"Road Rage" Acquittal
melp...@cruzio.com
I think that the jury did the right thing. Note that I'm basing my opinion upon
what I've read in the Sentinel and the Merc, so my information may not be, and
probably isn't, very accurate.
I think Turturici had other options, should have exercised them, but didn't, but
I still think he shouldn't do any prison time. I think that Foster was a
maniac. I'm not going to shed any tears over the guy. While I don't think he
deserved it, I also don't think anyone should be surprised at his demise.
I don't think this verdict sends a message. I think it merely applies to this
one particular case.
What troubles me is that I'm having a hard time trying to fit this case into my
understanding of the law as applied to homocide/manslaughter/self-defense. It
falls into a grey area. I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
Ellie Nesler is a hero).
Thoughts?
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
Tim May
In article <E5D8n...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com
(melp...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> What troubles me is that I'm having a hard time trying to fit this case
into my
> understanding of the law as applied to homocide/manslaughter/self-defense. It
> falls into a grey area. I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
And, I wonder, why was the guy not in violation of the laws which keep
citizen-units from carrying guns in vehicles? (When the guns are accessible
reasonably quickly.)
Not that I have anything against citizen-units carrying guns in cars or on
their persons for self-defense, but I figured the case here was an open and
shut case of illegal carry.
I know this jury's verdict will certainly make my own decision easier about
carrying a loaded gun in the passenger compartment of my vehicle.
--Tim May
--
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tc...@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
I agree -- maybe for somewhat similar reasons.
> I think Turturici had other options, should have exercised them, but didn't,
> but
> I still think he shouldn't do any prison time.
Again, I agree. I get the impression that if he could do it over again,
he would do something different.
> I think that Foster was a
> maniac. I'm not going to shed any tears over the guy. While I don't think he
> deserved it, I also don't think anyone should be surprised at his demise.
I don't know Foster.
> I don't think this verdict sends a message. I think it merely applies to this
> one particular case.
Well, maybe is sends some kind of a message -- that the legal system
*can* be compassonate, sometimes. There is nothing that can bring
Foster back or that can make his family happy. Sending Torturici
to prison or to his death would just add another family to the list
of bitter, hurt people.
> What troubles me is that I'm having a hard time trying to fit this case into my
> understanding of the law as applied to homocide/manslaughter/self-defense. It
> falls into a grey area.
Well, of course you know that this falls under the juristiction of our
friendly, neighborhood legal mind -- assuming that he is free and willing
to comment.
> I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
I understand why she did what she did. I feel great sympathy for her
and her son. She did what she felt that she had to do -- she saw no
other viable option. I don't think that she should have spent even 20
minutes in jail for doing it, but I do not condone that she did it.
I feel equally bad about the man that she shot. I don't condone what
he did, either.
His family is suffering, now, too. Were they responsible? Does
their suffering improve anything for anybody? Can anybody learn
anything when they are suffering?
> Thoughts?
Geeze, Mel -- it started out as a nice day. I was planning to get
some programming done. I read this, this morning and have been kinda
bummed by it all day.... well, not bummed, really -- just thinking.
Any other of my buttons that you are planning to push, tomorrow? %-}
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
_______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@bbs.cruzio.com http://www2.cruzio.com/~glena/
Martin Krieg
> melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) writes:
> > I think that the jury did the right thing.
>
> I agree -- maybe for somewhat similar reasons.
>
> > I think Turturici had other options, should have exercised them, but
didn't,
> > but
> > I still think he shouldn't do any prison time.
Excuse me. Drive a car, Pack a gun, Kill someone and no prison time?? I
mean there plenty of poor people who go to the pokey because they wrote a
bad check or did a bad drug deal.
>
> Again, I agree. I get the impression that if he could do it over again,
> he would do something different.
I hope so. U just made my point. What he did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I
wish I had 20/20 hindsight as well, don't all of us? I mean we're talking
abt someone's life here.
>
> > I think that Foster was a
> > maniac. I'm not going to shed any tears over the guy. While I don't
think he
> > deserved it, I also don't think anyone should be surprised at his demise.
>
> I don't know Foster.
Nor do either of U know Turtuicci. Nor does he know himself well enough to
control his own damn actions. Whose the maniac here?
>
> > I don't think this verdict sends a message. I think it merely applies
to this
> > one particular case.
Yeah, drive a car, defend yourself as if several tons of metal isn't
weapon enough? We're setting the precedent that U can drive a car and
carry a gun and go around pointing one at one another. And if we happen to
shoot someone all we've got to do is prove they were looney than we were.
>
> Well, maybe is sends some kind of a message -- that the legal system
> *can* be compassonate, sometimes. There is nothing that can bring
> Foster back or that can make his family happy. Sending Torturici
> to prison or to his death would just add another family to the list
> of bitter, hurt people.
>
> > What troubles me is that I'm having a hard time trying to fit this
case into my
> > understanding of the law as applied to
homocide/manslaughter/self-defense. It
> > falls into a grey area.
How was Turtucc defending himself? He's the one who pulled over and pulled
a macho act on poor Foster, showing how bad he was with his gun. Poor
Foster caled him on his bluff tho. Why couldn't Turt (the gun stud) just
have driven off the freeway to a well lit gas station and had it out with
the guy? And then to top it off didn't he drive off? Does it get any
worse? Kills the guy, splits (kind of like a hit & run) and literally gets
away with murder (becasue he drives a Mercedes?). Too much.......
Is that what driving does to U? I'm glad I don't play that game any more!!
--
What Would L@ve Do Now??
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| The Power of L@ve: Cycle America {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
cyc...@BikeRoute.com http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'
Martin Krieg
In article <E5G2r...@cruzio.com>, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
> cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
> > > Again, I agree. I get the impression that if he could do it over again,
> > > he would do something different.
> >
> > I hope so. U just made my point. What he did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I
> > wish I had 20/20 hindsight as well, don't all of us? I mean we're talking
> > abt someone's life here.
>
> It was wrong. I said it. Mel said it. He said it. Now, should we
> fry him? What would be the benefit if we did?
>
> > Nor do either of U know Turtuicci. Nor does he know himself well enough to
> > control his own damn actions. Whose the maniac here?
>
> You don't think that he might have learned something from this?
So learning is more important than the life of some poor guy who just
happenmed to be having a hard time? U've never had hard times? Was it OK
for someone to kill U if U did?
>
> > Yeah, drive a car, defend yourself as if several tons of metal isn't
> > weapon enough? We're setting the precedent that U can drive a car and
> > carry a gun and go around pointing one at one another.
>
> I don't think that this sets *any* kind of precedent at all! I *wish*
> that it did, but I don't see that it can. It is only one case. It
> is a case where the jurry saw it as a dreadful mistake. They showed
> compassion. Gosh -- we can't let *that* get started, huh?
How about the precedent that it's OK to blow someone off if they cause U a
hard time on the road. It took two people to create the dance these guys
did on the freeway that night..........
> >
> > How was Turtucc defending himself? He's the one who pulled over and pulled
> > a macho act on poor Foster, showing how bad he was with his gun. Poor
> > Foster caled him on his bluff tho. Why couldn't Turt (the gun stud) just
> > have driven off the freeway to a well lit gas station and had it out with
> > the guy? And then to top it off didn't he drive off? Does it get any
> > worse? Kills the guy, splits (kind of like a hit & run) and literally gets
> > away with murder (becasue he drives a Mercedes?). Too much.......
>
> If he were driving a bicycle and the same thing were to have happend,
> would your opinion change in the slightest?
Are U even remotely serious? Apples & oranges big time here. As I stated
earlier, the gun stud was already driving a weapon. For protection he had
a Mercedes that c/have easily outrun the guy. I don't think Foster c/have
punched him in the nose thru his window especially if he would have used
the oppty of Foster getting out of his car to just drive off. Don't
forget, Turt (the gun Stud) had the gun here, not Foster
>
> Granted that there were all kinds of other options that he could
> have used instead of the one that he picked. My guess is that,
> should he ever be in similar circumstances, again, he will select
> almost *any* of the other options. That's called learning. That's
> something that we can all do very well, given the right circumstances.
>
> > Is that what driving does to U? I'm glad I don't play that game any more!!
>
> You don't drive a bike?
No, I *ride* a bike and I don't implode all the anxiety that U guys are so
quick to excuse Turt for. Bizarre.......... (he says as he shakes his head
wondering how much more we can be desensitized from one another by the
automobile)
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <cycleam-1102...@kelp248.cruzio.com>, cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
> In article <E5G2r...@cruzio.com>, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> > cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>
> > > > Again, I agree. I get the impression that if he could do it over again,
> > > > he would do something different.
> > >
> > > I hope so. U just made my point. What he did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I
> > > wish I had 20/20 hindsight as well, don't all of us? I mean we're talking
> > > abt someone's life here.
> >
> > It was wrong. I said it. Mel said it. He said it. Now, should we
> > fry him? What would be the benefit if we did?
If you are going to leave all of this in, shouldn't you comment on it?
> > > Nor do either of U know Turtuicci. Nor does he know himself well enough to
> > > control his own damn actions. Whose the maniac here?
> >
> > You don't think that he might have learned something from this?
>
> So learning is more important than the life of some poor guy who just
> happenmed to be having a hard time? U've never had hard times? Was it OK
> for someone to kill U if U did?
Interesting -- where did I assign relative importance?
OK, going with this: Life is terminal. No other options that I'm
aware of. It starts, has a middle, then ends. This is true for
all of us, for now.
The "middle" part is what's important. Now, what do you think that
the purpose of that "middle" part is about? Could it be that learning
would be in there, somewhere ... OK and bicycles.
> > > Yeah, drive a car, defend yourself as if several tons of metal isn't
> > > weapon enough? We're setting the precedent that U can drive a car and
> > > carry a gun and go around pointing one at one another.
> >
> > I don't think that this sets *any* kind of precedent at all! I *wish*
> > that it did, but I don't see that it can. It is only one case. It
> > is a case where the jurry saw it as a dreadful mistake. They showed
> > compassion. Gosh -- we can't let *that* get started, huh?
>
> How about the precedent that it's OK to blow someone off if they cause U a
> hard time on the road.
This is *hardly* the first such case, so it is hardly going to set a
precedent. Nor do I think that this is the first case where a court
was compassionate.
> It took two people to create the dance these guys
> did on the freeway that night..........
Yeah -- am I to assume that since Foster "got his" that Tourtilini
should get a similar fate? Is this your porpose in making the
above statement?
> > > How was Turtucc defending himself? He's the one who pulled over and pulled
> > > a macho act on poor Foster, showing how bad he was with his gun. Poor
> > > Foster caled him on his bluff tho. Why couldn't Turt (the gun stud) just
> > > have driven off the freeway to a well lit gas station and had it out with
> > > the guy? And then to top it off didn't he drive off? Does it get any
> > > worse? Kills the guy, splits (kind of like a hit & run) and literally gets
> > > away with murder (becasue he drives a Mercedes?). Too much.......
> >
> > If he were driving a bicycle and the same thing were to have happend,
> > would your opinion change in the slightest?
>
> Are U even remotely serious? Apples & oranges big time here. As I stated
> earlier, the gun stud was already driving a weapon. For protection he had
> a Mercedes that c/have easily outrun the guy. I don't think Foster c/have
> punched him in the nose thru his window especially if he would have used
> the oppty of Foster getting out of his car to just drive off. Don't
> forget, Turt (the gun Stud) had the gun here, not Foster
You seem to see the mode of transportation that one uses as only a
weapon. I assume that, by driving a bicycle, you consider yourself
to be *less* armed. Yet your style of writting seems *very* aggressive.
My impression is that you would have prefered to see the defendant
imprisoned or executed for his error. Yet, I drive a car and motorcycle
on occasion, but have *much* more compassion.
My reference, above, was to Tourtilini's gun -- not his car.
I don't know what kind of car Foster drove -- but it kinda looked a
bit sporty. RX-7? I dunno. Why do you assume that a Mercedes could
outrun Foster's car? The Diesel Mercedes tend to be a bit less that
speedy, from my few experiences with them.
> > > Is that what driving does to U? I'm glad I don't play that game any more!!
> >
> > You don't drive a bike?
>
> No, I *ride* a bike and I don't implode all the anxiety that U guys are so
> quick to excuse Turt for. Bizarre.......... (he says as he shakes his head
> wondering how much more we can be desensitized from one another by the
> automobile)
You blame it on cars, yet read your own words. It kinda looks like you
would really like this guy to suffer for his mistake. Based on how you
write about this, if I were out in a car and met you on your bicycle, I
think that I would be a bit apprehensive about *you*.
Don Fong
In article <E5G2r...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>>
>> mean there plenty of poor people who go to the pokey because they wrote a
>> bad check or did a bad drug deal.
>
>apply that ineffectiveness and harm to *everybody*?
of course not. laws should only apply in full force to poor people.
>How about looking
>at the system to see if it can be made more effective, instead?
here's an idea. decriminalize everything, even murder.
treat em all like traffic violations. just apply heavier fines
to the more serious violations. it would surely streamline the
administration of justice. note, in the case of murder, the
amount of the fine should obviously depend on how important
the victim was. who knows, maybe there should even be a bonus
for offing the "undesirables".
>> > Again, I agree. I get the impression that if he could do it over again,
>> > he would do something different.
>>
>> I hope so. U just made my point. What he did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I
>> wish I had 20/20 hindsight as well, don't all of us? I mean we're talking
>> abt someone's life here.
>
>It was wrong. I said it. Mel said it. He said it. Now, should we
>fry him? What would be the benefit if we did?
can u rd? Martin didn't say "fry the sucker", Martin said "jail
time". acourse, it's just a leetle harder to answer what Martin
really said, instead of answering your own made-up fallacies. it
might require actually thinking instead of knee jerking.
>> Nor do either of U know Turtuicci. Nor does he know himself well enough to
>> control his own damn actions. Whose the maniac here?
>
>You don't think that he might have learned something from this?
you mean like ``I can get away with anything''?
>> Yeah, drive a car, defend yourself as if several tons of metal isn't
>> weapon enough? We're setting the precedent that U can drive a car and
>> carry a gun and go around pointing one at one another.
>
>I don't think that this sets *any* kind of precedent at all! I *wish*
>that it did, but I don't see that it can. It is only one case. It
>is a case where the jurry saw it as a dreadful mistake. They showed
>compassion. Gosh -- we can't let *that* get started, huh?
whatever happened to "use a gun, go to jail"?
or was that only for po folks?
>> And if we happen to
>> shoot someone all we've got to do is prove they were looney than we were.
>
>Isn't that what the police do? Now, I don't excuse them, either; but
>I don't see that this is what happened, here.
>
>> How was Turtucc defending himself? He's the one who pulled over and pulled
>> a macho act on poor Foster, showing how bad he was with his gun. Poor
>> Foster caled him on his bluff tho. Why couldn't Turt (the gun stud) just
>> have driven off the freeway to a well lit gas station and had it out with
>> the guy? And then to top it off didn't he drive off? Does it get any
>> worse? Kills the guy, splits (kind of like a hit & run) and literally gets
>> away with murder (becasue he drives a Mercedes?). Too much.......
>
>If he were driving a bicycle and the same thing were to have happend,
>would your opinion change in the slightest?
>
>Granted that there were all kinds of other options that he could
>have used instead of the one that he picked. My guess is that,
>should he ever be in similar circumstances, again, he will select
>almost *any* of the other options.
why should we have to guess? why not make SURE he never has the
opportunity to get into that circumstance again? at least not for
say 20 years or so.
>That's called learning. That's
>something that we can all do very well, given the right circumstances.
so why didn't he learn it before he he became an adult, and
before he got a gun? does he have a learning disability?
perhaps he would benefit from a shall we say more disciplined
learning environment?
>> Is that what driving does to U? I'm glad I don't play that game any more!!
>
>You don't drive a bike?
a car is a deadly weapon; a bike isn't. a car insulates you from
your surroundings, gives you a cocoon of comfort, safety, and power;
a bike doesn't. bicycling is a fundamentally different activity and
a fundamentally different experience than driving.
all i know about this case is what i've read here. i haven't
seen any explanation of why this guy is so special, or what are
the extenuating circumstances that call for mercy. what are they?
i voted against "3 strikes" and i voted against the prison bonds.
i don't like our penal system. but i have to wonder why this guy
deserves more justice than so many others. there are MANY innocent
men on death row. their legal remedies are rapidly disappearing.
the supreme court seems no longer to be concerned about the injustice
of executing (let alone merely convicting) innocent men.
and this Turtucci guy is going to walk? is that equal justice?
Don Fong
In article <E5G9u...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
[in response to Martin Krieg]
>OK, going with this: Life is terminal. No other options that I'm
>aware of. It starts, has a middle, then ends. This is true for
>all of us, for now.
>
>The "middle" part is what's important.
but as with music, timing is everything. there is a time to be
born and a time to die. is it not a great crime to terminate
someone else's learning phase before the proper time has been fulfilled?
[...]
>Yeah -- am I to assume that since Foster "got his" that Tourtilini
>should get a similar fate? Is this your porpose in making the
>above statement?
again, Martin didn't say "fry the sucker"; Martin said "jail time".
Martin didn't say "shoot the bastard"; Martin said "jail time".
unnerstand?
>You seem to see the mode of transportation that one uses as only a
>weapon. I assume that, by driving a bicycle, you consider yourself
>to be *less* armed. Yet your style of writting seems *very* aggressive.
sheesh, talk about turning reality on its head. you think it's
great to let a murderer go off scot free, and you're complaining
about Martin's "aggressive" style of writing. haven't you heard,
sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS will never hurt me?
i suppose this Turtucci dude you seem to love so much was really
very meek and politically correct... just with a gun.
>My impression is that you would have prefered to see the defendant
>imprisoned or executed for his error. Yet, I drive a car and motorcycle
>on occasion, but have *much* more compassion.
i doubt you know Martin well enough to make such a judgment.
[...]
>> No, I *ride* a bike and I don't implode all the anxiety that U guys are so
>> quick to excuse Turt for. Bizarre.......... (he says as he shakes his head
>> wondering how much more we can be desensitized from one another by the
>> automobile)
>
>You blame it on cars, yet read your own words. It kinda looks like you
>would really like this guy to suffer for his mistake.
>Based on how you
>write about this, if I were out in a car and met you on your bicycle, I
>think that I would be a bit apprehensive about *you*.
why? he doesn't pose any threat to you. the worst that could
happen is that HE might end up getting run over or shot, and you'd
end up in jail. but hey, with a little luck, and a good jury...
Jeff Liebermann
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
: > > It was wrong. I said it. Mel said it. He said it. Now, should we
: > > fry him? What would be the benefit if we did?
: If you are going to leave all of this in, shouldn't you comment on it?
(trimmed...)
I'm not an attorney or legal expert. I did serve on one jury
on a "voluntary manslaughter" case several years ago. The judges
instructions were that self defense only requires one to feel
threatened. You don't have to wait until the bozo following
you runs you off the road and starts pounding on you before
pulling the trigger. However, even self-defense requires
convincing a jury. The principle may have changed recently
so don't assume this is current.
What I have problems with is vaguely similar to Martin's concern.
We tend to be very lenient when a vehicle is involved. I was
also on two drunk driving juries and saw it first hand. Kill
someone with a 4000lb weapon and you're treated completely
differently than if you did it hand to hand. Take the cars out
of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
suggests). Juries are not that dumb.
