that didn't go
: away at the last garage sale.
It's an error to think that without the arguments of a few this newsgroup
would be nothing but ads and junk mail. Where there is room for it, many
things can grow. Unfortunately, we'll never know what else might have
grown in this space, because whatever bit of nourishment and light exist
here have already been taken.
Those of us who have experienced something better, on Usenet or mailing
lists or other conferencing systems, can tell you though that the
possibilities are many.
Jennifer Powell ** Boulder, Colorado, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jn...@netcom.com ** jn...@well.com
Scott Weiser
>It's an error to think that without the arguments of a few this newsgroup
>would be nothing but ads and junk mail. Where there is room for it, many
>things can grow. Unfortunately, we'll never know what else might have
>grown in this space, because whatever bit of nourishment and light exist
>here have already been taken.
Pity the poor poster, slinking sadly, speechlessly subjugated, depressed in
darkness, searching silently for signs of sympathy.
Wayne's right. Those few firebrands among us go away for a week, and come
back, and lo and behold, endless lines of FS ads and trivial pap with at best
a reply or two.
Hitch up your gunbelt, tighten them spurs, climb on and let 'er rip! Then
hang on for the ride of your life.....or qwitcherbitchen and go grow flowers.
>Those of us who have experienced something better, on Usenet or mailing
>lists or other conferencing systems, can tell you though that the
>possibilities are many.
Prove it!
Don't just SIT there, WRITE something.....ANYTHING.....
This ain't pre-school, we ain't your mommy, and there's no quotas, much as
Warner would like them, so post in good health, but POST. Your brain cells
will thank you for it.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
The opinions expressed are my own. If I was a lawyer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this. All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatek...@hell.org
Copyright 1996 All Rights Reserved
Mr. Nice Guy
Scott Weiser <Scott....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>Just a note, someone who doesn't have the balls to engage in a debate and
>can't stand it when I get the best of them in a discussion has taken
Scott, you don't get the best of anyone in a debate. All you do is to
repeat the same arguments endlessly and never give an inch. After a
short time people decide that it is pointless to have a discussion
with a person like you who doesn't listen.
>Borschty's advice and e-mail bombed my account, subscribing me to some
>1700 (at present count) mail lists.
>
>CNS is investigating, and if they find the perpetrator, they will
>terminate him/her.
>
>This is merely an annoying demonstration of the abject cowardice of
>ignorant malcontent pinheads who have no wit and less intelligence.
I takes one to know one, isn't that right Scott?
>It also won't succeed in censoring me. If anything, it stiffens my
>resolve to continue to challenge assumptions and stir controversy.
They aren't censoring you, If they wanted to censor you they would
forge cancel messages and kill your posts. They are just trying to
intimidate you. I don't know why they went to all that trouble, I
find it quite easy to ignore most of your posts.
--
Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
(*) o (*) * o
The wind doesn't blow, it sucks Lightning P-38 DeFelice
Scott Weiser
>Scott, you don't get the best of anyone in a debate. All you do is to
>repeat the same arguments endlessly and never give an inch. After a
>short time people decide that it is pointless to have a discussion
>with a person like you who doesn't listen.
I listen quite carefully, I just haven't heard much convincing evidence from
the esteemed opposition. In the several pendant arguments, there are basic
philosophical differences of opinion which are largely insoluable. The
discussion is mainly political rhetoric of the "I'm right! "No, I'm right!"
nature, with little acceptance of factual, legal data and precedent.
If you are going to accuse me of being repetative, you should also look at
the reasons why I might do so. I have tried, for example on numerous
occasions to nudge the smoking discussion onto another track, but every time
I do, somebody else makes some outrageously overbroad statement claiming that
the sky is going to fall and the nation dissolve into anarchy because the
City Council limited smoking. Such specious claims deserve to be debunked,
since the typical liberal tactic is to keep screaming the same dogma till
somebody believes it.
I'm still waiting for the nickle to drop in somebody's head about the rather
large legal hole in the ordinance which I believe exists. It seems that
everyone is too interested in screaming about the "civil rights" of bar
owners and smokers to actually look at the issue objectively.
If I sound dogmatic, it's because I keep having to chase the same feline
arguments around and around because the liberal/libertarian contingent here
is as unwilling to compromise as I am. I would be more than happy to discuss
movement towards moderation if only people would accept the fact that the
ordinance has been lawfully enacted. Absent a basic reality check, all we
can do is argue political philosophy endlessly. The question is no longer
"should" the law have been enacted, it *was* enacted, and legally so, and no
matter how much one might want things to be different, that is the reality.
The issue now is how to deal with life under the ordinance and how it could
be amended to better fit the needs and desires of everyone concerned, with a
recognition that not everyone is going to be able to be pleased in this
issue.
>>This is merely an annoying demonstration of the abject cowardice of
>>ignorant malcontent pinheads who have no wit and less intelligence.
>
>I takes one to know one, isn't that right Scott?
^^
Is that an admission on your part, or simply Freudian misspelling?
>>It also won't succeed in censoring me. If anything, it stiffens my
>>resolve to continue to challenge assumptions and stir controversy.
>
>They aren't censoring you, If they wanted to censor you they would
>forge cancel messages and kill your posts. They are just trying to
>intimidate you. I don't know why they went to all that trouble, I
>find it quite easy to ignore most of your posts.
I don't either, since it has exactly the opposite effect from that intended.
BTW, CNS is hot on the trail of the perp....
George Boggs
> AltNews (webm...@altnews.com) wrote:
>
[...]
