the courage to kill oneself (patrick dewaere)
connie rahim
Dewaere shot himself. hard to imagine why he would rob the world of
his talent, this gifted musician and actor (just listen to him play
the piano in "beau pere").
he must have been full of torments that we can never understand. he
did not leave a note. all we have left are the movies with the likes
of nathalie baye, gerard depardieu, and miou-miou. they live on, but
their contemporary will be 35 forever, after he stuck a rifle in his
mouth.
Jim
> soon it will be 21 years since the talented French actor Patrick
> Dewaere shot himself. hard to imagine why he would rob the world of
> his talent, this gifted musician and actor (just listen to him play
> the piano in "beau pere").
He's one I miss too. Aside from "Beau Pere" and "Going Places" he was really
great in "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs". He was a natural compliment to the
talents of Gerard Depardieu.
Mack Twamley
"connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:53adafbc.03010...@posting.google.com...
I have to quibble a bit with the subject line....it often takes a good deal
more courage to live than to put a rifle in your mouth. (This after seeing
a legless man in a store this afternoon.) I won't say that actors like
Farnsworth or Ed Flanders were not courageous, but they opted out of living
with intolerable pain. It's a very tough choice, one that I hope no one
reading this will have to make.
s ta r fu c k ers
> soon it will be 21 years since the talented French actor Patrick
> Dewaere shot himself. hard to imagine why he would rob the world of
> his talent, this gifted musician and actor (just listen to him play
> the piano in "beau pere").
>
Never heard of the man.
rande...@aol.com
ers) wrote:
That's probably why he shot himself.
-Rich
John of Aix
> soon it will be 21 years since the talented French actor Patrick
> Dewaere shot himself. hard to imagine why he would rob the world of
> his talent, this gifted musician and actor (just listen to him play
> the piano in "beau pere").
Because he was a junkie and so an utter waste of time for everybody
including himself as well as being a very bad example to others.
connie rahim
"John of Aix" <j.murph...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message news:<av45ik$bsmjl$1...@ID-157326.news.dfncis.de>...
John of Aix
> how do you know he was a junky?
Because I was already living in France then (I still do) and it was
common knowledge
connie rahim
> I have to quibble a bit with the subject line....it often takes a good deal
> more courage to live than to put a rifle in your mouth. (This after seeing
> a legless man in a store this afternoon.) I won't say that actors like
> Farnsworth or Ed Flanders were not courageous, but they opted out of living
> with intolerable pain
i think it takes courage to aim a bullet at your own vital organs or
head, knowing that there will be an instant of horrible impact. like
the courage it would take to bungee jump without a rope. same
foreknowledge.
he may have been a drug user (i have never heard that), but he was a
remarkable talent, hardly a "waste of time" as one person here has
termed him. there are junkies without any discernible talent, and they
are indeed a waste of time. but his work lives on and he continues to
entertain those who enjoy his films.
larry legallo
rahim) wrote:
>i think it takes courage to aim a bullet at your own vital organs or
>head, knowing that there will be an instant of horrible impact. like
>the courage it would take to bungee jump without a rope. same
>foreknowledge.
>
>he may have been a drug user (i have never heard that), but he was a
>remarkable talent, hardly a "waste of time" as one person here has
>termed him. there are junkies without any discernible talent, and they
>are indeed a waste of time. but his work lives on and he continues to
>entertain those who enjoy his films.
I can't decide which of these paragraphs I disagree with more.
Jim
His courage or lack of it or his abuse of drugs doesn't color my opinion of
his acting, which I thoroughly enjoyed. With him being this long in the
grave, I don't really care about the rest.
John of Aix
"connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: 53adafbc.0301...@posting.google.com...
>
> i think it takes courage to aim a bullet at your own vital organs or
> head, knowing that there will be an instant of horrible impact. like
> the courage it would take to bungee jump without a rope. same
> foreknowledge.