Juries can do whatever they want. In criminal cases, it's
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that decides the verdict. In civil
cases, it's the "preponderance of evidence" that's the basis.
(That's the difference between the OJ criminal and civil trials).
This is one of those borderline cases where either judgement
will get someone irate.
[ ] Email to author [ ] To mailing list [x] Posted to newsgroup
--
# Jeff Liebermann Liebermann Design 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 408.336.2558 voice wb6ssy@ki6eh.#cca.ca.usa.noam wb6ssy.ampr.org 44.4.18.10
# 408.699.0483 digital_pager 73557,2074 cis [don't]
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl
ch...@bbs.cruzio.com
>
> Is that what driving does to U? I'm glad I don't play that game any more!!
>
Puhleeze.
Cruzio is a mom and pop Internet Service Provider. I'm pop.
Web: http://www.cruzio.com Email: in...@cruzio.com Voice: 423-1162
Chris Busick
It just shows that in Santa Cruz You can get away with MURDER but bounce a
check or get rear-ended by a drunk D.A. and you will face investigation and
jail time. Wake up people, Santa Cruz County is a cesspool of governmental
corruption. Two years ago I would not have believed this but talk to anyone
who has had dealings with Art Danner or his office or the Sheriffs Office,
I am talking about decent, law abiding, tax paying citizens and you will
hear HORROR story after horror story. I have a collection of these stories
and would be willing to share them with anyone who is interested. I doubt
there will be any takers.
Go on living with your head stuck in the sand but when some drug addicted
dirtbag drops your name or that of your kids to save thier own ass and a
deputy comes knocking at your door....before that happens won't you even
look into the possibility that something stinks in the government center.
There is an ongoing recall effort to remove one of these crooks his name
is Art Danner. Won't you take the time to sign it. This won't solve the
problem, but it is a good start.
Please send me any horror stories of your own, I will add them to my
collection. Please note that there is an ongoing Federal investigation of
the Sheriff's and DA's office and I'm sure they would love to hear them!!!!
Steve Premo
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:35:39 GMT, "Chris Busick" <cr...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>It just shows that in Santa Cruz You can get away with MURDER but bounce a
>check or get rear-ended by a drunk D.A. and you will face investigation and
>jail time. Wake up people, Santa Cruz County is a cesspool of governmental
>corruption.
OK, let me get this straight. Turturici kills a guy, and is
prosecuted by the DA. The jury disagrees with the DA, and somehow
this shows that the DA is corrupt. Are you saying that he threw the
trial?
-
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
leep
than others! LEE
leep
In article <tcmay-ya02318000...@news.znet.net>, tc...@got.net (Tim May) says:
>
>In article <E5D8n...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com
>(melp...@cruzio.com) wrote:
>
>into my
>> understanding of the law as applied to homocide/manslaughter/self-defense. It
>> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
>
>citizen-units from carrying guns in vehicles? (When the guns are accessible
>reasonably quickly.)
>
>Not that I have anything against citizen-units carrying guns in cars or on
>their persons for self-defense, but I figured the case here was an open and
>shut case of illegal carry.
>
>I know this jury's verdict will certainly make my own decision easier about
>carrying a loaded gun in the passenger compartment of my vehicle.
>
>--Tim May
>
>--
>Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
>We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>tc...@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
>"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
hear the end of it. The family will get you legally or otherwise. LEE
Don Fong
In article <5dr9sj$k...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>,
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>What I have problems with is vaguely similar to Martin's concern.
>We tend to be very lenient when a vehicle is involved. I was
>also on two drunk driving juries and saw it first hand.
? i didn't think they would let juries get drunk. and i
thought the bailiffs were supposed to drive you everwhere.
this is shocking.
>Kill someone with a 4000lb weapon and you're treated completely
>differently than if you did it hand to hand.
yup, i'd sure treat a man differently if he can lift 4000lbs.
>Take the cars out
>of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
>different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
>judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
>suggests).
(i think he was saying that the car contributed to the
crime, not necessarily to the verdict.)
>Juries are not that dumb.
you missed the OJ (criminal) trial didn't you.
>Juries can do whatever they want. In criminal cases, it's
>"beyond a reasonable doubt" that decides the verdict. In civil
>cases, it's the "preponderance of evidence" that's the basis.
>(That's the difference between the OJ criminal and civil trials).
>This is one of those borderline cases where either judgement
>will get someone irate.
what is "borderline" about it?
Daniel D Scripture
>>In article <E5G2r...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>> here's an idea. decriminalize everything, even murder.
>>treat em all like traffic violations. just apply heavier fines
>>to the more serious violations. it would surely streamline the
>>administration of justice. note, in the case of murder, the
>>amount of the fine should obviously depend on how important
>>the victim was. who knows, maybe there should even be a bonus
>>for offing the "undesirables".
sorry Glenn]
What you suggest is more or less how most of the world's justice
systems worked until about four centuries ago. All crimes were
settled by a fine, and all crimes were personal. There was no such
thing as a crime against the people. Crimes against the state were
construed as crimes against the monarch, and therefore also personal.
The less important the victim, the lower the fine, the bulk of which
went to the victim's family, with a set aside to pay the court costs.
That's all it really was, compensation to the family for the value to
the family of the victim.
So, killing somebody's slave, the cost of the slave. Killing an
ordinary peasant, a few bucks more. Kill a local freeholder, and the
ante went up a bit more. Kill the local noble, and you
better have a long purse. Kill the king and they took everything
you owned and chopped you up into little pieces, or the equivalent.
In these systems, everyone knew precisely how much their
life was worth at law, not to mention how much an eye, or a limb,
etc., was worth. In Old English law, it was called wergeld.
We have remnents of this system in accident insurance, which tells you
what you get for death, a lost eye, limb, etc.
The problem with this system, of course, and why it was changed, is
those with plenty of money could pretty much do what they wanted,
barring killing or injuring someone really important. We have enough
of a problem already with folks with too much money already, IMHO,
without adding to it.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
a
In article <5dr9sj$k...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>, je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) says:
>
>gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
>: > > It was wrong. I said it. Mel said it. He said it. Now, should we
>: > > fry him? What would be the benefit if we did?
>
># 408.336.2558 voice wb6ssy@ki6eh.#cca.ca.usa.noam wb6ssy.ampr.org 44.4.18.10
># 408.699.0483 digital_pager 73557,2074 cis [don't]
># je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl
Ms liberty`s scale. The shooter could lose bigtime. The atty`s will
clean up on this one. Does anyone do pro-bono work in the county? LEE
Jeff Liebermann
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
: ? i didn't think they would let juries get drunk. and i
: thought the bailiffs were supposed to drive you everwhere.
: this is shocking.
When I was playing jurist, we had lunch next door at the
Holiday Inn compliments of the taxpayers. Unfortunately,
it was only during deliberations. I don't recall if booze
was allowed. I don't think so. When we went to visit the scene
of the crime (Davenport) we carpooled and drove our own cars.
: yup, i'd sure treat a man differently if he can lift 4000lbs.
"Lifting" a car is slang for car theft. Is that what you mean?
: (i think he was saying that the car contributed to the
: crime, not necessarily to the verdict.)
I'm not so sure. There seem to be a presumption that any
crime committed with a vehicle is an "accident". The very
term has become generic in describing highway related incidents.
People cease to be described as "assailant" or "victim" and
are converted into the more generic "motorist". If you
clobber someone with a car, it's "vehicular manslaughter".
: >Juries are not that dumb.
: you missed the OJ (criminal) trial didn't you.
Not really. When OJ was first charged with murder, the arainment
was scheduled later in the same courtroom where my family and I
were suppose to deal with a conservatorship hearing. Even though
OJ wasn't due to appear for several hours, the media preparation
was such a distraction that the judge just postponed everything
on her calender and left. It was a zoo.
I have my opinions (which I'll keep to myself) about the OJ
criminal and civil trials.
: >This is one of those borderline cases where either judgement
: >will get someone irate.
: what is "borderline" about it?
Ethics, justice and the law are areas where I have little
knowledge and less experience. What little I know tends to
make me think that Turcerri was legally innocent and acting
in self defense. On the other hand, he also was the only real
witness, ran from the scene and had two days to fabricate a story.
Foster was legally drunk but also legally responsible for
his actions. Having lost a few aquaintences to drunk drivers,
I wonder if Turcierri did us a favour.
However, I don't approve of Turcieri's plea of self defense.
Even though the law says otherwise, I did not consider Foster
as constituting a threat. One witness said that Foster calmly
walked (not ran) up to Turcerri's car. If there had been some
physical damage to the cars or to either party, I could see
such a plea, but that was not the case.
So, the jury ruled according to the law and I wonder whether
justice was served. It is my understanding that it is better
to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person.
It's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's required to convict
and NOT a "preponderance of evidence". If the jury isn't
certain, then the defendent is automatically innocent.
I asked an attorney (name withheld) about this issue. He
indicated that Turcierri was clearly innocent by law. I asked
if he couldn't have been tried for a lesser charge and was
told that all lesser charges are automatically included and
that the jury can rule that he was guilty of (e.g) involuntary
manslaughter (accidentally murder). As I recall from my limited
experience as a jurist, this was NOT the instructions I received
from the judge. I haven't had time to ask any other attorny.
Does anyone know *exactly* how this works?
There are several articles in this thread that will probably
degenerate into a discussion on gun control. Don't do it.
The arguements both pro and con are well known. This thread
is about a specific trial and not about gun control.
--
Eric Smith [see .sig]
scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) writes:
>>> here's an idea. decriminalize everything, even murder.
>>>treat em all like traffic violations. just apply heavier fines
>>>to the more serious violations. it would surely streamline the
>>>administration of justice. note, in the case of murder, the
>>>amount of the fine should obviously depend on how important
>>>the victim was. who knows, maybe there should even be a bonus
>>>for offing the "undesirables".
>What you suggest is more or less how most of the world's justice
>systems worked until about four centuries ago. All crimes were
>settled by a fine, and all crimes were personal. There was no such
>thing as a crime against the people. Crimes against the state were
>construed as crimes against the monarch, and therefore also personal.
>The less important the victim, the lower the fine, the bulk of which
>went to the victim's family, with a set aside to pay the court costs.
>That's all it really was, compensation to the family for the value to
>the family of the victim.
>So, killing somebody's slave, the cost of the slave. Killing an
>ordinary peasant, a few bucks more. Kill a local freeholder, and the
>ante went up a bit more. Kill the local noble, and you
>better have a long purse. Kill the king and they took everything
>you owned and chopped you up into little pieces, or the equivalent.
>In these systems, everyone knew precisely how much their
>life was worth at law, not to mention how much an eye, or a limb,
>etc., was worth. In Old English law, it was called wergeld.
>We have remnents of this system in accident insurance, which tells you
>what you get for death, a lost eye, limb, etc.
[ ... ]
Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime. Capital
punishment was rarely carried out for what we would consider to be
minor offenses, but judges were given tremendous power to impose
sentences. They could, and did, impose long jail terms at hard labor
or death for crimes like theft.
-----
Eric Smith | This was posted with a fake address to
http://www.catsdogs.com | thwart bulk email programs. Email me at
| erics at netcom dot com
John Thomas
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> ...
> We tend to be very lenient when a vehicle is involved. I was
> someone with a 4000lb weapon and you're treated completely
> of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
> different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
> judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
> ...
I am not sure that this case has as much to do with
our societies views on cars as it does with our views
on guns. Too many people have convinced themselves that
they need to have a loaded gun to protect themselves from
those "bad people".
Whether it be a loaded gun in the night stand to protect
from people who sneak into their house or in the auto
glove box to protect from people who attack them on the road,
they feel safer. Unfortunately, having this loaded gun handy
in his car, means that what might have been, at worst, a fist fight
ended up with someone dead.
I am not sure what the status of it is, but last year there
was legislation to make it easy for any one to get a permit
to carry a concealed weapon. How many more cases of roadside
murder will there be when everybody has a gun in their car.
Most summers, there are quite often fist fights on the
sidewalk in front of the Boardwalk because of people that
had to much sun and beer. Just think how much fun it will
be down there when they pull the gun out of their beach bag and
have shootouts on the sidewalk. Yippee!
--
John Thomas
E-mail: jth...@cruzio.com
Web: http://www.cruzio.com/~jthomas
JC Dill
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:53:03 GMT, Ihat...@address.fake (Eric Smith
[see .sig]) expound upon: "Re: Turtucci's a wimp & a killer!!"
>scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) writes:
>
>>>> here's an idea. decriminalize everything, even murder.
>>>>treat em all like traffic violations. just apply heavier fines
>>>>to the more serious violations. it would surely streamline the
>>>>administration of justice. note, in the case of murder, the
>>>>amount of the fine should obviously depend on how important
>>>>the victim was. who knows, maybe there should even be a bonus
>>>>for offing the "undesirables".
>
I think the long jail terms at hard labor were imposed on impovershed
persons who had commited theft against persons of more wealth, and
thus the impovershed person was forced to serve a long term to *pay*
for a theft (usually of inflated value) that he didn't have the
currency to pay for. It was called "debtor's prison" wasn't it?
I don't recall long jail terms being imposed on those that had wealth.
I think those with wealth simply paid the fine.
_____
There is a *typo* in my return address, a spam prevention tactic.
So to email me, figure out the typo and correct it! But...
*Don't* send me ANY commercial email. You *will* regret it.
jc
Don Fong
In article <ericsE5...@netcom.com>,
Eric Smith [see .sig] <Ihat...@address.fake> wrote:
>scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) writes:
>>In these systems, everyone knew precisely how much their
>>life was worth at law, not to mention how much an eye, or a limb,
>>etc., was worth. In Old English law, it was called wergeld.
>>We have remnents of this system in accident insurance, which tells you
>>what you get for death, a lost eye, limb, etc.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime.
say, just how old ARE you?
Steve Premo
On 13 Feb 1997 23:20:55 -0800, je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff
Liebermann) wrote:
>I asked an attorney (name withheld) about this issue. He
>indicated that Turcierri was clearly innocent by law. I asked
>if he couldn't have been tried for a lesser charge and was
>told that all lesser charges are automatically included and
>that the jury can rule that he was guilty of (e.g) involuntary
>manslaughter (accidentally murder). As I recall from my limited
>experience as a jurist, this was NOT the instructions I received
>from the judge. I haven't had time to ask any other attorny.
>Does anyone know *exactly* how this works?
Where a person is charged with a crime, there are sometimes lesser
offenses that are necessarily included in that crime. They are called
"lesser included offenses." With first degree murder (a killing with
malice and premeditation), lesser included offenses are:
second degree murder (malice but no premeditation)
voluntary manslaughter (without malice or premeditation, but with
intent to kill) and
involuntary manslaughter (without malice or premeditation or intent to
kill, but acting under such circumstances that it is probable that
your actions will cause someone's death).
An example of voluntary manslaughter would be killing "in the heat of
passion." An example of involuntary manslaughter would be killing
someone by driving so recklessly that you're likely to cause someone's
death.
There are quite a few exceptions to these definitions, such as the
felony-murder rule (i.e., if you're committing a felony and someone
dies, it's murder even if unintentional), the misdemeanor-manslaughter
rule (if you're committing a misdemeanor and someone dies, it's
manslaughter), etc.
If a defendant is charged with first degree murder, as was Turturici,
the jury can convict on that charge, or acquit. If the jury acquits
on that charge, it then considers second degree murder, etc.
Here, the jury acquitted Turturici of first degree murder, second
degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but could not reach
agreement on involuntary manslaughter.
Felis Concolor
As I told Mr. Lincoln, don't ask people their age. It can be
pretty offensive.
Lenore Levine
--
"In chess, someone has to take the black pieces." -- Eve Forward
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <33048f8...@news.cruzio.com>, pr...@mail.cruzio.com (Steve Premo) writes:
>
> Where a person is charged with a crime, there are sometimes lesser
> offenses that are necessarily included in that crime. They are called
> "lesser included offenses." With first degree murder (a killing with
> malice and premeditation), lesser included offenses are:
>
> degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but could not reach
> agreement on involuntary manslaughter.
I've never understood this. It's like, either the DA can't make up
his/her mind ("Oh, heck -- we'll just charge them with *everything*
and see what sticks."), or they are just kinda pissed that they can't
retry them if they lose, so they stick enough in there so that the
jury will deadlock on at least one, giving them another shot at it.
What's wrong with just making a decision, sticking to it ("No, I won't
accept a guilty plea of urinating in public and drop the murder charge")?
Otherwise, if they are going to charge a murder suspect with everything
from first degree murder, all the way down to blowing their nose without
a permit, the whole thing starts looking kinda amaturish.
Eric Smith [see .sig]
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>Eric Smith [see .sig] <Ihat...@address.fake> wrote:
>>Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime.
> say, just how old ARE you?
Old enough to remember a time even before the Net, my son, a time when
programs were stored on paper tape and access to keypunch machines meant
long hours of standing in line during finals week.
JC Dill
On 14 Feb 1997 17:06:21 GMT, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) expound
upon: "Re: Turtucci's a wimp & a killer!!"
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>Huh? As I recall,
As I recall from reading my history books in school.
OK?
>pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime.
>
> say, just how old ARE you?
>
_____
Eric Smith [see .sig]
jcd...@ix.netcom.com (JC Dill) writes:
>>>[ ... ]
>>>
>>>Huh? As I recall,
>As I recall from reading my history books in school.
>OK?
Actually no, I recall it from other sources. What does it matter where
I recall it from? If you wish, consider it rephrased as:
"I believe it is the case that ... "
and if you want to contradict it, then feel free to do so.
leep
In article <5dua44$r...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) says:
>
>In article <5dr9sj$k...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>,
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>We tend to be very lenient when a vehicle is involved. I was
>>also on two drunk driving juries and saw it first hand.
>
>thought the bailiffs were supposed to drive you everwhere.
>this is shocking.
>
>>differently than if you did it hand to hand.
>
>
>>of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
>>different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
>>judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
>>suggests).
>
>crime, not necessarily to the verdict.)
>
>
>
>>"beyond a reasonable doubt" that decides the verdict. In civil
>>cases, it's the "preponderance of evidence" that's the basis.
>>This is one of those borderline cases where either judgement
>>will get someone irate.
>
> what is "borderline" about it?
>
Daniel D Scripture
In article <ericsE5...@netcom.com>,
Eric Smith [see .sig] <Ihat...@address.fake> wrote:
>>>> here's an idea. decriminalize everything, even murder.
>>>>treat em all like traffic violations. just apply heavier fines
>>>>to the more serious violations. it would surely streamline the
>>>>administration of justice. note, in the case of murder, the
>>>>amount of the fine should obviously depend on how important
>>>>the victim was. who knows, maybe there should even be a bonus
>>>>for offing the "undesirables".
>
>>What you suggest is more or less how most of the world's justice
>>systems worked until about four centuries ago. All crimes were
>>settled by a fine, and all crimes were personal. There was no such
>>thing as a crime against the people. Crimes against the state were
>>construed as crimes against the monarch, and therefore also personal.
>>The less important the victim, the lower the fine, the bulk of which
>>went to the victim's family, with a set aside to pay the court costs.
>>That's all it really was, compensation to the family for the value to
>>the family of the victim.
>
>>So, killing somebody's slave, the cost of the slave. Killing an
>>ordinary peasant, a few bucks more. Kill a local freeholder, and the
>>ante went up a bit more. Kill the local noble, and you
>>better have a long purse. Kill the king and they took everything
>>you owned and chopped you up into little pieces, or the equivalent.