>
> It's an error to think that without the arguments of a few this newsgroup
> would be nothing but ads and junk mail. Where there is room for it, many
> things can grow. Unfortunately, we'll never know what else might have
> grown in this space, because whatever bit of nourishment and light exist
> here have already been taken.
Given that there is no resource shortage on boulder.general, I think the
claim that the arguments have "elbowed out" other, more uplifting
commentary is reather thin.
>
> Those of us who have experienced something better, on Usenet or mailing
> lists or other conferencing systems, can tell you though that the
> possibilities are many.
Well, Jennifer, I agree. But I suppose my newsreader has somehow dropped
all those uplifting posts of yours that you contribute. Either that, or
they were in threads I didn't read. Why, there's a suggestion! You don't
like the thread, don't read it!! Did that help?
Bear Giles
>In article <4glmqc$9...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>Scott Weiser <Scott....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>
>>resolve to continue to challenge assumptions and stir controversy.
>
>They aren't censoring you, If they wanted to censor you they would
>forge cancel messages and kill your posts. They are just trying to
>intimidate you. I don't know why they went to all that trouble, I
>find it quite easy to ignore most of your posts.
Only governments can "censor" someone, although with government-issued
monopolies (e.g., for the local cable company franchise) things can
get a bit confusing. Successfully forging cancel messages would probably
be a violation of civil rights.
Here's an analogy: consider a book in the library. If the managers
(librarians and/or city council, school board, etc) of the library
decide to remove a book due to its controversial content, that's
censorship. If a local zealot decides to steal the book or make sure
that the book is always checked out by a follower for the sole purpose
of keeping the information from others, it's not censorship. It may not
even be considered a crime, depending on how they go about it.
But on the other hand, if the managers of the library knowingly support
the supression of the material by that zealot it might be censorship
after all.
HOWEVER, this point is moot since many local systems don't honor
cancel messages. Cancel messages aren't that hard to forge if you
know how to forge e-mail, and in a college town the potential for
abuse is just too high. Not everyone will see the canceled messages,
but enough people will that cancelling messages in a group like
boulder.general is problematic.
Finally, if someone really wanted to yank your chains they wouldn't
just cancel your messages, they would cancel them and replace them
with well-written rebuttals. Since nobody would ever expect a person's
comments to be replaced with better ones the cumulative effect would
be to discredit the original poster far more than simply deleting the
original missives would. :-)
[This would be pretty hard to pull off on any local posters, but I've
had occasional idle daydreams about doing it to someone like
John_-_Winston. A month spent changing "his" style from disconnected
comments on UFOs in the Sierra Nevadas to a much more reasonable,
interactive style and then letting the original J_-_W through would
leave people talking for _years_ about how he seemed to be doing
pretty well on one medication but then dropped into clinial paranoia. >:-)~ ]
--
Bear Giles For every complex problem there is an
be...@indra.com answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
-- H L Mencken
Jennifer Powell
: Given that there is no resource shortage on boulder.general, I think the
: claim that the arguments have "elbowed out" other, more uplifting
: commentary is reather thin.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, knowing that every thread
onthe newsgroup devolves into a few people arguing keeps me from spending
my time starting discussions here.
: But I suppose my newsreader has somehow dropped
: all those uplifting posts of yours that you contribute.
You're right, Gary, I don't bother. That doesn't mean I don't have
opinions.
: Either that, or
: they were in threads I didn't read. Why, there's a suggestion! You don't
: like the thread, don't read it!! Did that help?
One thing for me, at least, is that getting a lot of sarcasm and
nastiness in return for a post is one thing that makes it not worthwhile
bothering. I understand all my options for reading and not reading. I
hope you understand that your attitudes and the way you express yourself
inevitably affect the tone of the group and who does or does not
participate.
It's a choice, absolutely, on all sides.
: --
: G. Boggs I'd rather be rich than stupid.
: J. Handey
Jennifer Powell ** Boulder, Colorado, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jn...@netcom.com ** jn...@well.com
Mariano Goluboff
>George Boggs (gbo...@indra.com) wrote:
>: Given that there is no resource shortage on boulder.general, I think the
>: claim that the arguments have "elbowed out" other, more uplifting
>: commentary is reather thin.
>I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, knowing that every thread
>onthe newsgroup devolves into a few people arguing keeps me from spending
>my time starting discussions here.
Uh? Can you say self-fullfilling prophecy? C'mon! Participate! Maybe you
don't have the time to post 20 messages a day, but one is enough, two is
better!
If enough people did that, then it wouldn't devolve into "a few people
arguing", but a lot of people arguing, with a few of them posting more
than others.
Unless people arguing against your points bothers you :).
>: But I suppose my newsreader has somehow dropped
>: all those uplifting posts of yours that you contribute.
>You're right, Gary, I don't bother. That doesn't mean I don't have
>opinions.
Hmmm... that was "George", not Gary :). Well, don't expect us to think
you have opinions if you don't post them.
>: Either that, or
>: they were in threads I didn't read. Why, there's a suggestion! You don't
>: like the thread, don't read it!! Did that help?
>One thing for me, at least, is that getting a lot of sarcasm and
>nastiness in return for a post is one thing that makes it not worthwhile
>bothering. I understand all my options for reading and not reading. I
>hope you understand that your attitudes and the way you express yourself
>inevitably affect the tone of the group and who does or does not
>participate.
If somebody answers with sarcasm, then don't read his/her posts. There
are killfiles, there are newsreaders that give you a menu of posts with
the author, etc, etc. It's all about personal responsibility. Read what
you want, but don't try to force people to write what you want.
>It's a choice, absolutely, on all sides.
Exactly my point.