I think it takes more courage not to blow your brains out when things
are going badly. And your analogy is completely flawed, there is a vast
difference between an instant before complete oblivion which you won't
even have the time to register and a fall of many meters before you hit
the ground, when you will have the time.
> he may have been a drug user (i have never heard that), but he was a
> remarkable talent, hardly a "waste of time" as one person here has
> termed him. there are junkies without any discernible talent, and they
> are indeed a waste of time. but his work lives on and he continues to
> entertain those who enjoy his films.
Well he most definitely was a junkie, not just a 'drug user', and as for
his talent, that's a very subjective thing. I find him like very many
actors, they just play themselves, so I don't rate him as a particularly
good one, though not a bad one either. However the main thing is, as you
say, he entertains those who enjoy his films and that is all that counts
in the end.
Kathleen
rahim <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
And the big question is: Who the hell are you people and why are you
crossposting this drivel to a.s.h.? C'mon. Keep it at
soc.culture.french. Please.
connie rahim
> crossposting this drivel to a.s.h.? C'mon. Keep it at
> soc.culture.french. Please.
why, thank you, you unappointed moderator. thread is about an actor
who killed himself and we're going into his motivations. ASH is a
public newsgroup and this post is at least as relevant as anything
else that appears in it. It's not even Viagra spam.
We're sorry if we don't belong to your club or secret society of ASH
posters "who truly belong," but we have every right to keep posting
here.
steward
> why, thank you, you unappointed moderator. thread is about an actor
> who killed himself and we're going into his motivations. ASH is a
> public newsgroup and this post is at least as relevant as anything
> else that appears in it. It's not even Viagra spam.
> We're sorry if we don't belong to your club or secret society of ASH
> posters "who truly belong," but we have every right to keep posting
> here.
Of course, connie dear.
And people on a.s.h have the right to post the current FAQ, just to make
sure you've
read it.
The alt.suicide.holiday (a.s.h) FAQ
Last-modified: 23.4.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The ASH FAQ has 4 parts:
1.. Introduction - the bare essentials
2.. Subculture - how ashers behave, think and talk
3.. Are you for real? - FAQS about ashers
4.. The debate - FAQs about suicide as a legitimate option
The latest versions of these can always be found at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2150/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contents - Part I
This is part 1, written by Ramble, Hermotimus and EverDawn. If you have any
comments send them to ash_intro <AT> bigfoot.com (replace the <AT> with @).
1) What is a.s.h about?
1.1) What is a.s.h?
1.2) What is the a.s.h subculture?
1.3) Who is an asher?
1.4) Does ash encourage suicide?
1.5) Is ash pro-suicide or pro-choice?
1.6) Is ash a support group?
1.7) What is ash good for?
2) Posting guidelines.
2.1) Anti-choice posts.
2.2) Anti-suicide posts.
2.3) Pro-suicide posts.
2.4) Is it OK to try to help ashers in a conventional sense?
2.5) Is it OK to talk about happy events in one's life?
3) Reading/posting to ash.
3.1) Are there other ways to read/post to a.s.h?
3.2) The dangers of posting to ash.
3.3) Protecting yourself.
4) Other resources
4.1) Related newsgroups.
4.2) Mailing lists.
4.3) Are there any other ash faqs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1) What is a.s.h about?
1.1) What is a.s.h?
a.s.h (or ash) is the common abbreviation for the usenet newsgroup
alt.suicide.holiday. A.s.h is an unmoderated newsgroup which was set up in
late 1987/early 1988 to discuss why suicides increase during the holiday
seasons; this topic however, quickly ran thin. Currently, common topics on
ash include poetry, philosophy, psychology, relationships, depression, and
of course... suicide.
Because of the wide range of topics, we define ash as follows:
The ash newsgroup is the "home" of the ash subculture. Any topic can be
discussed as long as it is in the spirit of the ash subculture.
1.2) What is the a.s.h subculture?