>>life was worth at law, not to mention how much an eye, or a limb,
>>etc., was worth. In Old English law, it was called wergeld.
>>We have remnents of this system in accident insurance, which tells you
>>what you get for death, a lost eye, limb, etc.
>
>
>Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime. Capital
>punishment was rarely carried out for what we would consider to be
>minor offenses, but judges were given tremendous power to impose
>or death for crimes like theft.
>
>-----
>Eric Smith | This was posted with a fake address to
>http://www.catsdogs.com | thwart bulk email programs. Email me at
> | erics at netcom dot com
>
>
Eric--sorry--innattentive typing on my part.
Where I said "four hundred" please read more like
eight hundred, or even one thousand. The reason for the error had to
do with my thinking about non-european legal
systems where victim compensation
remained the only law for a long time. Unfortunately for clarity, I
type as fast as I think. For instance, Anglo-saxon law
before the Norman conquest was still much as I have described. Norman
conquest was in 1066, as we all know. So my figure for Anglo-American
law was way off.
And by the way, the "victim compensation" law stuff was really state
intervention and regulation of traditional customs about revenge. It
was a way of reducing feuds, and violence.
You are quite correct, however, about the severity of penalties
later--19th century British law was much as you describe.
All felonies were punishable by death, and normally were. It was an
act of clemency to transport criminals, usually to Australia. French
law was much the same, especially before the Revolution. That's what
"Les Miserables" is about. Theft of anything worth more than a few
cents was a felony, punishable by death, in both countries.
What I think is important to notice is that state violence in the name
of the law against citizens reached its height in 18th and 19th century
law (during the efflourescence of early capitalism) and then dropped.
Anyway, all I was really trying to do was to say to Glenn, been there,
done that, it didn't work.
Dan Scripture
JC Dill
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:46:14 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com expound upon:
"Re: Turtucci's a wimp & a killer!!"
>In article <33048f8...@news.cruzio.com>, pr...@mail.cruzio.com (Steve Premo) writes:
>>
>> Where a person is charged with a crime, there are sometimes lesser
>> offenses that are necessarily included in that crime. They are called
>> "lesser included offenses." With first degree murder (a killing with
>> malice and premeditation), lesser included offenses are:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Here, the jury acquitted Turturici of first degree murder, second
>> degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but could not reach
>> agreement on involuntary manslaughter.
>
>I've never understood this. It's like, either the DA
It isn't the DA. It is the nature of the offense, a first degree
offfense automatically includes the lower offenses as *part* of the
crime and the jury is allowed to determine that only the lesser part
was committed.
Pretend that we have an offense that is called Bank Robbery, and in
the description of what that offense includes is Presenting a Note,
Carrying a Gun, Threatening To use a Gun, Taking Money, Running Away
(I am making this up, please just go along for discussion).
Then the DA can charge someone with Bank Robbery, and the jury can
subsequently decide that the person only was guilty of the lesser
crimes of Carrying a Gun and Taking the Money and Running Away... (or
some other subset of the complete things that make up the larger
crime)... The DA charges Bank Robbery rather than the list of smaller
offenses because the DA thinks they can prove the whole Bank Robbery
charge...
>can't make up
>his/her mind ("Oh, heck -- we'll just charge them with *everything*
>and see what sticks."), or they are just kinda pissed that they can't
>retry them if they lose, so they stick enough in there so that the
>jury will deadlock on at least one, giving them another shot at it.
>
>What's wrong with just making a decision, sticking to it ("No, I won't
>accept a guilty plea of urinating in public and drop the murder charge")?
>Otherwise, if they are going to charge a murder suspect with everything
>from first degree murder, all the way down to blowing their nose without
>a permit, the whole thing starts looking kinda amaturish.
>
>Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
>It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
>_______________________________________________________________
>Glen Appleby gl...@bbs.cruzio.com http://www2.cruzio.com/~glena/
_____
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5e351p$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) writes:
> [Glenn said this, I think]
Nope. And I only get one "n". I'll accept the second one as a gift,
though.
> Anyway, all I was really trying to do was to say to Glenn, been there,
> done that, it didn't work.
Nah -- what *I* favored was the compassion (apparent) that the jury
showed. We haven't really tried that, effectively, yet.
melp...@cruzio.com
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
>Well, maybe is sends some kind of a message -- that the legal system
>*can* be compassonate, sometimes. There is nothing that can bring
>Foster back or that can make his family happy. Sending Torturici
>to prison or to his death would just add another family to the list
>of bitter, hurt people.
Although I don't think Turturici ought to serve time in prison for killing
Foster, I do believe that Turturici ought to pay Foster's family. I hope
Foster's kids get a reasonable award in their civil suit against Turturici.
I'm not advocating a return to the type of justice system Mr. Scripture wrote of
in his message. However, for this one case, it makes sense for Turturici to
have to pay something for taking the life of Foster (and thus depriving his
children, etc.).
>> I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
>> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
>I understand why she did what she did. I feel great sympathy for her
>and her son. She did what she felt that she had to do -- she saw no
>other viable option. I don't think that she should have spent even 20
>minutes in jail for doing it, but I do not condone that she did it.
>I feel equally bad about the man that she shot. I don't condone what
>he did, either.
>His family is suffering, now, too. Were they responsible? Does
>their suffering improve anything for anybody? Can anybody learn
>anything when they are suffering?
Well, here's where you and I part company, Glen. I think child molesters
deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
things I think ought to be done to them).
>Geeze, Mel -- it started out as a nice day. I was planning to get
>some programming done. I read this, this morning and have been kinda
>bummed by it all day.... well, not bummed, really -- just thinking.
>Any other of my buttons that you are planning to push, tomorrow? %-}
I think I just did.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
melp...@cruzio.com
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
>(trimmed...)
>I'm not an attorney or legal expert. I did serve on one jury
>on a "voluntary manslaughter" case several years ago. The judges
>instructions were that self defense only requires one to feel
>threatened. You don't have to wait until the bozo following
>you runs you off the road and starts pounding on you before
>pulling the trigger. However, even self-defense requires
>convincing a jury. The principle may have changed recently
>so don't assume this is current.
I would feel very threatened by someone acting as Foster apparently did.
>What I have problems with is vaguely similar to Martin's concern.
>We tend to be very lenient when a vehicle is involved. I was
>also on two drunk driving juries and saw it first hand. Kill
>someone with a 4000lb weapon and you're treated completely
>differently than if you did it hand to hand. Take the cars out
>of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
>different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
>judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
>suggests). Juries are not that dumb.
Jeff, do you have any statistics to back up this assertion?
It seems to me that if Foster and Turturici were walking, the same thing could
have happened. Or, if they were in a bar. I don't think vehicles have anything
to do with it. Martin is just plain wrong. Foster was apparently one of those
guys who walks around (or drives, in this case) looking for trouble (at least,
according to most people who knew him, including his former wife, I believe).
One thing I've noticed about people who act aggressive behind the wheel -- they
often act aggressive when they're not behind the wheel -- they're aggressive
people, period.
>Juries can do whatever they want. In criminal cases, it's
>"beyond a reasonable doubt" that decides the verdict. In civil
>cases, it's the "preponderance of evidence" that's the basis.
>(That's the difference between the OJ criminal and civil trials).
>This is one of those borderline cases where either judgement
>will get someone irate.
It's these type of situations that make for interesting discussion.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
Martin Krieg
In article <E5o4q...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com
(melp...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
>
> >(trimmed...)
>
> >I'm not an attorney or legal expert. I did serve on one jury
> >on a "voluntary manslaughter" case several years ago. The judges
> >instructions were that self defense only requires one to feel
> >threatened. You don't have to wait until the bozo following
> >you runs you off the road and starts pounding on you before
> >pulling the trigger. However, even self-defense requires
> >convincing a jury. The principle may have changed recently
> >so don't assume this is current.
>
> I would feel very threatened by someone acting as Foster apparently did.
A friend of mine was the 2nd person to greet the decesased Foster on the
freeway. He said that this supposed "monster" was freshly shaven, had nice
clothes on and did not smell of alchohol. They didn't even know he'd been
shot because he was bent over when our local fearball, Turtucci, opened
up Foster's insides with a barely visible (from the outside) bullet. If
Foster would have been in any other body position (besides maybe pleading
with the gun "man"?) my friend thinks Foster would have survived because
the bullet used was so small (the bullet rattled around inside of his
chest and severed an artery). He even thinks it might even have glanced
off his skull if he had been hit there.
In the darkness, they didn't know why he was lying there. Our local model
citizen had already driven off to think about how he was going to get out
of this one. Now that's someone I feel very very threatened by. A post
meditative killer who literally got away with murder..........
>
>
> It seems to me that if Foster and Turturici were walking, the same thing could
> have happened. Or, if they were in a bar. I don't think vehicles have
anything
> to do with it. Martin is just plain wrong. Foster was apparently one
of those
> guys who walks around (or drives, in this case) looking for trouble (at least,
> according to most people who knew him, including his former wife, I believe).
My pooint in bring up the Mercedes that the gun "Man" used was to show
that he could have used his car, a known performance car, to get away from
Foster. My friend says that Foster was driving a Capri. Gimme a break, a
Mercedes unable to outrun a Capri, especailly one driven by an alchohol
impaired "madman". Sounds like our hero (the drunk driver eliminator) prob
had a bad day at the restaurant and thought he'd just play games with
Foster until it got a little out of control..........
>
> One thing I've noticed about people who act aggressive behind the wheel
-- they
> often act aggressive when they're not behind the wheel -- they're aggressive
> people, period.
Not so. People have their confort zones. Have any of U ever met Emil
Gallant, the local famed webmaster of the Hwy 17 Page of Shame? He's a
total computer magician. Put a keyboard in that guy's hands and he's a
terror, a madman with no heart. Meet him persaonlly and he's a sweetheart,
a most likeable guy. btw: He was the first guy to report the Turtucii
debacle here on the net over a year ago now.
>
Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
--
What Would L@ve Do Now??
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| The Power of L@ve: Cycle America {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
cyc...@BikeRoute.com http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'
Jeff Liebermann
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
: > Here, the jury acquitted Turturici of first degree murder, second
: > degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but could not reach
: > agreement on involuntary manslaughter.
: I've never understood this. It's like, either the DA can't make up
: his/her mind ("Oh, heck -- we'll just charge them with *everything*
: and see what sticks."),
Pick one or more:
[ ] Theory A: You're not suppose to understand it.
If it was easily comprehensible, we wouldn't need attorneys
to explain it to us.
[ ] Theory B: You're presumed guilty if you end up
in a courtroom. The purpose of the trial is to determine
what you're guilty of.
[ ] Theory C: Trial by jury is not suppose to be fair,
equitable, logical or perfect. It's only suppose to be
functional. If there's no outry or rioting in the streets,
it's called justice.
[ ] Theory D: Do you really think you can get a fair trial
from a jury not smart enough to get out of serving on the jury?
[ ] Theory E: The real crime is usually committed by the
prosecution by boring the jury to death. I seem to recall one
of the OJ civil trial jurors being dismissed for falling asleep
in the courtroom. Having been there, I can sympathize with this
juror. During deliberation, the jury I was with also debated
the merits of finding the Assistant DA guilty of a similar
offense but decided that it would severely strain the judges
apparently limited sense of humor.
[ ] Theory F: Jurys judge defendents based upon packaging.
People wear their vehicles as they would a suit of cloths.
A Mercedes Benz wearer is assumed to be more affluent and
more innocent than (e.g.) a purple Volkswagen wearer who
tends to be viewed as a danger to society.
[x] Email to author [ ] To mailing list [x] Posted to newsgroup
Jeff Liebermann
melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) wrote:
: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
: >Take the cars out
: >of the picture, and I wonder if the verdict would have been
: >different. Dunno. I'm not going to suggest that Turtucci was
: >judged innocent because he drove a car (as Martin apparently
: >suggests). Juries are not that dumb.
: Jeff, do you have any statistics to back up this assertion?
Nope. It's not even an assertion. It's an observation of mine
based upon very limited experience (sitting on two drunk driving
juries and the results of a friends kid getting killed by a
drunk driver). It might be interesting to corrolate the decisions
of juries with the values of the automobiles involved, but I
don't have the resources. I'll leave it to speculation and
hope that someone else can supply the evidence.
: One thing I've noticed about people who act aggressive behind the wheel -- they
: often act aggressive when they're not behind the wheel -- they're aggressive
: people, period.
Taking inventory of my aquaintences, I suspect this covers only
about 1/3 of the aggressive people. I know several people that
are perfectly respectful and polite in person, but turn into
absolute monsters behind the wheel. It's some kind of feeling
of power or macho thing. I also know some drivers that think
they're hot stuff behind the wheel and are willing to risk the
lives of everyone around just to pass a car. I know people
that will tolerate all manner of offense in person, but have
no tolerance for effrontories committed on the road.
I also know someone capable of going nuts behind the wheel.
Me. Last Sunday night, I'm driving home up Graham Hill Rd
at about 1:30am. A car driving in the opposite direction
took a shot at me with something and punched a quarter size
divot in my windshield. I do a bat-turn and try to follow
them downhill at rediculous speeds. The car was long gone
when I got to the bottom of the hill. I didn't get a usable
description, license number or even see how many people were
in the car. When I finally slowed down, my brain finally
engaged and I considered the possibilities of what might have
happened had I actually caught up with the car. I decided not
to call 911 since I had no usable description or information.
Had I caught up with him or them, I'm fairly sure we would
have staged a Foster/Turtucci re-enactment.
Yes, people do go through personality changes behind the wheel.
[ ] Email to author [ ] To mailing list [x] Posted to newsgroup
Don Fong
>
>>Eric Smith [see .sig] <Ihat...@address.fake> wrote:
>
>>>Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>>>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime.
>
>
>programs were stored on paper tape and access to keypunch machines meant
>long hours of standing in line during finals week.
sheesh, young'un, you had it easy. in my day, we didn't have
the luxury of advanced equipment like keypunch machines. we had to
punch the cards by hand. paper tape? we had to make our own, out of
scraps of old newspapers.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <ericsE5...@netcom.com>, Ihat...@address.fake (Eric Smith [see .sig]) writes:
> > say, just how old ARE you?
>
> Old enough to remember a time even before the Net, my son, a time when
> programs were stored on paper tape and access to keypunch machines meant
> long hours of standing in line during finals week.
Yeah, but was your first computer semiconductor or tube?
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <E5o4q...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) writes:
>
> It's these type of situations that make for interesting discussion.
And interesting flamebait. I got to test my new Nomex 3 piece. No
blisters or even major redness. Ahhhhhh, technology.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <E5o49...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) writes:
> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
>
> >> I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
> >> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
>
> >I understand why she did what she did. I feel great sympathy for her
> >and her son. She did what she felt that she had to do -- she saw no
> >other viable option. I don't think that she should have spent even 20
> >minutes in jail for doing it, but I do not condone that she did it.
> >I feel equally bad about the man that she shot. I don't condone what
> >he did, either.
>
> >His family is suffering, now, too. Were they responsible? Does
> >their suffering improve anything for anybody? Can anybody learn
> >anything when they are suffering?
>
> Well, here's where you and I part company, Glen.
No -- we actually parted company back when you wanted *more* rain. I'm
willing to overlook that, too, though.
> I think child molesters
> deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
> things I think ought to be done to them).
No matter what causes them to do what they do?
geoff
Ah... determining guilt on heresay, eh?
I must admit, it seems quite the quandry to me
that "people" tend to show so little faith in the
justice system, yet they are so willing to judge guilt
based on heresay.
>
> A friend of mine was the 2nd person to greet the decesased Foster on the
> freeway. He said that this supposed "monster" was freshly shaven, had nice
> clothes on and did not smell of alchohol. They didn't even know he'd been
> shot because he was bent over when our local fearball, Turtucci, opened
> up Foster's insides with a barely visible (from the outside) bullet. If
> Foster would have been in any other body position (besides maybe pleading
> with the gun "man"?) my friend thinks Foster would have survived because
> the bullet used was so small (the bullet rattled around inside of his
> chest and severed an artery). He even thinks it might even have glanced
> off his skull if he had been hit there.
>
What does freshly shaven and being dressed up in
nice clothes have to do anything? I know of
belligerent people who fit that description.
-geoff
j.r. pierce [see .sig]
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>In article <ericsE5...@netcom.com>, Ihat...@address.fake (Eric Smith [see .sig]) writes:
>> > say, just how old ARE you?
>>
>> Old enough to remember a time even before the Net, my son, a time when
>> programs were stored on paper tape and access to keypunch machines meant
>> long hours of standing in line during finals week.
>
>Yeah, but was your first computer semiconductor or tube?
Semiconductors, but they were discrete, not ICs...
We didn't use paper tape much, the keypunch punched cards. You just
can't EDIT a paper tape very easily!
Never had to wait much for a keypunch tho, I was a lab assistant and
had the keys...
-jrp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
if you need to mail me try "pierce at hogranch dot com"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Liebermann
j.r. pierce [see .sig] (anti...@here.not) wrote:
: We didn't use paper tape much, the keypunch punched cards. You just
: can't EDIT a paper tape very easily!
Oh baloney. My first sub-routines were called by splicing on
a section of tape. It's one of the benifits of creative line
numbering. You had to be careful to line up the sproket holes
and to put the overlap on the bottom of the paper tape (so it
wouldn't catch on the plastic cover over the tape reader on
the Model 33ASR). I never could read the Hollerith cards but
the paper tapes were fairly easy. A bottle of paper tape confetti
was also handy for plugging holes and making a huge mess. The
biggest problem was getting the cellophane tape to stick to the
oiled paper tape.
Unfortunately, such expediency created difficulties for me later.
My traditional way of debugging was to print out the whole program
on a long piece of teletype paper, roll it down a hallway, make
corrections with a red pen, and punch currections. 30 years later,
I still have difficulties editing and debugging on screen and
still prefer to print a listing.
: Never had to wait much for a keypunch tho, I was a lab assistant and
: had the keys...
No wonder I couldn't get to the keypunch machine.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <330b1c93....@news.scruznet.com>, anti...@here.not (j.r. pierce [see .sig]) writes:
> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but was your first computer semiconductor or tube?
>
> Semiconductors, but they were discrete, not ICs...
TYKE! My first computer was all mechanical -- and hand cranked at that.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5e5qag$9...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>, je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) writes:
>
> Pick one or more:
Aw, geeze -- I always hate multiple choice -- though, I have to admit
that I was given a lot of good choices, here. Still, I might have
prefered the addition of:
[ ] All of the above
[ ] None of the above
[ ] Some of the above -- to be determined by which are deemed to be "correct".
[ ] I'm playing with my toys, right now. I'll get back to you once I
finish downloading the entire contents of alt.binaries.bestiality.snakes
[ ] Damn! These drugs are *great*! But .... how did I get here?
[ ] Huh?
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <3307645B...@scruznet.com>, geoff <ge...@scruznet.com> writes:
> Ah... determining guilt on heresay, eh?
>
> I must admit, it seems quite the quandry to me
> that "people" tend to show so little faith in the
> justice system, yet they are so willing to judge guilt
> based on heresay.
EXACTLY! It is for this reason that I would be the absolute worst person
to be on a jury. I would never convict anybody unless I saw them do it
AND they admitted that they did it. Simply an admission of guilt would
not be enough for me, because some people have been known to admit to
crimes that they didn't commit.