A culture is a set of values, norms, ideas and patterns of behavior which
are shared by all members of a society. A subculture is the culture of a
group which is part of the surrounding society.
Sociologists distinguish between two kinds of subcultures according to the
way in which they differ from the surrounding culture[1]. A norm oriented
subculture accepts most values of society, but in some areas has different
norms, i.e. different ways of acting and behaving. A value oriented
subculture does not accept some of the basic values of society. To be more
precise it does not accept the order of precedence that society has set for
certain values.
The ash subculture has different values than the rest of society. Society
attributes the highest value to human life. In contrast, we think that the
value of individual freedom is superior to the value of life, when it does
not physically interfere with another's freedom. This includes the
individual freedom to take one's own life if desired. Note that we value
life as well, we only disagree with society on the "order" of importance of
these values.
In short, we believe that, in general, people have a right to commit
suicide.
Most newsgroups are home to norm oriented subcultures which are more easily
defined by topic - the norm is to talk much more about that specific topic.
Value oriented subcultures are more difficult to define by topic because
people with different values have a different view of life. Discussion on
the group can be almost about anything, but "through" this view, through
this different way of looking at the world.
Note: although the ash subculture started out in the ash newsgroup, they are
separate entities. For example, the ash subculture can continue its
existence without the ash newsgroup, by migrating to other online forums.
1.3) Who is an asher?
Usually, the term "asher" is used in conversation to describe a reader of
ash who is suicidal or at least depressed, i.e., the stereotypical asher.
However, for the purpose of defining who is and who is not an asher, we
provide a more "formal" definition.
Formally, an asher is somebody who is aware of the existence of the ash
subculture and shares its values.
One doesn't have to be suicidal or even depressed in order to be an asher.
Also, an asher doesn't have to read or post to ash. Similarly, posting to
ash doesn't automatically make one an asher.
In short, an asher is a member of the ash subculture.
1.4) Does ash encourage suicide?
The ash subculture does not encourage suicide, i.e., we do not persuade
people to commit suicide.
However, we believe that people have a right to commit suicide and thus, in
general, do not try to dissuade people from doing so.
This attitude combined with other content which appears on the group may
cause some to believe that we are promoting suicide, but what we are
promoting is merely the right to choose to commit suicide.
This is analogous to abortion rights activists, who are not seen as
"encouraging abortions" but as enabling women to choose abortion.
1.5) Is ash pro-suicide or pro-choice?
As mentioned before, we believe people have a right to choose to commit
suicide. Some ashers will call this position "pro-suicide". What they mean
is that ash is pro legitimizing suicide, or pro legalizing suicide. However,
"pro-suicide" can easily be misunderstood as promoting or encouraging
suicide.
We recommend to state our position as "pro-choice".
Although it could be mixed up with pro-choice for abortion rights, the
meaning is usually clear from the context. If you fear you could be
misunderstood you can use "pro-choice-suicide" or "pro-choice-abortion" to
clear things up.
1.6) Is ash a support group?
Ash is not a conventional support group for suicidal people, where the focus
is mainly on prevention. If you are seeking for a forum aimed at supporting
people not to commit suicide, or a forum with the purpose of eliminating
suicidal feelings then ash is the wrong place for you. If you are searching
for such an online forum, see Section 4.1, on related newsgroups.
This does not mean that ash is not a support group in general, but to
determine whether ash is or is not one we have to define what a support
group is. We use the following definition:
A support group is a group which consists mostly or exclusively of peers
facing the same problem or situation. A support group may help by providing
advice, but more importantly, it gives participants a sense of comfort,
understanding, and relief which comes from talking to people in a similar
situation.
The purpose of a support group is not necessarily to cure or change the
situation: in some cases it is not even possible (e.g. chronic disease) and
in others undesirable (e.g. support group for single mothers).
An example for a support group with some similarity to ash is
soc.support.fat-acceptance, in which pushing people toward the conventional
accepted goal for fat people, namely weight loss, is specifically
inappropriate.
So ash could be viewed as a worldwide support platform where people can
rant, receive advice or simply talk, with little fear of attack for feeling
suicidal.
Ash allows many of us to acknowledge our feelings and deal with them better
than conventional approaches which we have found to be useless,
self-delusional and even harmful. The conventional approach to suicidal
tendencies focuses on eliminating them rather than dealing with them, but
this is not always possible.
1.7) What is ash good for?
Albert Camus wrote that, "Suicide is prepared within the silence of the
heart, as is a great work of art". Psychologists, and common sense, agree
that talking freely about feelings of suicide, bringing suicidal thoughts
out of the "silence of the heart", is a good thing, and can ease the sense
of alienation [13][15][16] that often contributes to suicidal thoughts. [2]
There is no evidence that open discussion of suicide increases the risk of
suicide.[3]
But it is often difficult to talk openly about suicide in a culture that
regards suicide as a taboo. Traditional support newsgroups reinforce that
taboo by relentlessly insisting that suicide is wrong. Messages that attempt
to delegitimize suicide by describing the act as sinful, shameful, or
selfish can have the effect of making the person who feels suicidal feel
abused and humiliated. Not only does this, in many instances, fail to
counter suicidal thoughts, but such feelings of humiliation are recognized
as being a very common triggering factor in suicides and suicide
attempts.[4]
Traditional support newsgroups often attempt to delegitimize suicide by
offering a "positive" view of life, "like a lighted window in a winter
storm," as one author put it.[5] But to the person viewing that life from
outside, it only acts to emphasize the distinction between the warm ideal of
life and the person's own cold despair.
The effect, then, of the approach of delegitimizing suicide is to further
alienate the suicidal and discourage them from participating in traditional
support newsgroups, to force the suicidal feelings back into "the silence of
the heart" [8][9]. So, while the kind of talk taking place in a.s.h.
probably isn't what most psychotherapists have in mind as "support therapy",
the basic a.s.h. premise of accepting suicide as a valid option encourages
people to talk freely about suicide [11][12][16]. These people might
otherwise feel they had no place to express those thoughts. In fact, many
ashers report that participating in a.s.h. makes them feel better [10][11],
and eases their urges to act on their suicidal thoughts [14][15]. And that
may in fact cause a reduction in the number of suicides - even though that
is not the object of the newsgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
2) Posting guidelines.
Please behave respectfully and civilized during your presence on ash. Just
because we disagree does not mean we have to call each other names.
Anything that is regarded as bad netiquette, such as spamming, commercial
advertising and excessive crossposting is not welcome. Read any introductory
document about Usenet/Internet for info on this sort of posts, for example,
http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenet-i/usenet-help.html or
http://sunsite.auc.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1855.html.
Also, please read the points mentioned below very carefully. If you are
uncertain as to whether or not your post is appropriate, then keep in mind
that the best judge for this is ash itself. But this involves risking
getting flamed by the entire population for not adhering to the ash
guidelines ...
2.1) Anti-choice posts
The regular posters on ash see suicide as a valid option. They are not
interested in reading anti-suicide or pro-suicide messages, both of which
are seen as denying the right to choose.
Anti-choice postings are not proper netiquette, since they are off-topic for
ash. It is not proper netiquette to invade a group with postings that oppose
the nature of the group. (Like it is not welcome to go to a 'real-life'
alcohol-dependency support group and shout 'you should all just grow up').
2.2) Anti-suicide posts
Anti-suicide posts are usually counterproductive. Some of the readers are
having a hard enough time in life without being confronted with stuff they
do not want to hear. They have little energy to deal with this, as they need
all their energy to go on living.
We feel alienated from society because of the views it tries to impose on
us. Ash is the only place where we feel safe, and can discuss issues freely.