Guess that I'm not going to be asked to serve on too many juries under
these conditions. Gee -- that's a shame.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <cycleam-1502...@kelp248.cruzio.com>, cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>
> A friend of mine was the 2nd person to greet the decesased Foster on the
> freeway. He said that this supposed "monster" was freshly shaven, had nice
> clothes on and did not smell of alchohol. They didn't even know he'd been
> shot because he was bent over when our local fearball, Turtucci, opened
> up Foster's insides with a barely visible (from the outside) bullet. If
> Foster would have been in any other body position (besides maybe pleading
> with the gun "man"?) my friend thinks Foster would have survived because
> the bullet used was so small (the bullet rattled around inside of his
> chest and severed an artery). He even thinks it might even have glanced
> off his skull if he had been hit there.
>
> citizen had already driven off to think about how he was going to get out
> of this one. Now that's someone I feel very very threatened by. A post
> meditative killer who literally got away with murder..........
I'll just bet that this is supposed to have some significance to something ...
the phase of the moon, perhaps?
> My pooint in bring up the Mercedes that the gun "Man" used was to show
> that he could have used his car, a known performance car, to get away from
> Foster. My friend says that Foster was driving a Capri. Gimme a break, a
> Mercedes unable to outrun a Capri, especailly one driven by an alchohol
> impaired "madman". Sounds like our hero (the drunk driver eliminator) prob
> had a bad day at the restaurant and thought he'd just play games with
> Foster until it got a little out of control..........
Hummm. Quite a scenario that you have generated, here. So, in addition
to being a bike zealot, you are a writer of screenplays and fairy tales?
> Not so. People have their confort zones. Have any of U ever met Emil
> Gallant, the local famed webmaster of the Hwy 17 Page of Shame? He's a
> total computer magician. Put a keyboard in that guy's hands and he's a
> terror, a madman with no heart. Meet him persaonlly and he's a sweetheart,
> a most likeable guy. btw: He was the first guy to report the Turtucii
> debacle here on the net over a year ago now.
And from this I am to assume that you, in person, are *not* a bike zealot?
You might actually be a real person?
> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
to you? Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
Don Fong
In article <E5r81...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>In article <cycleam-1502...@kelp248.cruzio.com>, cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>Hummm. Quite a scenario that you have generated, here. So, in addition
>to being a bike zealot, you are a writer of screenplays and fairy tales?
Glen, look at his .sig, he is a writer although i think he mainly
writes nonfiction. you may not like what he writes, but at least he
puts it on the line by writing his sincere beliefs instead of trying
to turn everything into a joke. i've noticed that YOU generally
ignore serious challenges to your own beliefs. you don't seem to have
the guts to honestly state your opinions and then defend them with
facts and reason.
it's funny, i don't think you used to be that way, i remember you
posted some pretty controversial stuff awhile back about homelessness.
but nowadays you apparently just want to be the class clown.
>> Not so. People have their confort zones. Have any of U ever met Emil
>> Gallant, the local famed webmaster of the Hwy 17 Page of Shame? He's a
>> total computer magician. Put a keyboard in that guy's hands and he's a
>> terror, a madman with no heart. Meet him persaonlly and he's a sweetheart,
>> a most likeable guy. btw: He was the first guy to report the Turtucii
>> debacle here on the net over a year ago now.
>
>And from this I am to assume that you, in person, are *not* a bike zealot?
>You might actually be a real person?
i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
worse things you could be.
>> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
>> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
>> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
>> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
>> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
>> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
>
>Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
>to you?
Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
>Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
if you're a fan of Martin's writing, why don't you read his book.
then come back and tell us again how *much more* compassion you have.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5ea6do$f...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
> Glen, look at his .sig, he is a writer although i think he mainly
> writes nonfiction. you may not like what he writes, but at least he
> puts it on the line by writing his sincere beliefs instead of trying
> to turn everything into a joke. i've noticed that YOU generally
> ignore serious challenges to your own beliefs. you don't seem to have
> the guts to honestly state your opinions and then defend them with
> facts and reason.
> it's funny, i don't think you used to be that way, i remember you
> posted some pretty controversial stuff awhile back about homelessness.
> but nowadays you apparently just want to be the class clown.
Gosh -- there is only one way to be? Shit! I'm sorry Don. See, I
didn't read that anywhere.
I didn't know that it was my personal responsibility to convert the
world to my way of thinking. The way that I see it, I see things a
certain way. It may work -- it may not. Getting into a pissing
contest is not gonna do much to improve anything, is it? If somebody
sees something differently from the way I see it, I'm quite comfortable
letting them state it. You apprently want me to to convince them
that the are all wrong. Shit, Don! That assumes that I'm right,
they are wrong and simply dumping data on them will convince them
of my godlike superiority. I'll pass on that, thanks.
I'm comfortable discussing almost anything, as long as it is congenial.
When I find a *ruler* in the conversation, I'm outta there and taking
my dust with me.
If thes is a problem for you, check with others to figure out how to
use your killfiles. I figure that if I keep doing what I like, I'm
gonna be in a *lot* of killfiles. Be the first on your block.
> i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
> he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
> more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
> worse things you could be.
Does he need or did he ask for you to stand up for him? To speak
for him? To defend his honor? I notice a pattern, here. I post
something. Martin disagrees. I reply, then *you* defend him as if
you don't think that he is capable of speaking for himself. If I am
taking advantage of a mental deficient, let me know and I'll appologize.
I didn't get the impression that there was anything mentally deficient
about Martin .... well, aside from that bicycle fetish -- but, heck,
anything behind closed doors is OK with me.
> >> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
> >> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
> >> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
> >> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
> >> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
> >> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
> >
> >Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
> >to you?
>
> Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
Your point? Nevermind -- how 'bout if we let Martin speak for himself?
Martin: Speak!
> >Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
>
> if you're a fan of Martin's writing, why don't you read his book.
> then come back and tell us again how *much more* compassion you have.
I am interested in Martin's ability to convert anybody who drives a
car into the great, ugly AUOTMONSTER.
Martin Krieg
> In article <5ea6do$f...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong)
writes:
> > i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
> > he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
> > more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
> > worse things you could be.
>
> Does he need or did he ask for you to stand up for him? To speak
> for him? To defend his honor? I notice a pattern, here. I post
> something. Martin disagrees. I reply, then *you* defend him as if
> you don't think that he is capable of speaking for himself. If I am
> taking advantage of a mental deficient, let me know and I'll appologize.
> I didn't get the impression that there was anything mentally deficient
> about Martin .... well, aside from that bicycle fetish -- but, heck,
> anything behind closed doors is OK with me.
I don't want to get into name calling, I will say, however, that Don calls
a spade a spade. I don't care who it is. If the communication lacks
precision, Don will tear it to shreds. I've seen him do that with friends
and colleagues time and again in the bicycle forums. Don't think for a
moment that U can get away with cliches or words that have not been well
thought out before they make it to this newsgroup.
Cicero once said that reading maketh a learned man while writing maketh an
exact man. Seems that Don only demands such perfection :) I know I feel
for the man or woman who incurs his wrath........
>
> > >> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
> > >> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
> > >> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a
kid run
> > >> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
> > >> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
> > >> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
> > >
> > >Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
> > >to you?
> >
> > Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
>
> Your point? Nevermind -- how 'bout if we let Martin speak for himself?
> Martin: Speak!
Don is right (he says shaking his head as he wonders if Glen really thinks
he can do battle with Don and come out ahead.....)
Don Fong
In article <E5s08...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>In article <5ea6do$f...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>> writes nonfiction. you may not like what he writes, but at least he
>> puts it on the line by writing his sincere beliefs instead of trying
>> to turn everything into a joke. i've noticed that YOU generally
>> ignore serious challenges to your own beliefs. you don't seem to have
>> the guts to honestly state your opinions and then defend them with
>> facts and reason.
>> it's funny, i don't think you used to be that way, i remember you
>> posted some pretty controversial stuff awhile back about homelessness.
>> but nowadays you apparently just want to be the class clown.
>
>Gosh -- there is only one way to be? Shit! I'm sorry Don. See, I
>didn't read that anywhere.
that's right Glen, you sure didn't read it in anything I wrote.
so what the hell are you yammering about?
>I didn't know that it was my personal responsibility to convert the
>world to my way of thinking. The way that I see it, I see things a
>certain way. It may work -- it may not. Getting into a pissing
>contest is not gonna do much to improve anything, is it? If somebody
>sees something differently from the way I see it, I'm quite comfortable
>letting them state it. You apprently want me to to convince them
>that the are all wrong.
nah, i just want you (or anyone) to state your beliefs honestly
and not try to hide behind phony humor when challenged. or if you
don't have the guts to do that, at least don't RIDICULE those who do.
>Shit, Don! That assumes that I'm right,
>they are wrong and simply dumping data on them will convince them
>of my godlike superiority. I'll pass on that, thanks.
you are getting more off the wall by the minute.
>I'm comfortable discussing almost anything, as long as it is congenial.
that's odd, your remarks to Martin didn't sound too congenial.
>When I find a *ruler* in the conversation, I'm outta there and taking
>my dust with me.
relax Glen, no one's trying to RULE you. this is USENET.
no one CAN rule you. i'm just "disagreeing" with you. got a problem
with that?
>If thes is a problem for you, check with others to figure out how to
>use your killfiles. I figure that if I keep doing what I like, I'm
>gonna be in a *lot* of killfiles. Be the first on your block.
killfile? where'd you get that idea? i don't have a problem
with reading your drivel and shooting it down. if you can't stand
being shot down, then maybe YOU'RE the one who needs a killfile.
>> i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
>> he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
>> more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
>> worse things you could be.
>
>Does he need or did he ask for you to stand up for him?
nope. i don't need his permission, nor do i need yours.
it's called free speech. really, i wasn't really aware of
"standing up for" Martin, so much as just wanting to shoot down
some bogus arguments which happened to be posted by you about Martin.
>To speak for him? To defend his honor? I notice a pattern, here.
oh ho. does it bother you? why? if there is a valid argument
on Martin's side, what does it matter whether i bring it up first
or Martin? what are you afraid of? you want a private chat with
Martin, with no one else allowed to join in? wake up Glen, that aint
the way USENET works nohow. if you want to go one-on-one with
Martin, take it to email. whatever you post here is fair game.
it's funny... i think i notice a pattern here too... you don't
complain about followups that are complimentary or humorous, no matter
who does it. but let someone post a serious challenging followup,
and you go nuts. you start snivelling about people trying to RULE you.
quite ironic too, considering how you seem to be appealing to some
kind of RULE that would let you pick on Martin without others having
the right to join in.
>I post
>something. Martin disagrees. I reply, then *you* defend him as if
>you don't think that he is capable of speaking for himself. If I am
>taking advantage of a mental deficient, let me know and I'll appologize.
nah, it's just that Martin's too nice a guy to say the things that
i think need to be said.
but let me ask you this. does it matter whether he is a mental
deficient? are you saying it would be OK to take advantage of someone
who is NOT a mental deficient? why are you trying to take advantage
of anyone in the first place? you who claimed to have SO MUCH MORE
compassion. call.
>I didn't get the impression that there was anything mentally deficient
>about Martin .... well, aside from that bicycle fetish -- but, heck,
>anything behind closed doors is OK with me.
Glen this is a public newsgroup, and if you don't want other
people to comment on it when you gratuitously insult Martin or
anyone else, that's just TOUGH LUCK. note that anyone is free
to join in on your side too. maybe even Martin himself will weigh
in your side, for all i know. (:-)
here's something else to think about. you don't seem to like
the points i am making on Martin's behalf. you seem to regard
them as being stronger points than Martin would have made himself.
which suggests that you really do think he is mentally deficient.
which suggests that you really do get a kick out of picking on
mentally deficient people. please tell me i'm wrong. please tell
me why else you object to valid arguments being made on his behalf.
>> >> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
>> >> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
>> >> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
>> >> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
>> >> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
>> >> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
>> >
>> >Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
>> >to you?
>>
>> Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
>
>Your point? Nevermind -- how 'bout if we let Martin speak for himself?
hey Glen, do you imagine i'm somehow preventing Martin from
speaking for himself? i'm not putting any words in Martin's mouth.
i'm simply pointing out the holes in your arguments. i'll give you
a hint. when i ask a question or make a point, its vailidity does
not depend on who said it, be it me or Martin or the man in the moon.
>Martin: Speak!
he probably will, when he gets around to it. be patient.
ya know, i don't think he spends all day sitting in front the computer.
>> >Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
>>
>> if you're a fan of Martin's writing, why don't you read his book.
>> then come back and tell us again how *much more* compassion you have.
>
>I am interested in Martin's ability to convert anybody who drives a
>car into the great, ugly AUOTMONSTER.
now YOU are the one who's putting words in Martin's mouth.
why don't YOU let him speak for himself? or if you are interested
in a philosophical discussion of the issues, try reading jeffl's
comments a few posts back, where he partially agreed with Martin.
now here is my 2c. the automobile gives the driver a sense
of power; and power corrupts. it does make (many) people more
aggressive. the auto insulates the driver in a cocoon of comfort
safety and power, while threatening anything that gets in its path,
and poisoning the earth. IMHO whenever people are shielded and
disconnected from the consequences of their actions (as is the case
with the driver in a car) it will lead to irresponsibility. of
course it influences different people to a different degree.
there is some truth in what Martin said. the same goes for a lot
of people, actually. sometimes wisdom comes from the mouth of a fool.
you can either take that and leave the rest, or you can ignore it and
make fun of the rest. i guess i know which choice you prefer.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <cycleam-1702...@kelp248.cruzio.com>, cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
> In article <E5s08...@cruzio.com>, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> > In article <5ea6do$f...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong)
> writes:
>
> > > i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
> > > he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
> > > more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
> > > worse things you could be.
> >
> > for him? To defend his honor? I notice a pattern, here. I post
> > something. Martin disagrees. I reply, then *you* defend him as if
> > you don't think that he is capable of speaking for himself. If I am
> > taking advantage of a mental deficient, let me know and I'll appologize.
> > about Martin .... well, aside from that bicycle fetish -- but, heck,
> > anything behind closed doors is OK with me.
>
> a spade a spade.
As he sees it. Not a problem to me -- it's just that I don't feel any
need to live by his "spades".
> I don't care who it is. If the communication lacks
> precision, Don will tear it to shreds. I've seen him do that with friends
> and colleagues time and again in the bicycle forums. Don't think for a
> moment that U can get away with cliches or words that have not been well
> thought out before they make it to this newsgroup.
Ahh. If I must comply with *precision*, then there just might be a
problem. Precision is possible only in mathematics. Since math is
nothing more than a tool and has no real function in this discussion,
Don can proceede at will, but it will have little meaning to me.
If the discussion is about some guy making the mistake of killing another
person, I see no place for mathematics. That *was* what the discussion
was about, wasn't it?
No -- wait -- it did take a bend revolving around bicycles. How that
happened is not all that clear to me. Did one or both of the prople
involved have a bicycle in or on their car? Did they have a bike
rack on the back of their car? Oh, I know -- at least one of them
(the dead one, I assume) had driven a bicycle at least once in his
life -- making him a better person or something, huh?
> Cicero once said that reading maketh a learned man while writing maketh an
> exact man. Seems that Don only demands such perfection :) I know I feel
> for the man or woman who incurs his wrath........
Interesting. I find that some of his "wrath" is just convoluting the
discussion.
> > > >> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
> > > >> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
> > > >> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a
> kid run
> > > >> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
> > > >> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
> > > >> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
> > > >
> > > >Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
> > > >to you?
> > >
> > > Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
> >
> > Your point? Nevermind -- how 'bout if we let Martin speak for himself?
> > Martin: Speak!
>
> Don is right (he says shaking his head as he wonders if Glen really thinks
> he can do battle with Don and come out ahead.....)
Ah -- the misunderstanding is that I don't *do* battle. I will state a
perspective. Take it or leave it. Wanna win? OK, I proclaim anybody
that wants to discuss anything with me a winner, going in.
Now -- to the point of the kid -- if he was either irrational or insane
when he did this dreadful thing, how do you suggest that it be remedied?
If he wasn't irrational or insane, what caused this behavior?
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5eba8f$m...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> In article <E5s08...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
> >In article <5ea6do$f...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> >> Glen, look at his .sig, he is a writer although i think he mainly
> >> writes nonfiction. you may not like what he writes, but at least he
> >> puts it on the line by writing his sincere beliefs instead of trying
> >> to turn everything into a joke. i've noticed that YOU generally
> >> ignore serious challenges to your own beliefs. you don't seem to have
> >> the guts to honestly state your opinions and then defend them with
> >> facts and reason.
> >> it's funny, i don't think you used to be that way, i remember you
> >> posted some pretty controversial stuff awhile back about homelessness.
> >> but nowadays you apparently just want to be the class clown.
> >
> >Gosh -- there is only one way to be? Shit! I'm sorry Don. See, I
> >didn't read that anywhere.
>
> that's right Glen, you sure didn't read it in anything I wrote.
> so what the hell are you yammering about?
Your comment:
> >> ... you may not like what he writes, but at least he
> >> puts it on the line by writing his sincere beliefs instead of trying
> >> to turn everything into a joke. i've noticed that YOU generally
> >> ignore serious challenges to your own beliefs. you don't seem to have
> >> the guts to honestly state your opinions and then defend them with
> >> facts and reason.
Any more questions? Don't hesitate to ask.
> >I didn't know that it was my personal responsibility to convert the
> >world to my way of thinking. The way that I see it, I see things a
> >certain way. It may work -- it may not. Getting into a pissing
> >contest is not gonna do much to improve anything, is it? If somebody
> >sees something differently from the way I see it, I'm quite comfortable
> >letting them state it. You apprently want me to to convince them
> >that the are all wrong.
>
> nah, i just want you (or anyone) to state your beliefs honestly
> and not try to hide behind phony humor when challenged. or if you
> don't have the guts to do that, at least don't RIDICULE those who do.
Another example of the above.
So I can only do things the way that Don wants me to? Kool! Lay my
life out for me, Don, cuz I'm getting pretty bored with the way it
is. In fact, I look *so* fondly on the days of being a kid when there
was always somebody there to tell me how to think and feel and behave.
Gee -- maybe I shouldn't have parted company with the air farce after
only 13 months. They coulda been my "Don". Now, apparently, I'm gonna
have to depend on you. I sure hope that you are up to it, Uncle Don.
And I sure hope that your life is in awfully good shape, cuz if it's
not, you trying to tell me how to behave is gonna be kinda hollow,
isn't it?
BTW, there isn't much about my humor that is phoney at all. I use
humor to give pleasure. If it doesn't work that way for you, please
don't read it.
> >Shit, Don! That assumes that I'm right,
> >they are wrong and simply dumping data on them will convince them
> >of my godlike superiority. I'll pass on that, thanks.
>
> you are getting more off the wall by the minute.
You clearly expect something from me that you are not getting.
> >I'm comfortable discussing almost anything, as long as it is congenial.
>
> that's odd, your remarks to Martin didn't sound too congenial.
LOL!! OK, Don. Relative to his suggested desire that Tortulli (Tortillini?)
serve time in prison for making a mistake, I thought that my comments were
quite congenial.
> >When I find a *ruler* in the conversation, I'm outta there and taking
> >my dust with me.
>
> relax Glen, no one's trying to RULE you. this is USENET.
> no one CAN rule you.
I am unconcerned with anybody trying to rule me. Where *did* you get
that?
> i'm just "disagreeing" with you. got a problem
> with that?