Anti-suicide posts reinforce our alienation from society, as such posts
forcefully intrude into our only sanctuary. Instead of allowing us to get
the kind of support and understanding some of us need in order to survive
another day, anti-suicide posts corner us into defending our views.
Being told over and over again that they are wrong to decide in favor of
suicide might be so hurtful to suicidal people that it pushes them over the
edge, causing them to commit suicide sooner. To those people, you would be
the catalyst in the process that you want to stop.
In general, discussing why you think suicide is not an option for yourself
is acceptable, but you should not tell others not to do so, or make broad
denials of the validity of suicide as an option for others. You are welcome
to join our discussions, as long as you respect the basic premise of ash,
that suicide is a legitimate choice. Also note the following guidelines:
1.. Don't post arguments that have been dealt with countless times already
by the newsgroup. The people on ash have witnessed many posts by people who
insist suicide is a bad idea. Many of the most-frequently recited arguments
have been collected and answered in the Debate faq, which newcomers should
read at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2150/std.html . Repeating
trite assertions that have been argued and answered already will only serve
to annoy the readers of ash and reinforce the idea that the anti-suicide
poster is fundamentally disrespectful of the readers and the group's nature.
2.. Do not make unsubstantiated or unsubstantiatable claims. Probably the
most common, and most insulting, unsupportable assertion is a general
prediction about how suicidal people the poster has never even met will feel
at some vague time in the future. Illogical arguments, and those that don't
go beyond saying that the poster's emotional position is "right" and
different feelings are "wrong" just make for pointless discussions. For
information on logical argumentation, check out
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html .
3.. Don't preach. A preacher is someone who, during relentless attempts to
persuade others, ignores, unjustly dismisses, or uses fallacious reasoning
to counter the arguments of others. Preachers seem to be standing on a
podium, unwilling to engage in any dialog.
4.. Avoid religious argumentation, for example, that people who commit
suicide go to hell, or that suicide is wrong simply because it says so in
the Bible (or any other scripture). Many ashers consider themselves
atheists, so your posts will offend rather than convince. Offended people
will rarely be willing to seriously listen to anything you might have to
say. Those who are offended usually start posting anti-religious posts,
which in turn could weaken the belief of those ashers that are religious.
That very belief may be the only thing that stops them from committing
suicide. Furthermore, those ashers that are of the same religion as you
already know what your religion thinks of suicide. They have either accepted
that view (and are still suicidal) or have come to the conclusion that the
religion is wrong. Should you disagree on this, it will be a religious
disagreement, which should be taken to the appropriate newsgroup.
2.3) Pro-suicide posts
Pro-suicide posts, urging people to commit suicide, are also inappropriate.
Apart from being stupid and distasteful they also cause people to feel
unsafe to post.
It is not clear why such posts appear sometimes on ash and what kind of
people post them. But we guess they are of one of the following groups:
1.. People who are using reverse psychology. These people actually don't
want us to commit suicide. However, they don't believe we are serious.
Instead they think we are just seeking for attention, so their reaction is
something like "go kill yourself already" to make a point that our attempts
of getting attention are not working. The problem with these people is that
they don't understand that we are not looking for attention (also see [6]).
2.. People encouraging suicide for an external cause such as religion,
politics, the environment (CoE), etc. Usually, these people are not ashers;
ashers tend to emphasize the individual, his importance, desires and
authority. Holding other entities, such as god, country, or earth as more
important than the individual implies that we should follow an external,
imposed agenda - denying the individual the right to choose.
3.. Mean perverted trolls whose goal is to make trouble.
Anyway, people who post pro-suicide posts are not ashers in the sense
defined above.
2.4) Is it OK to try to help ashers in a conventional sense?
In general, unless they specifically request for it, ashers are not seeking
for conventional life-affirming advice on ash. There are many other forums
for that. Most ashers are familiar with such advice since they have heard it
numerous times. Repeating such advice not only annoys ashers, but also
insults their intelligence.