Nope -- disagreement noted. And, now?
> >If thes is a problem for you, check with others to figure out how to
> >use your killfiles. I figure that if I keep doing what I like, I'm
> >gonna be in a *lot* of killfiles. Be the first on your block.
>
> killfile? where'd you get that idea? i don't have a problem
> with reading your drivel and shooting it down. if you can't stand
> being shot down, then maybe YOU'RE the one who needs a killfile.
Shoot away, Donny Ringo! Except, to hit the target, it kinda makes
sense to me that one actually aim *at the target*. To take a discussion
about this legal case and turn it into a discussion of bicycles is
kinda bizarre....but, ah, well, if one feels a strong need to win, I
guess that they would have to distort and twist, huh?
> >> i've met Martin a few times (at bike rallies and such), and IMHO
> >> he is about the same in person. although i think he speaks a little
> >> more coherently than he writes. definitely a bike zealot. there are
> >> worse things you could be.
> >
> >Does he need or did he ask for you to stand up for him?
>
> nope. i don't need his permission, nor do i need yours.
> it's called free speech. really, i wasn't really aware of
> "standing up for" Martin, so much as just wanting to shoot down
> some bogus arguments which happened to be posted by you about Martin.
I posted bogus arguments about Martin? What might those have been?
> >To speak for him? To defend his honor? I notice a pattern, here.
>
> oh ho. does it bother you? why? if there is a valid argument
> on Martin's side, what does it matter whether i bring it up first
> or Martin? what are you afraid of? you want a private chat with
> Martin, with no one else allowed to join in? wake up Glen, that aint
> the way USENET works nohow. if you want to go one-on-one with
> Martin, take it to email. whatever you post here is fair game.
>
> it's funny... i think i notice a pattern here too... you don't
> complain about followups that are complimentary or humorous, no matter
> who does it. but let someone post a serious challenging followup,
> and you go nuts. you start snivelling about people trying to RULE you.
> quite ironic too, considering how you seem to be appealing to some
> kind of RULE that would let you pick on Martin without others having
> the right to join in.
Join away -- just keep in mind that I own a car (actually a few of them).
Oh, golly! Would that be considered a *threat*?
I was *picking* on poor Martin? Gosh -- if that's the case, I should be
thrashed with a rusty bicycle spoke.
> >I post
> >something. Martin disagrees. I reply, then *you* defend him as if
> >you don't think that he is capable of speaking for himself. If I am
> >taking advantage of a mental deficient, let me know and I'll appologize.
>
> nah, it's just that Martin's too nice a guy to say the things that
> i think need to be said.
Yes he is. Gosh -- I feel like shit for having taken advantage of poor
Martin.
> but let me ask you this. does it matter whether he is a mental
> deficient? are you saying it would be OK to take advantage of someone
> who is NOT a mental deficient? why are you trying to take advantage
> of anyone in the first place? you who claimed to have SO MUCH MORE
> compassion. call.
And the phone number of your drug dealer is:?
> >I didn't get the impression that there was anything mentally deficient
> >about Martin .... well, aside from that bicycle fetish -- but, heck,
> >anything behind closed doors is OK with me.
>
> Glen this is a public newsgroup, and if you don't want other
> people to comment on it when you gratuitously insult Martin or
> anyone else, that's just TOUGH LUCK.
And my insult would have been:?
> note that anyone is free
> to join in on your side too. maybe even Martin himself will weigh
> in your side, for all i know. (:-)
>
> here's something else to think about. you don't seem to like
> the points i am making on Martin's behalf. you seem to regard
> them as being stronger points than Martin would have made himself.
Actually, I don't remember anything that you said that was relevant
to the discussion of the case.
> which suggests that you really do think he is mentally deficient.
> which suggests that you really do get a kick out of picking on
> mentally deficient people. please tell me i'm wrong. please tell
> me why else you object to valid arguments being made on his behalf.
Nope -- you are right. I *do* enjoy picking on mentally deficient
people. In fact, my life revolves around that. Hell, that's clear
from just reading any 2 of my posts (selected at random).
I only object to people presuming to speak *for* someone else. I
prefer to have direct conversations.
> >> >> Btw: To those that do not think this sets a dangerous precedent: Did
> >> >> anyone see the blurb in last week's Sentinel about the high number of car
> >> >> driving run ins that have taken place on 17 recently? I just had a kid run
> >> >> me off the road and then try to back into me in downtown SC on Fri. As I
> >> >> was headed for the police dept to report him, he shouted out the window
> >> >> that he wasn't worried his dad's a cop..........
> >> >
> >> >Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
> >> >to you?
> >>
> >> Glen, he didn't say the kid was perfectly rational and sane.
> >
> >Your point? Nevermind -- how 'bout if we let Martin speak for himself?
>
> hey Glen, do you imagine i'm somehow preventing Martin from
> speaking for himself? i'm not putting any words in Martin's mouth.
> i'm simply pointing out the holes in your arguments. i'll give you
> a hint. when i ask a question or make a point, its vailidity does
> not depend on who said it, be it me or Martin or the man in the moon.
If you ask a question or make a point that is relevant to the conversation,
it makes sense.
> >Martin: Speak!
>
> he probably will, when he gets around to it. be patient.
> ya know, i don't think he spends all day sitting in front the computer.
>
> >> >Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
> >>
> >> if you're a fan of Martin's writing, why don't you read his book.
> >> then come back and tell us again how *much more* compassion you have.
> >
> >I am interested in Martin's ability to convert anybody who drives a
> >car into the great, ugly AUOTMONSTER.
>
> now YOU are the one who's putting words in Martin's mouth.
> why don't YOU let him speak for himself? or if you are interested
> in a philosophical discussion of the issues, try reading jeffl's
> comments a few posts back, where he partially agreed with Martin.
Wow! Well, *that* convinces me! I am now on my knees, asking for
your forgiveness.
> now here is my 2c. the automobile gives the driver a sense
> of power; and power corrupts. it does make (many) people more
> aggressive. the auto insulates the driver in a cocoon of comfort
> safety and power, while threatening anything that gets in its path,
> and poisoning the earth. IMHO whenever people are shielded and
> disconnected from the consequences of their actions (as is the case
> with the driver in a car) it will lead to irresponsibility. of
> course it influences different people to a different degree.
> there is some truth in what Martin said. the same goes for a lot
> of people, actually. sometimes wisdom comes from the mouth of a fool.
You have said many wise things here, Don. Thanks.
> you can either take that and leave the rest, or you can ignore it and
> make fun of the rest. i guess i know which choice you prefer.
Good! Then I need not reply further.
Don Fong
In article <concolorE...@netcom.com>,
Felis Concolor <conc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>>Eric Smith [see .sig] <Ihat...@address.fake> wrote:
>
>>>Huh? As I recall, pretty much the opposite was true. Up until a few
>>>hundred years ago, nearly every crime was a capital crime.
>
>pretty offensive.
only ``can be''? is there any way to make sure?!
Don Fong
In article <E5tH7...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>In article <E5tFv...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) writes:
>> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
>> >> I think child molesters
>> >> deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
>> >> things I think ought to be done to them).
>>
>> >No matter what causes them to do what they do?
>>
>> damaged, and should be neutralized to keep them from damaging any others. The
>> only way to neutralize them effectively is to kill them.
>
>A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
>(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
>If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
>of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
>chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
PMFJI, but i don't think that's a logical conclusion at all.
she said kill the child molesters, not the POTENTIAL child molesters.
>Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
>would think that's a good idea.
hmmm, i think i notice a pattern here. someone says something
that may be quite reasonable, and you apply your peculiar brand of
"logic" to draw some extreme conclusion. you then proceed to argue
simplistically against your own made-up fallacies instead of
grappling with the complexity of the reasonable statements actually
made by the other person.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <E5tFv...@cruzio.com>, melp...@cruzio.com (melp...@cruzio.com) writes:
> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
> [I wrote]
> >> I think child molesters
> >> deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
> >> things I think ought to be done to them).
>
> >No matter what causes them to do what they do?
>
> You betcha. I don't care what causes them to do what they do. They are
> damaged, and should be neutralized to keep them from damaging any others. The
> only way to neutralize them effectively is to kill them.
A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
would think that's a good idea.
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
leep
In article <5ed9ud$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) says:
>
>In article <E5tH7...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
>>> [I wrote]
>>> >> I think child molesters
>>> >> deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
>>> >> things I think ought to be done to them).
>>>
>>> >No matter what causes them to do what they do?
>>>
>>> You betcha. I don't care what causes them to do what they do. They are
>>> damaged, and should be neutralized to keep them from damaging any others. The
>>> only way to neutralize them effectively is to kill them.
>>
>>A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
>>(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
>>If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
>>of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
>>chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
>
>she said kill the child molesters, not the POTENTIAL child molesters.
>
>>would think that's a good idea.
>
>that may be quite reasonable, and you apply your peculiar brand of
>"logic" to draw some extreme conclusion. you then proceed to argue
>simplistically against your own made-up fallacies instead of
>grappling with the complexity of the reasonable statements actually
>made by the other person.
>
Love them $.50 woids. LEE
melp...@cruzio.com
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
[I wrote]
>> I think child molesters
>> deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
>> things I think ought to be done to them).
>No matter what causes them to do what they do?
You betcha. I don't care what causes them to do what they do. They are
damaged, and should be neutralized to keep them from damaging any others. The
only way to neutralize them effectively is to kill them.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
Laura Dolson
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:04:41 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
>(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
>If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
>of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
>chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
Um, just because a very large percentage of molesters were molested,
it doesn't mean that a very large percentage of the molested go on to
be perpetrators.
I don't think that the idea you proposed follows at all naturally from
what Mel said.
A very large percentage of molesters drank milk as a child. Which has
about the same amount of relevance to the discussion.
>Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
>would think that's a good idea.
Jeez, Glen, obviously, NO ONE would think that's a good idea. It's
not clear to me why you threw that in.
Laura
"Once you cede control over your life to public opinion polls,
you no longer have the capacity to make intelligent or moral
decisions." --- Mark Dolson
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <33114532....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:04:41 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> >A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
> >(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
> >If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
> >of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
> >chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
>
> Um, just because a very large percentage of molesters were molested,
> it doesn't mean that a very large percentage of the molested go on to
> be perpetrators.
>
> I don't think that the idea you proposed follows at all naturally from
> what Mel said.
>
> A very large percentage of molesters drank milk as a child. Which has
> about the same amount of relevance to the discussion.
My point was statistical -- the milk drinking is a strawman.
There is a reason that *some* don't molest as adults. One theory that I
tend to favor is called the One Person theory. It suggests that the ones
that don't molest had at least one person in their lives that convinced
them that they were still good and valuable.
> >Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
> >would think that's a good idea.
>
> Jeez, Glen, obviously, NO ONE would think that's a good idea. It's
> not clear to me why you threw that in.
To show where a "killemall" argument could logically go.
Steve Premo
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:26:36 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>In article <5eba8f$m...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
>> >> nowadays you apparently just want to be the class clown.
>> >
>So I can only do things the way that Don wants me to? Kool! Lay my
>life out for me, Don, cuz I'm getting pretty bored with the way it
>is. In fact, I look *so* fondly on the days of being a kid when there
>was always somebody there to tell me how to think and feel and behave.
He's doing it again! Quick, somebody stop him before it's too late!
-
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Laura Dolson
Well, this is silly, but since you insist on carrying on with it...
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:32:19 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>In article <33114532....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:04:41 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>>
>> >A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
>> >(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
>> >If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
>> >of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
>> >chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
>>
>> Um, just because a very large percentage of molesters were molested,
>> it doesn't mean that a very large percentage of the molested go on to
>> be perpetrators.
>>
>> I don't think that the idea you proposed follows at all naturally from
>> what Mel said.
>>
>> A very large percentage of molesters drank milk as a child. Which has
>> about the same amount of relevance to the discussion.
>
>My point was statistical -- the milk drinking is a strawman.
Heh, well, don't let that stop you from answering my statistical
response a couple of paragraphs above. Depending on the definition,
something like 20-30 percent of children are molested in some way.
Some percentage of those, probably not a majority, go on to molest
others. There are all kinds of theories as to why some do and some
don't, and there's nothing definitive at this point.
The milk drinking part was not meant to be statistical. It was meant
to be my opinion of how helpful your point was to the discussion.
>There is a reason that *some* don't molest as adults. One theory that I
>tend to favor is called the One Person theory. It suggests that the ones
>that don't molest had at least one person in their lives that convinced
>them that they were still good and valuable.
That's true, though it doesn't at all just hold for molest. That
situation probably has a hand in why a lot of kids with crummy
childhoods, molest or not, make it to become productive adults. But
even if it is necessary (jury is out), it's not sufficient, in a
general sense.
>> >Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
>> >would think that's a good idea.
>>
>> Jeez, Glen, obviously, NO ONE would think that's a good idea. It's
>> not clear to me why you threw that in.
>
>To show where a "killemall" argument could logically go.
It's just such as large leap that it has no meaning. If you leap to a
place where no one would ever go...it doesn't further the discussion,
IMO.
But time will tell whether it will or won't.
Doug Landauer
You know you've been getting too much spam when...
> To show where a "killemall" argument could logically go.
I saw that word as "kill e-mail"...
--
Doug Landauer land...@apple.com (work)
land...@scruznet.com (not-work)
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <33133121....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
> Well, this is silly, but since you insist on carrying on with it...
I don't think that the subject is silly at all -- I will readily agree
that my treatment of it appears to be so; but I hope to be able to
remedy that.
> On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:32:19 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
> >In article <33114532....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:04:41 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
> >> >A very large percentage of molesters admitted to being molested as children.
> >> >(I suspect that this is true for virtually all of them, but have no proof)
> >> >If one were to take what you said to its logical conclusion, it might be
> >> >of value to just kill any kid who was molested, before they ever got a
> >> >chance to molest (or not) as an adult.
> >>
> >> Um, just because a very large percentage of molesters were molested,
> >> it doesn't mean that a very large percentage of the molested go on to
> >> be perpetrators.
Ture enough, but why?
If the cause is something like magic, then we are all doomed to stupidity.
I don't believe that for a second.
> >> I don't think that the idea you proposed follows at all naturally from
> >> what Mel said.
> >>
> >> A very large percentage of molesters drank milk as a child. Which has
> >> about the same amount of relevance to the discussion.
> >
> >My point was statistical -- the milk drinking is a strawman.
>
> Heh, well, don't let that stop you from answering my statistical
> response a couple of paragraphs above. Depending on the definition,
> something like 20-30 percent of children are molested in some way.
The number *may* be much higher than that, but I'm willing to go with
it.
> Some percentage of those, probably not a majority, go on to molest
> others. There are all kinds of theories as to why some do and some
> don't, and there's nothing definitive at this point.
>
> The milk drinking part was not meant to be statistical. It was meant
> to be my opinion of how helpful your point was to the discussion.
As I said, that line about killing all victims of molest was an
extreem -- intended only to get attention of an attitude that
concerns me: the attitude that, if someone makes a mistake or
acts in a way that is harmful to others for reasons beyond their
practical control, we should simply off them.
Do keep in mind that I *do* understand and sympthise with people who
feel this way about molestors. I'm not, even for a second, suggesting
that they are not justified in feeling this way. My concern is only that
if enough people say this and say it loudly enough, some lawmaker is
gonna pass a law to implement it. *That* would concern me a *great* deal.
> >There is a reason that *some* don't molest as adults. One theory that I
> >tend to favor is called the One Person theory. It suggests that the ones
> >that don't molest had at least one person in their lives that convinced
> >them that they were still good and valuable.
>
> That's true, though it doesn't at all just hold for molest. That
> situation probably has a hand in why a lot of kids with crummy
> childhoods, molest or not, make it to become productive adults. But
> even if it is necessary (jury is out), it's not sufficient, in a
> general sense.
I don't understand what you are saying, here. I understand the first
sentence and the begining of the second.
> >> >Now, *I* don't think that's a good idea and I'm not saying that you
> >> >would think that's a good idea.
> >>
> >> Jeez, Glen, obviously, NO ONE would think that's a good idea. It's
> >> not clear to me why you threw that in.
> >
> >To show where a "killemall" argument could logically go.
>
> It's just such as large leap that it has no meaning. If you leap to a
> place where no one would ever go...it doesn't further the discussion,
> IMO.
>
> But time will tell whether it will or won't.
Let me try to lay it out (I'm not sure how clear this will be, so
please be patient with me):
If one's attitude is to simply kill molestors; and most (if not all)
molestors are molesting because they were molested (and a number of
other reasons steming from this); might it make sense to eliminate all
molestors *before* they molest?
Otherwise, all that we are doing is *reducing* the number of kids that
are molested. That has benefit, but it's kinda like saying that it's
OK/acceptable/tolerable/inevitable for *some* kids to be molested.
OTOH, if a molested kid can be averted from molesting by simply convincing
them that they are *not* bad, but have value; why can't exactly the same
thing be done for adults?
The reason, at present, is partially due to the punitive attitude about
molestors that is *so* common.
Rather than typing an entire book, here, I'll just stop at this point
and see how it goes over.
<slippin' into my Nomex suit>
Laura Dolson
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:07:51 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>In article <33133121....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
>> Well, this is silly, but since you insist on carrying on with it...
>
>I don't think that the subject is silly at all -- I will readily agree
>that my treatment of it appears to be so; but I hope to be able to
>remedy that.
and
>As I said, that line about killing all victims of molest was an
>extreem -- intended only to get attention of an attitude that
>concerns me: the attitude that, if someone makes a mistake or
>acts in a way that is harmful to others for reasons beyond their
>practical control, we should simply off them.
OK, I'm concerned about that attitude, too. See, now you've got my
attention. :-)
>Do keep in mind that I *do* understand and sympthise with people who
>feel this way about molestors. I'm not, even for a second, suggesting
>that they are not justified in feeling this way. My concern is only that
>if enough people say this and say it loudly enough, some lawmaker is
>gonna pass a law to implement it. *That* would concern me a *great* deal.
Yes, and me too, although I can't imagine that we are very close to
that.
It's a very complex issue. We are just beginning to get glimmers into
causes and preventions of molest - for most of human history it was
just something brushed under the carpet. Now it's finally coming into
the light, and it hard to sort out the emerging facts from the strong
feelings.
I forget, how did we get from "road rage" to molest, anyway?
Laura
Jeff Liebermann
John J. Ackermann (johnmann...@juno.com) wrote:
: REAL men used abacuses! :)
: (abacii?)
: John J. Ackermann
I had one of them abacus things when I was about 1 year
old. It was made from colorful wooden beads and a wooden
frame. (The modern ones are brightly colored plastic).
I mastered the art of abacus throwing which later became
useful practice for the alarm clock toss, the calculator
toss, the S100 bus toss, and the current XT and 286 toss.
I never did learn to use it for calculation.
On the wall, in the upstairs (loft) offices at Erik's
DeliCafe in Harvey West park, is a large abacus made
from plastic immitation McIntosh apples. This was
Erik's first "Apple Computer" and was (I vaguely recall)
a present from his father.
Drivel: I still use my K&E slide rule.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <33167313....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:07:51 GMT, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> >In article <33133121....@news.cruzio.com>, dol...@cruzio.com (Laura Dolson) writes:
> >> Well, this is silly, but since you insist on carrying on with it...
> >
> >I don't think that the subject is silly at all -- I will readily agree
> >that my treatment of it appears to be so; but I hope to be able to
> >remedy that.
>
> and
>
> >As I said, that line about killing all victims of molest was an
> >extreem -- intended only to get attention of an attitude that
> >concerns me: the attitude that, if someone makes a mistake or
> >acts in a way that is harmful to others for reasons beyond their
> >practical control, we should simply off them.
>
> OK, I'm concerned about that attitude, too. See, now you've got my
> attention. :-)
>
> >Do keep in mind that I *do* understand and sympthise with people who
> >feel this way about molestors. I'm not, even for a second, suggesting
> >that they are not justified in feeling this way. My concern is only that
> >if enough people say this and say it loudly enough, some lawmaker is
> >gonna pass a law to implement it. *That* would concern me a *great* deal.
>
> Yes, and me too, although I can't imagine that we are very close to
> that.
Well, I sort of agree, except I keep remembering history -- fairly
recent history: The Nazis in Germany, The Red Scare and the War on
Drugs in this country. I see politicians that want to make a name
for themselves jumping on any emotional chord that resonates among
many. Can you say "Pete Wilson? I knew you could.
> It's a very complex issue. We are just beginning to get glimmers into
> causes and preventions of molest - for most of human history it was
> just something brushed under the carpet. Now it's finally coming into
> the light, and it hard to sort out the emerging facts from the strong
> feelings.
Well, actually, it was accepted, to a large degree until only about
100 years ago.
> I forget, how did we get from "road rage" to molest, anyway?
Got DeJaNews? By convoluting the convolutions intil the convolutions
are so convoluted that .... I dunno.
Harrison Page
>OTOH, if a molested kid can be averted from molesting by simply convincing
>them that they are *not* bad, but have value; why can't exactly the same
>thing be done for adults?
Most sex offenders only seek treatment to avoid prison. Successful
psychiatric treatment requires participants, not recipients. The
difference between sociopaths that were simply incarcerated and
those subjected to treatment is statistically negligible. The more
violent the offense, the more likely it is to be repeated. Offenders
seek higher levels of stimulation and do not outgrow their behavior.
Sexual predators can't be rehabilitated. We have the choice of the
death penalty or a life sentence without possibility of parole.
..Harrison
(who didn't even, oh, nevermind)
Don Fong
In article <E5t4C...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>So I can only do things the way that Don wants me to? Kool! Lay my
>life out for me, Don, cuz I'm getting pretty bored with the way it
>is. In fact, I look *so* fondly on the days of being a kid when there
>was always somebody there to tell me how to think and feel and behave.
Glen, no one is telling you how to behave, ruling you, or whatever.
this is simply a disagreement. i think i have noticed a pattern here.
when Glen disagrees with someone, Glen is being an free thinker; but
when someone disagrees with Glen, that someone is being authoritarian.
so go ahead and post whatever drivel you want. but if you post
sh*t to this newsgroup, be prepared to receive sh*t in return.
i'm not telling you what to do. i'm telling you what will happen.
you love to dish it out, but you hate to take it. hint: it
might be wise not to dish it out in the first place.
[...]
>BTW, there isn't much about my humor that is phoney at all. I use
>humor to give pleasure. If it doesn't work that way for you, please
>don't read it.
do you really believe that the following statements give
pleasure to anyone?
Glen wrote at various times:
|Hummm. Quite a scenario that you have generated, here. So, in addition
|to being a bike zealot, you are a writer of screenplays and fairy tales?
|You might actually be a real person?
|Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
|to you? Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
|Join away -- just keep in mind that I own a car (actually a few of them).
|Oh, golly! Would that be considered a *threat*?
|Gosh -- I feel like shit for having taken advantage of poor Martin.
[...]
>> >When I find a *ruler* in the conversation, I'm outta there and taking
>> >my dust with me.
>>
>> relax Glen, no one's trying to RULE you. this is USENET.
>> no one CAN rule you.
>
>I am unconcerned with anybody trying to rule me. Where *did* you get
>that?
uh, i got it from quoting you 3 lines above. as though i
couldn't have gotten it from any number of your posts. i can
tell it is a major concern of yours. what's the point of denying it?
[...]
>To take a discussion
>about this legal case and turn it into a discussion of bicycles is
>kinda bizarre....
gee Glen, this must be the first time you OBJECTED to the bizarre.
but is it really so bizarre? the subject line says "road rage".
one of the salient aspects of this case is the role that cars
played in the crime and the verdict. the bicycle is one of the
foremost alternatives to the car. to me it makes a lot of sense
to consider the alternatives when discussing the case.
>but, ah, well, if one feels a strong need to win, I
>guess that they would have to distort and twist, huh?
uh, i don't think Martin was trying to win anything. i suspect
though, that he'd like to be able to ride his bike around town
without having to worry about being run over or shot at. or at least
know that his death would not go unpunished.
[...]
>LOL!! OK, Don. Relative to his suggested desire that Tortulli (Tortillini?)
>serve time in prison for making a mistake, I thought that my comments were
>quite congenial.
yeah, and i thought Martin's remarks were pretty congenial too!
relative to the way Turtucci (sp?) treated Foster.
funny how you have so much COMPASSION for the killer, but so
little for the family and friends of the victim. funny how you try
so hard to imagine any conceivable excuse for the killer; but where
Martin's concerned your imagination is entirely negative. funny how
you worry so much about WHY the killer did what he did, but you have
no curiosity about WHY Martin might think as he does.
JC Dill
FWIW, this is the post that went from road rage to molestors...
so blame it on Mel... <g>
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:11:11 GMT, melp...@cruzio.com
(melp...@cruzio.com) expound upon: "Re: "Road Rage" Acquittal"
>gl...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote (in part):
>
>>Well, maybe is sends some kind of a message -- that the legal system
>>*can* be compassonate, sometimes. There is nothing that can bring
>>Foster back or that can make his family happy. Sending Torturici
>>to prison or to his death would just add another family to the list
>>of bitter, hurt people.
>
>Although I don't think Turturici ought to serve time in prison for killing
>Foster, I do believe that Turturici ought to pay Foster's family. I hope
>Foster's kids get a reasonable award in their civil suit against Turturici.
>
>I'm not advocating a return to the type of justice system Mr. Scripture wrote of
>in his message. However, for this one case, it makes sense for Turturici to
>have to pay something for taking the life of Foster (and thus depriving his
>children, etc.).
>
>>> I'm probably more of a vigilante than most (I think
>>> Ellie Nesler is a hero).
>
>>I understand why she did what she did. I feel great sympathy for her
>>and her son. She did what she felt that she had to do -- she saw no
>>other viable option. I don't think that she should have spent even 20
>>minutes in jail for doing it, but I do not condone that she did it.
>>I feel equally bad about the man that she shot. I don't condone what
>>he did, either.
>
>>His family is suffering, now, too. Were they responsible? Does
>>their suffering improve anything for anybody? Can anybody learn
>>anything when they are suffering?
>
>Well, here's where you and I part company, Glen. I think child molesters
>deserve to be shot (or hung, or lethally injected -- and those are the nicer
>things I think ought to be done to them).
>
>>Geeze, Mel -- it started out as a nice day. I was planning to get
>>some programming done. I read this, this morning and have been kinda
>>bummed by it all day.... well, not bummed, really -- just thinking.
>
>>Any other of my buttons that you are planning to push, tomorrow? %-}
>
>I think I just did.
>
>--Mel
>melp...@cruzio.com
>
>
_____
There is a *typo* in my return address, a spam prevention tactic.
So to email me, figure out the typo and correct it! But...
*Don't* send me ANY commercial email. You *will* regret it.
jc
j.r. pierce [see .sig]
jcd...@ix.netcom.com (JC Dill) wrote:
>FWIW, this is the post that went from road rage to molestors...
Hey, someone mentioned the nazi's a coupla posts ago, so, um, official
scruz.general rules... when the Nazi's are dragged into the
discussion, ITS OVER! DONE. KAPUT. CLOSED.
-jrp
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
if you need to mail me try "pierce at hogranch dot com"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
j.r. pierce [see .sig]
MoreDrivel: My wife got me a slide rule as a joke christmas present,
and I can barely remember how to use it.. sigh... I think I last used
one in high school chemistry and physics, circa 1970.
She found this Fredrick Post "Versatrig 1450" somewheres and HAD to
give it to me.. heh. this thing is actually bamboo (plastic covered,
of course... its made in Japan). Its in remarkably good condition,
even the black holster is in pretty damn good shape.
Scales include... (bottom to top)
Front side, R2, R1, D, C, CI, CIF, CF, DF, K
Back side, DI, D, C, (Cos)S, (SecT)ST, (T)T, A, L
;) Ok, so I figured out how to multiply, and I guess I can compute
logs and sin and cos with it... But, sheesh, I remember being able to
crank thru fairly complex equations faster with one of these then most
folks could bang the numbers into a HP 35. When I got to college, I
was first kid on the block to get a HP 65, and my slide ruling days
were history...
doggiestyle
In article <5eggcp$o...@news.spies.com> harr...@goonsquad.spies.com (Harrison Page) writes:
>Sexual predators can't be rehabilitated. We have the choice of the
>death penalty or a life sentence without possibility of parole.
Example, from the front page of our very own local rag; Larry Singleton,
the guy who raped a teenaged hitchhiker and chopped her hands off, killed
another woman in his apartment. A neighbor saw the naked Singleton in
his kitchen cutting up vegetables, and saw the body of a naked, dead
woman on the floor of the kitchen.
He'd only served 8 years and change for the assault on the teenager. He
was released several years ago to much negative fanfare, as no one wanted
the prick livin' in their 'hood. Last night, their view gained a lot
credibility.
VJ
"They framed me last time, but this time, I did it." *Larry Singleton*
Don Steiny
> Glen, no one is telling you how to behave, ruling you, or whatever.
>this is simply a disagreement. i think i have noticed a pattern here.
>when Glen disagrees with someone, Glen is being an free thinker; but
>when someone disagrees with Glen, that someone is being authoritarian.
The pot calling the kettle black? I have rarely read any
argment by you that was not an appeal to force, common knowledge,
or some such thing.
> so go ahead and post whatever drivel you want. but if you post
>sh*t to this newsgroup, be prepared to receive sh*t in return.
As usual, Don elevates the discussion.
>Glen wrote at various times:
>|Hummm. Quite a scenario that you have generated, here. So, in addition
>|to being a bike zealot, you are a writer of screenplays and fairy tales?
>|You might actually be a real person?
>|Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
>|to you? Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
>|Join away -- just keep in mind that I own a car (actually a few of them).
>|Oh, golly! Would that be considered a *threat*?
>|Gosh -- I feel like shit for having taken advantage of poor Martin.
All funny stuff. You are humor impared, Don. They have
medications for that now. They'll even make you feel a little less
pissed off about everything.
-don
--
Don Steiny - ste...@infopoint.com - http://www.infopoint.com/
InfoPoint, Inc. - voice 1+(408) 471-1671 - fax: 1+(408) 471-1670
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5eggcp$o...@news.spies.com>, harr...@goonsquad.spies.com (Harrison Page) writes:
> In article <E5v6H...@cruzio.com> gl...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>
> >OTOH, if a molested kid can be averted from molesting by simply convincing
> >them that they are *not* bad, but have value; why can't exactly the same
> >thing be done for adults?
>
> Most sex offenders only seek treatment to avoid prison. Successful
> psychiatric treatment requires participants, not recipients. The
> difference between sociopaths that were simply incarcerated and
> those subjected to treatment is statistically negligible. The more
> violent the offense, the more likely it is to be repeated. Offenders
> seek higher levels of stimulation and do not outgrow their behavior.
>
> death penalty or a life sentence without possibility of parole.
I would tend to agree with all of this, based on common treatment methods,
today and (as I had mentioned in another post) socital attitudes.
There is a form of therapy that *does* tend to work, but is seldom
used undistorted. Maybe because it is too simple and maybe because
most people who become therapists, do so to try to solve their own
problems. The method that I am refering to was developed in the
30's by Carl Rogers.
It tends to get past all of the imposed views and feelings and gets
the person back to the *basic* person -- what they were before the
impositions. This form of therapy is very much unlike most of what
is practiced, today. The comments that I get back from people that
I have refered to a Rogerian therapist are along the lines of "WOW!
I never knew it could be like this!". Quite a pleasent experience
by comparison to most other forms of therapy.
> ..Harrison
> (who didn't even, oh, nevermind)
Thank you. *I* appreciate it.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <330bebe1....@news.concentric.net>, jcd...@ix.netcom.com (JC Dill) writes:
> FWIW, this is the post that went from road rage to molestors...
>
Well, she wasn't alone. I could have ignored it. The subject has too
much meaning to me to be able to do that, readily, though.
Don Fong
In article <5eistu$e...@news.scruz.net>, Don Steiny <steiny@infopoint> wrote:
>> Glen, no one is telling you how to behave, ruling you, or whatever.
>>this is simply a disagreement. i think i have noticed a pattern here.
>>when Glen disagrees with someone, Glen is being an free thinker; but
>>when someone disagrees with Glen, that someone is being authoritarian.
>
> The pot calling the kettle black? I have rarely read any
>argment by you that was not an appeal to force, common knowledge,
>or some such thing.
once again Steiny makes broad accusations without providing even
a single example. just his own jaundiced perceptions cloaked in
language that is forceful, but vague enough to be ultimately meaningless.
"appeal to force" or "some such thing"? what the hell is he talking about?
i note Steiny's wonderfully misleading language. he says "I have rarely
read [something]". of course, that doesn't mean that it REALLY IS rare,
it just means he rarely chose to read it. or maybe he just didn't
understand it.
>> so go ahead and post whatever drivel you want. but if you post
>>sh*t to this newsgroup, be prepared to receive sh*t in return.
>
> As usual, Don elevates the discussion.
i try.
>>Glen wrote at various times:
>>|Hummm. Quite a scenario that you have generated, here. So, in addition
>>|to being a bike zealot, you are a writer of screenplays and fairy tales?
>>|You might actually be a real person?
>>|Now why would some otherwise perfectly rational and sane person do that
>>|to you? Remember to make it good -- you have a readership, here.
>>|Join away -- just keep in mind that I own a car (actually a few of them).
>>|Oh, golly! Would that be considered a *threat*?
>>|Gosh -- I feel like shit for having taken advantage of poor Martin.
>
> All funny stuff. You are humor impared, Don. They have
>medications for that now. They'll even make you feel a little less
>pissed off about everything.
yeah Steiny these things are funny as long as the victim is
someone else. you have a great sense of humor all right. too
bad it's so one-sided.
hmmm... i seem to remember you complaining about reckless and
impolite bicyclists in the past. i don't remember you LAUGHING about
the possibility of being run over by them. you think it's FUNNY to
JOKE about bicyclists being run over by cars? that's what i mean by
one-sided humor.
you have complained about Martin being "humorless". but by
saying that, you only reveal your own inability to appreciate Martin's
sense of humor. surprise, surprise. that's what i mean by one-sided
humor. and speaking of Martin, did you ever apologize to him for all
the INSULTS, TAUNTS, and just plain MEANNESS you directed at him, all
based on your mistaking him for someone else? when you said you
deliberatedly taunted him because you thought it was FUNNY.
Steiny you're about as funny as a crutch. i know you're laughing
as you read this, since you have such a great sense of humor. stop
yer whining. crawl back under your rock until you have something
original to say. (:-) (:-) are you laughing yet?
Don Steiny
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> hmmm... i seem to remember you complaining about reckless and
>impolite bicyclists in the past. i don't remember you LAUGHING about
>the possibility of being run over by them. you think it's FUNNY to
>JOKE about bicyclists being run over by cars? that's what i mean by
>one-sided humor.
It is *really* funny. The more dead militant bicycle nuts the
better as far as I am concerned. Remember how upset you got when
I said "kill 'em all and let got sort it out?" Hey, hey. Love it.
> Steiny you're about as funny as a crutch. i know you're laughing
>as you read this, since you have such a great sense of humor. stop
>yer whining. crawl back under your rock until you have something
>original to say. (:-) (:-) are you laughing yet?
As a crutch? You have some bias against handicapped people?
It is sooo easy to yank your chain. If someday I read about
Don Fong going postal and wiping out a bunch of people I won't be one
bit surprised. You remind me of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers. I
picture you having a fit, stomping about in rage and trying to control
yourself but being utterly unable because you are really a comic actor
and not a real person.
I really do laugh at you Don, and when you write stuff like above
it is even funnier.
Don Steiny
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> you have complained about Martin being "humorless". but by
>saying that, you only reveal your own inability to appreciate Martin's
>sense of humor. surprise, surprise. that's what i mean by one-sided
>humor. and speaking of Martin, did you ever apologize to him for all
>the INSULTS, TAUNTS, and just plain MEANNESS you directed at him, all
>based on your mistaking him for someone else? when you said you
>deliberatedly taunted him because you thought it was FUNNY.
I did not mistake him for someone else. I like Martin.
I also taunted you and Erin, and so did a number of others. You take
everything so seriously it is easy. Erin works for me sometime and
we are friends. He told me that he though the whole exchange was fun.
I think it is funny the way you react to so many things by getting
pissed off. It's pretty weird, you are one of a kind. If I troll
and you take the bait, well . . . I was lucky this time, you really
flipped out. You are a natural resource of scruz.general.
Don Fong
In article <5eld2f$m...@news.scruz.net>, Don Steiny <steiny@infopoint> wrote:
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> It is *really* funny. The more dead militant bicycle nuts the
>better as far as I am concerned. Remember how upset you got when
>I said "kill 'em all and let got sort it out?" Hey, hey. Love it.
hey sherlock, that wasn't me. as if you cared about accuracy.
it didn't upset me at all, because i know you're a troll.
> It is sooo easy to yank your chain. If someday I read about
>Don Fong going postal and wiping out a bunch of people I won't be one
>bit surprised. You remind me of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers. I
>picture you having a fit, stomping about in rage and trying to control
>yourself but being utterly unable because you are really a comic actor
>and not a real person.
picture all you want. your fantasies have no basis in reality.
instead they seem to be based on prejudices and mis-attributions.
i could make up all sorts of degrading things happening to you too.
but there are better uses for one's imagination.
> I really do laugh at you Don, and when you write stuff like above
>it is even funnier.
Steiny you claim to have such a great appreciation of humor,
do you ever post anything humorous yourself? your idea of humor
seems to be limited to putdowns and cheap shots.
do you ever say anything original? your last 2 posts have been
a mish-mosh of tired cliches. Steiny, i know you're a smart guy.
you can do better that that.
you never did apologize to Martin, did you?
Don Fong
In article <5ele1j$m...@news.scruz.net>, Don Steiny <steiny@infopoint> wrote:
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
>>saying that, you only reveal your own inability to appreciate Martin's
>>sense of humor. surprise, surprise. that's what i mean by one-sided
>>humor. and speaking of Martin, did you ever apologize to him for all
>>the INSULTS, TAUNTS, and just plain MEANNESS you directed at him, all
>>based on your mistaking him for someone else? when you said you
>>deliberatedly taunted him because you thought it was FUNNY.
>
> I did not mistake him for someone else. I like Martin.
you explained that you were taunting him because of something
he said, but it turned out that he wasn't the one who said it.
it was someone else.
>I also taunted you and Erin, and so did a number of others. You take
>everything so seriously it is easy. Erin works for me sometime and
>we are friends. He told me that he though the whole exchange was fun.
did Martin say it was fun? i don't think it's fun to taunt people
or to be taunted. i do think people who do it and enjoy it are sick.
look, if you are going to have fun at someone else's expense, it would
be only decent to ask his permission first.
> I think it is funny the way you react to so many things by getting
>pissed off. It's pretty weird, you are one of a kind. If I troll
>and you take the bait, well . . . I was lucky this time, you really
>flipped out.
you're the one who's gone off the deep end Steiny. no, i'm not
"flipped out", "pissed off", or even annoyed. i'm just astonished.
it astonishes me that you care so little for your reputation. your
posts appear to be written by to be someone who has no integrity.
what's next? are you going to start forging posts?
>You are a natural resource of scruz.general.
i remember a few months ago you challenged me to "take the high
road". i think that is good advice all around. i always do try to
take the high road, although sometimes you make it difficult.
USENET is a medium that can be used to enlighten, entertain, and
enrich. it is a sorry person who sees it only as a forum to belittle
and bedevil others. echoing Glen, i have to wonder what made you
such a mean and bitter person as you seem to be. no, you're not
hurting me one bit. but i can tell you want to. why? have i
wronged you in some way?
i have seen you write some very thought-provoking and insightful
posts. but your last few have been utter drivel, your "humor" level
has sunk to pre-adolescent. do you get a kick out of going up to
people's houses and ringing the doorbell then running away?
i know you can do better than that. i challenge you also to take the
high road. to put your wit, talent, and education to some higher use
than trying to hurt people.
Daniel D Scripture
In article <E5yKu...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>There is a form of therapy that *does* tend to work, but is seldom
>used undistorted. Maybe because it is too simple and maybe because
>most people who become therapists, do so to try to solve their own
>problems. The method that I am refering to was developed in the
>30's by Carl Rogers.
>
>It tends to get past all of the imposed views and feelings and gets
>the person back to the *basic* person -- what they were before the
>impositions. This form of therapy is very much unlike most of what
>is practiced, today. The comments that I get back from people that
>I have refered to a Rogerian therapist are along the lines of "WOW!
>I never knew it could be like this!". Quite a pleasent experience
>by comparison to most other forms of therapy.
>
Students was a Rogerian therapist by trade, and in my sophomore year,
when the college was opening some new dorms one fall before they were
quite finished (a common practice in the 60s, to accomodate all the
boomers) some mother who had just delivered her kid to college asked
said Dean where the women's restroom was (the signs weren't on the
doors yet, although the restrooms were finished), he said, so help
me, "Where would you like it to be?" Definitely gets past all the
imposed views, but not much use to someone who needs to take a leak as
soon as possible. 30+ years later, my scepticism about Rogerians
remains.
Dan
Reverend
(Don Fong) writes:
* USENET is a medium that can be used to enlighten, entertain, and
* enrich. it is a sorry person who sees it only as a forum to belittle
* and bedevil others. echoing Glen, i have to wonder what made you
* such a mean and bitter person as you seem to be. no, you're not
* hurting me one bit. but i can tell you want to. why? have i
* wronged you in some way?
I think its a kind of "Lord of the Flies" syndrome. I understand
completely why so many people drop in on the newsgroups for awhile and
then give them up permanently. Its the same kind of nastiness that
prevails in the boys locker rooms in high school.
Don Steiny wrote...
*
* I did not mistake him for someone else. I like Martin.
* I also taunted you and Erin, and so did a number of others. You take
* everything so seriously it is easy. Erin works for me sometime and
* we are friends. He told me that he though the whole exchange was fun.
Well, it stands to reason that if he works for you, he might not want to
say that he thought the exchange sucked.
(Don Fong) writes:
* i have seen you write some very thought-provoking and insightful
* posts. but your last few have been utter drivel, your "humor" level
* has sunk to pre-adolescent. do you get a kick out of going up to
* people's houses and ringing the doorbell then running away?
* i know you can do better than that. i challenge you also to take the
* high road. to put your wit, talent, and education to some higher use
* than trying to hurt people.
Interesting... You are giving Mr. Steiny the opportunity to behave like a
gentleman. Good for you.
es
--
._____. ._________________________________________________.
| ._. | | ._____________________________________________. |
| |_| |_|_|___. Incoherent Action Incorporated _____ | |
|___| |_____. | reve...@cruzio.com | ._. | | |
.___|_|_| |_| | "Cogito Ergo Spud" .___| |_|_|_| |
| ._____| |___| I think, Therefore I Yam. | ._| |_______|
| | | |_| |To E-mail remove "NoJunkMailHere"| |_|_|_| |___.
| | |_____|from return address. |_______| |_. |
| |_____________________________________________| | | |_| |
|_________________________________________________| |_____|
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
(Daniel D Scripture) writes:
>
> Well, maybe, Glen, but when I was an undergraduate, the Dean of
> Students was a Rogerian therapist by trade, and in my sophomore year,
> when the college was opening some new dorms one fall before they were
> quite finished (a common practice in the 60s, to accomodate all the
> boomers) some mother who had just delivered her kid to college asked
> said Dean where the women's restroom was (the signs weren't on the
> doors yet, although the restrooms were finished), he said, so help
> me, "Where would you like it to be?" Definitely gets past all the
> imposed views, but not much use to someone who needs to take a leak as
> soon as possible. 30+ years later, my scepticism about Rogerians
> remains.
LOL!! Great story -- and I can just see it happening.
It is a great example of a misuse of a tool. I know a lot of people
who are so enamored with the method that they try to apply it to
everything. Like a young carpenter just getting into the trade and
has limited funds. He buys this *beautiful* hammer, then sets about
treating every problem like a nail.
Keep in mind that I was suggesting the use of Rogerian methods in
therapy -- not as a way to confuse people at random....and piss them
off.
Don Steiny
scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) writes:
>30+ years later, my scepticism about Rogerians remains.
Bateson and others observed that in films of Rogers he was giving
distinct non-verbal clus showing approval or disapproval thus unconsciously
guiding the interaction.
Don Steiny
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> you're the one who's gone off the deep end Steiny. no, i'm not
>"flipped out", "pissed off", or even annoyed. i'm just astonished.
>it astonishes me that you care so little for your reputation. your
>posts appear to be written by to be someone who has no integrity.
>what's next? are you going to start forging posts?
Why do you say this Don? I have perfect integrity. I honestly
stated my intensions and my feelings. You just hate it that anyone would
feel that way. I like all kinds of politically incorrect humor. The
article I am responding to specifically says that you did not find certain
statements funny. I have said time and time again that I think what you
post is funny.
>>You are a natural resource of scruz.general.
> i remember a few months ago you challenged me to "take the high
>road". i think that is good advice all around. i always do try to
>take the high road, although sometimes you make it difficult.
As you may not know my company works tirelessly for the
community. I am a director of the Cabrillo Music Festival, a former
director of the Santa Cruz Bluegrass Society. We do web pages for free
for at least 40 community organizations. I do volunteer work, I am a
member of a swing band that plays at retirement centers. I work with
the Santa Cruz Technology Alliance and Citizens's Committee for the
Homeless. We do free web pages for both organizations. Paul Lee is a
good friend of mine as is Art Danner. I was awarded the "Friend of
Tourism" award by the Conference and Visitor's Council in 1996 for the
"person who had done the most for the tourism industry that was not
part of the industry." I am working in conjunction with the County
Agricultrial Commission, SCO, Pacific Bell, and others to help educate
people about the link between agriculture and technology in the
county. I feel fine about the road I am taking.
> USENET is a medium that can be used to enlighten, entertain, and
>enrich. it is a sorry person who sees it only as a forum to belittle
>and bedevil others. echoing Glen, i have to wonder what made you
>such a mean and bitter person as you seem to be.
Wow! If this is how you talk when you are not pissed off, I am
sure glad I have never gotten you mad. You must be a real bear.
It strikes me that calling me a "mean" and "bitter"
person is not exactly doing what you say you believe in. How does that
enlighten or enrich? (Though I guess it is pretty entertaining).
Most importantly, how does that address the issues or show any insight
on your part? It is just changing the subject.
>have i wronged you in some way?
The fact of the matter is that a many people consider your
stand on business, bicycles, politically correct humor and other things
to be unconsidered. As proof, I'll point to your unpopular stand on
medical marijuana. We can objectively know that it was unpopular because
of the results of voting on the initiative. I am not arguing that you
are wrong in your opinions because a majority of people disagreed with
you, your opinions are wrong for different reasons. What I am
pointing out that it not uncommon for people to disagree with your
opinions.
Using biting satire to make a political point is widely
accepted in this day and age. Just look at the (hysterically funny)
"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations," or Saturday
Night Live (like the one where Gerald Ford gets his foot stuck and a
wastebasket and staples his hand to the desk).
I consider your stands on drug prohibition, small businesss,
responsibilities of government and a number of other issues to be
ill considered and socially dangerous. Why wouldn't I try to
point out the absurdities of your views? It is not as if you do
not publically try to influence people to your point of view. Why should
Rush Limbaugh be a subject of ridicule and not you? As a writer, my
challenge is to make it light and humerous if possible, I don't
always succeed, but style and content are not the same.
In this case, I thought your claim that there is nothing funny about
some sentences was censorious and judgemental. Who died and appointed
you god of good taste?
> i have seen you write some very thought-provoking and insightful
>posts. but your last few have been utter drivel, your "humor" level
>has sunk to pre-adolescent. do you get a kick out of going up to
>people's houses and ringing the doorbell then running away?
>i know you can do better than that. i challenge you also to take the
>high road. to put your wit, talent, and education to some higher use
>than trying to hurt people.
How does it hurt people to make jokes? In other words, if I
made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires." Who
does it hurt? If I say I like jokes like that, why is is "mean?" It
has been proposed in many books on humor that *all* humor is based on
the sufferring of others. The coyote always gets mangled. I am sure
I know far more jokes about how stupid it is to try to do business on
the Internet, how hard UNIX is to use and how weird UNIX experts are
and other jokes that relate to me personally than you do. Many lawyers
are fountians of lawyer jokes. It is quite possible that jokes are
carthatic and cause people to be less likely to do the things they
joke about.
Note that you did not say: "there are studies done by such and
such a peer reviewed group and published in a reputable journal that
jokes like that tend to lower the self esteeme of bicyclists, or
incite motorists to randomly kill bicyclists or some other terrible
thing." You said that I was "mean." I could be as mean as a (mean) snake
and jokes about dead militant bicycle activists would or would not be funny
or harmless completely independently of my temperament.
I think that the reason people make jokes about such things is that
it helps relieve the frustration with the fright of just about hitting
a bicyclist. No one really wants to do such a thing. It gets to be
such a terrifying part of reality that people joke about it.
Jeff Liebermann
j.r. pierce [see .sig] (anti...@here.not) wrote:(...)
: ;) Ok, so I figured out how to multiply, and I guess I can compute
: logs and sin and cos with it... But, sheesh, I remember being able to
: crank thru fairly complex equations faster with one of these then most
: folks could bang the numbers into a HP 35. When I got to college, I
: was first kid on the block to get a HP 65, and my slide ruling days
: were history...
More drivel:
1. I use my slide rule to grind out gear ratios (kinematics) and
other obscura found in machine design. As long as you're dealing
with integers and fractions, there's nothing faster. I can also
do complex number arithmetic and polar->cartesian conversions, but
suffer from chronic order of magnitude screw ups.
2. I also "collect" old HP calculators. I have an HP 45, 92, 21, 25,
70, 37(?), 18c and enough dead batteries to be considered an ecological
menace. All but the 25 work and are used regularly. There is
even an HP collectors "museum" and web site.
http://www.teleport.com/~dgh/hpmuseum.html
I'm a confirmed RPM (Reverse Polish Notation) bigot.
3. When I was attending college, I decided it was time to build an
"electronic slide rule". At the time (approx 1967) the first
4 function calculator (Bomar) was yet to be introduced. My slide
rule was an analog computer consisting of 2ea Beckman 10turn Helipots,
two log amplifiers, two switchable inverters, a summing amplifier,
an antilog amplifier, and a mirrored meter with range switch. To
multiply two numbers, I would set the values (to 3 decimal places)
on the helipots and read the result on the meter. Other types of
problems could be run by switching or inverting the various log/antilog
amplifiers. Accuracy was about 3% of full scale. It was all built
into a briefcase, and ran on 117vac.
I spent about a year building it with plans to sell it commercially.
Then came the Bomar 4 function calculator and the whole idea was
instantly obsolete. I tried to salvage some of the design by doing
problems that the 4 function calculator did poorly. I added a
sin/cos knob for transcendentals. I added additional log/anti-log
amplifiers. I added auto ranging on the meter. I found Helitrim
knobs that didn't clank. I even experimented (unsuccessfully) with
a sample-and-hold memory design. Then came the HP35 and the idea
was instantly obsolete.
Many years later, I ended up in the radio business. I decided that
the world needed a portable radiotelephone. I fabricated a full
IMTS telephone in a brief case. It only weighed 20 lbs. I had
visions of executives and sales people using it to make calls while
at customers locations. I believe that the inability to impress
any of their clients with a 20 lb telephone that did the same thing
as the 2 lb POTS phone on their desk killed it.
Many years later, the personal computer (ala Popular Electronics
Sol 8080) appeared. I decided that there was a need for a portable
data terminal. I bought Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter, a very
overpriced MicroSwith keyboard, a really high tech switching power
supply, and built it into (you guessed it) a brief case. It actually
worked, if you happen to have a TV set available.
You couldn't use it with a video modulator because of all the RFI
generated by the power supply. It had to have a built in monitor.
There was room enough for a very small TV set, so I found a
"monitor" with a 1.5" mono tube display (part of an image scan rate
converter). To use the terminal, an arrangement of lenses in what
resembled a microscope was used to view the image. It only weighed
20 lbs with batteries. Users complained of stiff necks and eyestrain.
The 1500vdc accelerator voltage power supply would charge the entire
briefcase and zap the user. The hall effect keyboard would go insane
anywhere near a radio transmitter. I managed to sell the prototype.
I'll leave it to the younger generation to design the next killer
portable something. Just one piece of advice. Don't use a briefcase.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5envff$5...@news.scruz.net>, steiny@infopoint (Don Steiny) writes:
>
> Bateson and others observed that in films of Rogers he was giving
> distinct non-verbal clus showing approval or disapproval thus unconsciously
> guiding the interaction.
Could you supply a bit more information than this, please? I'd *love*
to see it. Seriously.
I have seen tapes of Rogers in therapy. If I were to use one word to describe
how he was in therapy, it would be "inobtrusive". It was like he was doing
everything that he could to *not* be there to influence.
I have been involved in a large number of sessions with various Rogerian
trained therapists and saw nothing like this.
I'm not saying that it's not possible or that Bateson el. al. are wrong --
just that I had never had anything like the experiences that are
described and Rogers never suggested such a thing -- even strongly
suggested against it. So, if I missed something or could find a
different perspective, I'd sure appreciate it.
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <E619n...@cruzio.com>, gl...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
> In article <5envff$5...@news.scruz.net>, steiny@infopoint (Don Steiny) writes:
> >
> > Bateson and others observed that in films of Rogers he was giving
> > distinct non-verbal clus showing approval or disapproval thus unconsciously
> > guiding the interaction.
>
> Could you supply a bit more information than this, please? I'd *love*
> to see it. Seriously.
After I posted this, I wanted to add:
The other point is that, independent of what clues might have been gleened
from the films, testing of the methods correlated very well with
expectations.
Assuming that Rogers told any or even every patient how to think, feel
and behave (either by clues or in a direct manner), the method has value
as determined both by the clients and by independent testing using
control groups.
Further, if one were to look at how and why the method does what it does
(Chapret 11, "Client-Centered Therapy", Rogers, 1951), it seems very
clear (at least to me) that it *should* be benefical.
This last part, for me, is the most important.
Martin Krieg
> How does it hurt people to make jokes? In other words, if I
> made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
> the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires."
That is NOT funny. Would U like me to cross post this to the rec.bike
groups and see how many people agree with Don? I think it would create a
pretty huge work load for U trying to explain your self out of that one.
Thought are things, Don. I will fully asert that what planted the seed for
that lawyer who lost his hands to a bomb over on Soquel began as what U
are calling "harmless humor".
I suggest U keep your bicycle jokes to U and a few of your fellow bike haters.
Who
> does it hurt? If I say I like jokes like that, why is is "mean?" It
> has been proposed in many books on humor that *all* humor is based on
> the sufferring of others. The coyote always gets mangled.
Road kill right? From the desenstized car mindset.........
I am sure
> I know far more jokes about how stupid it is to try to do business on
> the Internet, how hard UNIX is to use and how weird UNIX experts are
> and other jokes that relate to me personally than you do.
Huh?? Apples & oranges.......
Many lawyers
> are fountians of lawyer jokes. It is quite possible that jokes are
> carthatic and cause people to be less likely to do the things they
> joke about.
ibid as per my 2nd para above.......Maybe U know lawyers w/low low self
esteem??
>
> Note that you did not say: "there are studies done by such and
> such a peer reviewed group and published in a reputable journal that
> jokes like that tend to lower the self esteeme of bicyclists, or
> incite motorists to randomly kill bicyclists or some other terrible
> thing." You said that I was "mean." I could be as mean as a (mean) snake
> and jokes about dead militant bicycle activists would or would not be funny
> or harmless completely independently of my temperament.
Would U like us to find out? Are U asking us to publish your "humor" on a
braoder scale than the 30 or so people that read scruz.gen??
You're not just attempting to slander only Don, you're taking on the whole
bike ctty now -- U sure U 'wanna do this?? I mean you're 'gonna help us
righteously piss off Stacy, and a few others if U do..............
btw: I changed the subject in the interest of humor. Let's see how long U
can laught at yourself, Don, before U change it to my name or Don's. He he
.........
btw2: As U say Erin says, U really are fun even tho U are more dangerous
than Tortillini!!
--
What Would L@ve Do Now??
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| The Power of L@ve: Cycle America {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
cyc...@BikeRoute.com http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'
Don Fong
In article <5enuts$t...@news.scruz.net>, Don Steiny <steiny@infopoint> wrote:
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
>> you're the one who's gone off the deep end Steiny. no, i'm not
>>"flipped out", "pissed off", or even annoyed. i'm just astonished.
>>it astonishes me that you care so little for your reputation. your
>>posts appear to be written by to be someone who has no integrity.
>>what's next? are you going to start forging posts?
>
> Why do you say this Don? I have perfect integrity.
a man who has perfect integrity does not spread false information
about people. he does not make up facts about them just so he can
apply a stereotype. he does not go around slamming people based on
mistaken attributions. he does not twist and distort what people
say. a man who has perfect integrity does not broadcast degrading
fantasies about people. he does not get his jollies trying to
humiliate people who have done him no harm.
>I honestly stated my intensions and my feelings.
that gives you as much integrity as a mugger.
>You just hate it that anyone would
>feel that way. I like all kinds of politically incorrect humor.
it would be more accurate to call it sadistic humor.
>The article I am responding to specifically says that you did not
>find certain statements funny. I have said time and time again that
>I think what you post is funny.
if you sincerely claim that my writing gives you enjoyment,
then why do you take such delight in believing that you have caused
me embarrassment or emotional upset? no i don't believe you.
i believe this whole "humor" angle is just a smoke screen.
i believe you want to pass off your nastiness is humor so you can't
be held accountable for the veracity of anything you say.
"you take it too seriously". "it's all a joke".
[...]
> As you may not know my company works tirelessly for the
>community. I am a director of the Cabrillo Music Festival, a former
>director of the Santa Cruz Bluegrass Society. We do web pages for free
>for at least 40 community organizations. I do volunteer work, I am a
>member of a swing band that plays at retirement centers. I work with
>the Santa Cruz Technology Alliance and Citizens's Committee for the
>Homeless. We do free web pages for both organizations. Paul Lee is a
>good friend of mine as is Art Danner. I was awarded the "Friend of
>Tourism" award by the Conference and Visitor's Council in 1996 for the
>"person who had done the most for the tourism industry that was not
>part of the industry." I am working in conjunction with the County
>Agricultrial Commission, SCO, Pacific Bell, and others to help educate
>people about the link between agriculture and technology in the
>county. I feel fine about the road I am taking.
that is very impressive. so why is it that despite all these
honors and accomplishments, you still feel the need to abuse people
on the net?
>> USENET is a medium that can be used to enlighten, entertain, and
>>enrich. it is a sorry person who sees it only as a forum to belittle
>>and bedevil others. echoing Glen, i have to wonder what made you
>>such a mean and bitter person as you seem to be.
>
> Wow! If this is how you talk when you are not pissed off, I am
>sure glad I have never gotten you mad. You must be a real bear.
>
> It strikes me that calling me a "mean" and "bitter"
>person is not exactly doing what you say you believe in. How does that
>enlighten or enrich? (Though I guess it is pretty entertaining).
it was the least damning explanation i could come up with for
your cruel behavior.
>Most importantly, how does that address the issues or show any insight
>on your part?
was i right?
>It is just changing the subject.
yes, the old subject was getting stale. (:-)
>>have i wronged you in some way?
>
> The fact of the matter is that a many people consider your
>stand on business, bicycles, politically correct humor and other things
>to be unconsidered.
please re-read the question. ``have i wronged you in some way?''
>As proof, I'll point to your unpopular stand on
>medical marijuana. We can objectively know that it was unpopular because
>of the results of voting on the initiative. I am not arguing that you
>are wrong in your opinions because a majority of people disagreed with
>you, your opinions are wrong for different reasons. What I am
>pointing out that it not uncommon for people to disagree with your
>opinions.
thanks for that insight. (:-) please re-read the question.
``have i wronged you in some way?''
> Using biting satire to make a political point is widely
>accepted in this day and age. Just look at the (hysterically funny)
>"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations," or Saturday
>Night Live (like the one where Gerald Ford gets his foot stuck and a
>wastebasket and staples his hand to the desk).
good satire must have an element of truth. would it be "satire"
if i said ``Don Steiny was arrested for fondling an 8-year-old boy
at Capitola Mall''? would it be "biting satire" if i posted ``Don
Steiny has argued that the holocaust is a hoax''? that's about the
level of your "satire". a string of lies does not constitute
"satire" in my book.
> I consider your stands on drug prohibition, small businesss,
>responsibilities of government and a number of other issues to be
>ill considered and socially dangerous.
wow, "dangerous" ideas! tell you what, i'd rather be struck
by an idea than by a car. if you think the latter is so funny,
where is your sense of humor about the former???
>Why wouldn't I try to point out the absurdities of your views?
you're not pointing out anything about my views. you're only
"yanking people's chains", "pushing people's buttons", "picking
on people". these are the verbs you've used to describe your
own posts. don't try to pretend now that there was some higher purpose.
it wasn't "humor", it wasn't "biting satire", it wasn't "pointing
out the absurdities of someone's views". it was "picking on people".
>It is not as if you do
>not publically try to influence people to your point of view. Why should
>Rush Limbaugh be a subject of ridicule and not you?
hold on. are you saying that anyone who publicly expresses an
opinion is equivalent to Rush Limbaugh? gee, and you wonder why
more people don't contribute to the newsgroup.
>As a writer, my
>challenge is to make it light and humerous if possible, I don't
>always succeed, but style and content are not the same.
so tell me Steiny, is the kind of garbage you've been posting
the best you can do? is this the kind of writing you'd be proud to
show international clients? is this the kind of quality material
you wanted for your moderated newsgroup that you proposed a few
months ago, to get influential people and community leaders online?
if not, why not?
> In this case, I thought your claim that there is nothing funny about
>some sentences was censorious and judgemental. Who died and appointed
>you god of good taste?
why did you think it was censorious? who died and appointed you
the god of censoriousness? (:-)
>> i have seen you write some very thought-provoking and insightful
>>posts. but your last few have been utter drivel, your "humor" level
>>has sunk to pre-adolescent. do you get a kick out of going up to
>>people's houses and ringing the doorbell then running away?
>>i know you can do better than that. i challenge you also to take the
>>high road. to put your wit, talent, and education to some higher use
>>than trying to hurt people.
>
> How does it hurt people to make jokes?
Steiny, go back and re-read what you wrote. you were absolutely
gleeful over the imagined prospect of causing Martin emotional upset thru
your so-called humor. don't try to pretend you don't understand how
"jokes" can hurt, cause you KNOW it was your INTENTION to hurt. that
isn't humor, that's sadism.
>In other words, if I
>made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
>the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires." Who
>does it hurt? If I say I like jokes like that, why is is "mean?"
that isn't what i call "mean". (although it could be considered
insensitive.) what i call "mean" is deliberately taunting people,
as you did to Martin, and as you have been trying to do with me. you
admitted it. you seemed awfully proud of it too. ask yourself this.
you were thrilled when you (wrongly) thought i'd "flipped out".
suppose it were true. suppose i were mentally ill and your words
pushed me over the edge and i killed someone. would that make you
happy? IMHO that isn't funny. that's mean and irresponsible.
or perhaps you didn't really believe i'd "flipped out". in that
case you were simply spreading a vicious lie. again, good satire must
be grounded in reality.
in July 1995, Don Steiny wrote:
|The only reason I flamed Krieg is because he started calling me names.
|I have no idea why. Apparently it is because I did not think that
|bicyclists are singled out for persecution. I am not really sure, he is
|not very good at writing coherent sentences that communicate their point.
|I have never said anything against bicycles or bicyclists. I have no idea
|why he got so nasty. I surmised that he was just a nasty person so I
|started saying things to make him mad because I think it is funny.
|It reminds me of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers.
your own words: ``I started saying things to make him mad because
I think it is funny.'' that's what i call "mean".
it is also mistaken. for the record it should be noted that
Martin had NOT called Don Steiny names. as for "nasty"? i suppose
that is a subjective judgment. personally i don't think Martin said
anything nasty. i guess a sensitive soul like Don Steiny might take
umbrage at Martin saying "I can't do anything but try to love U"...
but then why would such a sensitive soul go around making jokes
about running over bicyclists?
Don Steiny confused Martin with Spaz. Martin did get rather
excited over something Don Steiny said, and Don Steiny knew perfectly
well what that was, because it was a troll.
>It has been proposed in many books on humor that *all* humor is based on
>the sufferring of others.
wotta warped mind. a lot of humor is ABOUT the suffering of
others. but do you understand? its purpose is not to CAUSE
that suffering.
>The coyote always gets mangled. I am sure
>I know far more jokes about how stupid it is to try to do business on
>the Internet, how hard UNIX is to use and how weird UNIX experts are
>and other jokes that relate to me personally than you do. Many lawyers
>are fountians of lawyer jokes. It is quite possible that jokes are
>carthatic and cause people to be less likely to do the things they
>joke about.
great! why don't you tell some of your UNIX jokes, instead of
spreading vicious innuendoes and trying to hurt people? real people,
not cartoon characters.
> Note that you did not say: "there are studies done by such and
>such a peer reviewed group and published in a reputable journal that
>jokes like that tend to lower the self esteeme of bicyclists, or
>incite motorists to randomly kill bicyclists or some other terrible
>thing." You said that I was "mean." I could be as mean as a (mean) snake
>and jokes about dead militant bicycle activists would or would not be funny
>or harmless completely independently of my temperament.
>
> I think that the reason people make jokes about such things is that
>it helps relieve the frustration with the fright of just about hitting
>a bicyclist. No one really wants to do such a thing. It gets to be
>such a terrifying part of reality that people joke about it.
i can understand that. but i would ask that you extend a little
of that empathy to bicyclists also. if drivers are terrified of
running someone over, imagine how much more terrifying it is to
experience being run over, or nearly being run over. imagine having
your bones broken, your flesh mangled, your limbs crushed. imagine
never being able to walk again. imagine being unable to control
your bodily functions. yeah, people do joke about it. ignorant or
insensitive people. look, i did not condemn you for making such
jokes. i'm trying to help you understand why Martin reacted as
he did. do you want to understand? or would you rather just ridicule?
you're so proud of your travels and how many interesting people
you've talked to and your understanding of other cultures... why
don't you try to understand some of the cultures that we have right
here in santa cruz?
Don Steiny
cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>> How does it hurt people to make jokes? In other words, if I
>> made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
>> the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires."
>That is NOT funny. Would U like me to cross post this to the rec.bike
>groups and see how many people agree with Don? I think it would create a
>pretty huge work load for U trying to explain your self out of that one.
Martin, I really appreciate how important cycling it to you. Many
of my friends have bicycling as a hobby. I wish you would spend more time
promoting bicycle safety and less time promoting things like the critical
mass bicyle ride, but I would not like to see you harmed in any way.
I really did not want Henery Kissinger to jump out of an airplane with
a backpack when I told that joke about him either.
>Thought are things, Don. I will fully asert that what planted the seed for
>that lawyer who lost his hands to a bomb over on Soquel began as what U
>are calling "harmless humor".
Very unlikely.
>I suggest U keep your bicycle jokes to U and a few of your fellow bike haters.
Martin, I do not hate bikes at all. I do not hate Henry Kissinger.
I pretty much do not hate anyone. I am often accused of this by you because
I am blind and cannot ride bicycles and if I every post anything in this
group about bicycles not riding on the sidewalks I am blasted as a daemon
from hell. I think bikes are a hobby on the level of chess or collecting
stamps, though I know they are very important to you. But just saying that
I do not think bikes are terribly important on the scale of things seems
to make *you* pretty mad. I got tired of being the object of your repeated
attacks on anyone who would not (or could no) join your little utopia.
>You're not just attempting to slander only Don, you're taking on the whole
>bike ctty now -- U sure U 'wanna do this?? I mean you're 'gonna help us
>righteously piss off Stacy, and a few others if U do..............
I have no idea who Stacy is, but 98% of bicyclists are just nice
people getting healthy exercise, a totally reasonable thing to do.
>btw: I changed the subject in the interest of humor. Let's see how long U
>can laught at yourself, Don, before U change it to my name or Don's. He he
>btw2: As U say Erin says, U really are fun even tho U are more dangerous
>than Tortillini!!
Oh, come on Martin. It is a pretty wild stretch of the imagination
to think that I am dangerous in any way. Now Erin, that's another
thing :-) ...
Don Fong
In article <5f2n1s$h...@news.scruz.net>, Don Steiny <steiny@infopoint> wrote:
>cyc...@BikeRoute.com (Martin Krieg) writes:
>>> How does it hurt people to make jokes? In other words, if I
>>> made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
>>> the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires."
>
>>groups and see how many people agree with Don? I think it would create a
>>pretty huge work load for U trying to explain your self out of that one.
>
> Martin, I really appreciate how important cycling it to you. Many
>of my friends have bicycling as a hobby. I wish you would spend more time
>promoting bicycle safety and less time promoting things like the critical
>mass bicyle ride, but I would not like to see you harmed in any way.
then why did you say things deliberately to make him mad?
Don Steiny wrote:
|I surmised that he was just a nasty person so I
|started saying things to make him mad because I think it is funny.
|It reminds me of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers.
[...]
> Martin, I do not hate bikes at all. I do not hate Henry Kissinger.
>I pretty much do not hate anyone. I am often accused of this by you because
>I am blind and cannot ride bicycles
i doubt that is the reason. more likely it's because of your
repeatedly "joking" about bicyclists being killed. for the record,
i don't think that necessarily means someone is a bicycle hater.
it just means they are a sadistic insensitive and unimaginative troll.
>and if I every post anything in this
>group about bicycles not riding on the sidewalks I am blasted as a daemon
>from hell.
most bike advocates agree bikes should stay off the sidewalks.
i doubt you'd be "blasted" just for saying that. however, people
who raise that issue oftimes don't just say that, they mix in a lot
of other issues and anti-bike rhetoric, hoping to get a reaction.
they want to get blasted, and they often get what they want.
J.R. Dean
In article <5eo267$b...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>, je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
>2. I also "collect" old HP calculators. I have an HP 45, 92, 21, 25,
>70, 37(?), 18c and enough dead batteries to be considered an ecological
>menace. All but the 25 work and are used regularly. There is
>even an HP collectors "museum" and web site.
> http://www.teleport.com/~dgh/hpmuseum.html
Too cool. I have a 25 that still works, and I still
carry an 11C. Well, the 11C isn't as cool... to be
a really cool HP relic it must have a butt-ugly red
LED display. (For the uninitiated, the 11C is
actually a newer model with an LCD display.)
Now that 25 had no battery-protected RAM, and no way
to store programs -- you had to reprogram the sucker
all over again whenever you needed a particular function.
I actually got pretty fast at keying in "Lunar Lander"
and some dang astronomical ephermeris program that I
can barely remember at this point.
Remember the leisurely execution rate of programs on
an HP25? The strobe effect from the LED display was
sort of soothing and hypnotic...
>I'm a confirmed RPM (Reverse Polish Notation) bigot.
>
Same here. One nifty side benefit of being an RPN
bigot is that no one will borrow you calculator and
forget to return it. It's more likely they'll hurl
it back at you with a curse and cross themselves after
only a few tentative pokes at the keypad of the Devil's
Kalculator....
-- Dean
-------------
j...@enclave.org -- URL = <http://www.enclave.org/jrd/>
"The Enclave" -- Boulder Creek, California -- +1 408 336-0610
=+! Public Access Usenet BBS for Writers & Other Fiends !+=
Max Perez
In article <cycleam-2302...@kelp248.cruzio.com>,
Martin Krieg <cyc...@BikeRoute.com> wrote:
>
>> How does it hurt people to make jokes? In other words, if I
>> made some joke like: "How do you tell a Santa Cruz bicylist is sharing
>> the road with you at night?" "You feel the bump under your tires."
>
>groups and see how many people agree with Don? I think it would create a
>pretty huge work load for U trying to explain your self out of that one.
yknow martin, i rather expected this to eventually get a response from
you. i ride a bicycle. i also ride a motorcycle. oddly enough, i alsoi
use a car when i need to move bulky things, and i even uswed to be a
truck driver. more importantly, i actually get the joke.
martin, you read the joke and can only focus on the idea of some car
running over a bicycle. having dodged cars on my bike and motorcyle
for the last decade or so, i almost share your frustration. heres a
hint, the joke is not that its fun to run over bicycles, the joke is
that there are too many uptight bicyclists that wont take the
incredibly minor effort to put a headlight and a taillight on their
bike when sharing the road at night, and then get indignant when they
are hard to spot.
there are alot of folx in this comminity that are serious about using
a bicycle as their primary transportation, who ride responsibly, use
proper lighting, and have traffic sense. these people are vastly
outnumbered by folx who are not using any lighting at night, not riding
responsibly, and do not have any sense of the flow of traffic (that
means motored, bicycle, and foot traffic). thats what the joke
reflects.
before you decide im too am a wimp and a killer, keep in mind my
primary transportation has only two wheels.
-max
"yeah i use lights and still assume im invisable"
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5f4qg1$n...@news.scruz.net>, m...@armory.com (Max Perez) writes:
>
> there are alot of folx in this comminity that are serious about using
> a bicycle as their primary transportation, who ride responsibly, use
> proper lighting, and have traffic sense. these people are vastly
> outnumbered by folx who are not using any lighting at night, not riding
> responsibly, and do not have any sense of the flow of traffic (that
> means motored, bicycle, and foot traffic). thats what the joke
> reflects.
Because you have always seemed to be a reasonable sort (aside from the
admission that you ride a bicycle, occasionally) I thought that I would
ask you this: Why are bicycles supposed to ride on the same side as
cars? It always seemed to make more sense to me that a bicycle would
face traffic, so they could see what is coming, more readily.
I guess that I wouldn't be quite so squeemish about passing a bike
if I *knew* that they saw me.
Max Perez
In article <E6A6A...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
>In article <5f4qg1$n...@news.scruz.net>, m...@armory.com (Max Perez) writes:
>Because you have always seemed to be a reasonable sort (aside from the
>admission that you ride a bicycle, occasionally) I thought that I would
>ask you this: Why are bicycles supposed to ride on the same side as
>cars? It always seemed to make more sense to me that a bicycle would
>face traffic, so they could see what is coming, more readily.
in order to avoid obsticles on the side to the road, a bicycle may use
the right lane. if the bike is going in the same direction as traffic,
this presents no problem, as long as the cars in the right lane
respect the bikes space. but if the bike is riding against traffic,
and has to avoid a roadside obsticle, it would then have to move onto
the sidewalk, or move into a lane of oncoming traffic, which would be
hazardous. as neither of these are a very good option, it is safer fro
the biek to be part of regular traffic.
idealy, i think foot traffic is supposed to face traffic on roads that
dont have sidewalks.
>I guess that I wouldn't be quite so squeemish about passing a bike
>if I *knew* that they saw me.
yeah, well, thats half the driver having to judge the right moment,
and half the bike rider having some sense of traffic and
communication.
-max
"weaving all over the side of the road for no good reason"
Martin Krieg
> In article <E6A6A...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
> >In article <5f4qg1$n...@news.scruz.net>, m...@armory.com (Max Perez) writes:
>
> >Because you have always seemed to be a reasonable sort (aside from the
> >admission that you ride a bicycle, occasionally) I thought that I would
> >ask you this: Why are bicycles supposed to ride on the same side as
> >cars?
Vehicles entering the roadway from driveways and intersections are looking
at the approaching traffic. Here in America that means that before they
enter the road they are looking to the left. More ofthen than not they
would not see or expect to see a bike approaching them from their right or
against the normal flow of traffic.
There are many other reasons, some of which were pointed out in a previous post.
--
What Would L@ve Do Now?
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| http://www.BikeRoute.com/awake.html {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
The Power of L@ve: Cycle America http://www.BikeRoute.com/
gl...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <5f53tb$o...@news.scruz.net>, m...@armory.com (Max Perez) writes:
> In article <E6A6A...@cruzio.com>, <gl...@bbs.cruzio.com> wrote:
> >In article <5f4qg1$n...@news.scruz.net>, m...@armory.com (Max Perez) writes:
>
> >if I *knew* that they saw me.
>
> yeah, well, thats half the driver having to judge the right moment,
> and half the bike rider having some sense of traffic and
> communication.
If the bikes were approaching cars rather than facing in the same direction,
there could be eye contact. This would *greatly* improve that sense of
communication. Then I could be more sure that we saw eachother and I
would have less concern that a bike might swerve to avoid something on
the road as I passed.
Another aspect about the face-to-face driving is something that I noticed
when I had my old convertable and rode my motorcycle: When I saw another
person in a convertable or on a motorcycle (especially pre full face
helmets), I perceived them *more* as a person and less as some entity
enclosed in glass and steel. I was more tolerant of their actions because
of this sense. When a bicycle is facing away from me, I can't see their
face. I am more prone to think of a bicyclist, like this, as an object
(as I tend to think about other drivers of cars, who's faces are not
readily seen). This makes them seem, to me, less predictable.