Still, in some cases such help is welcome: if there is reason to believe
that the person has not thought things through (for example, a recent
breakup with girlfriend), or if there is reason to believe that the person
is misinformed (for example, if there is a new treatment for their otherwise
terminal disease).
However, a lot also depends on who is dispensing such advice. Advice from an
asher would carry much weight in the eyes of the group and the person to
which the advice is given. Ashers are able to take the specific
circumstances of an individual into account and assess whether conventional
advice has any merit or novelty.
Non-ashers are not capable of this. Regardless to the situation they always
dispense pro-life advice, since their motivation is to keep people alive.
Therefore, their advice cannot be trusted.
Of course, sometimes even non-ashers give good advice. This may even be
identical to some advice given by an asher. However, even a broken clock is
correct twice a day, yet it is not something you would rely upon or keep
hanging on the wall. Non-ashers, similar to a broken clock, always provide
the same biased advice, and this is why it is not welcome.
2.5) Is it OK to talk about happy events in one's life?
This depends on whether you are an asher or not. If out the blue, a newcomer
posts about how wonderful life is, this will not be well received. It is not
obvious how it relates to ash and is of little interest to ashers. Some
ashers might view this as a covert, pro-life attempt to "cheer people up".
However, if happy events occur to somebody who is known as an asher, then
such posts are most welcome. Ashers are interested to know what happens to
people they care about, and they are glad when good things happen to other
ashers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
3) Reading/posting to ash.
3.1) Are there other ways to read/post to a.s.h?
The particular news server you are using may have a poor newsfeed. Some news
servers lose messages or expire them too quickly for you to read. Others
take a lot of time to receive posts from other sites. Furthermore, some news
servers don't even carry ash. For these reasons you may want to read ash
using other means.
Uzi Paz's document on Usenet access is an excellent resource on doing just
that. It also covers numerous other aspects of Usenet. It can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1131/
3.2) The dangers of posting to ash.
There are two main sources of danger from posting to ash.
In the short term somebody may act upon something you posted. Anybody can be
lurking out there. On top of this, if you are posting from work or
university the system administrator might be reading your posts. Many people
are against suicide and will try to intervene.
The risk is increased if your posts indicate you are actually going to
commit suicide in the near future. For example, if you post a suicide note
or announce a date or place where you will commit suicide.
Your university, internet service provider or local police department may be
contacted; the outcome may vary from embarrassment to hospitalization [7].
For example, college friends of one poster found out about her posts. The
college got involved in what developed into quite an embarrassing
situation...
Even if you are not posting under your real identity chances are that you
can be tracked down since most service providers will reveal your identity
if they are informed you are about to commit suicide.
As for long term dangers, some machines archive usenet posts. The most well
known of them is dejanews. This machine archives all posts (except ones
which contain an explicit request not to be archived).
Anyone can then search dejanews for all the articles you posted in the past.
This could be an employer trying to check you out before hiring you. Friends
or family.
3.3) Protecting yourself.
Unless you are absolutely sure that it is impossible to track you down, it
is important not to give any indication about plans to commit suicide. Do
not post suicide notes. Do not post the time or place in which you intend to
commit suicide. Do not carry a "countdown" of the time left till you die.
Such posts are an invitation to intervene.
3.3.1) How do I post anonymously?
With e-mail, unless you are a hacker, your name and site are sent along with
your mail. However, some sites allow you to 'remove' your identity from the
mail. You send your mail, with instructions on where it is to be sent to a
'remailer' which then strips your name off the mail, and sends it to its
destination with a new 'anonymous' identity.
This article offers a nontechnical overview of remailers:
http://www.well.com/user/abacard/remail.html
And some more links: http://www.publius.net/rlist.html
http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/
Setting up for usage of an anonymous remailer is a hassle, but that is the
only negative aspect. Nobody will mind you using an anonymous name on ash.
Not everybody on ash really has a reason to go anonymous, but you should try
to query dejanews for all the articles you have posted. It might give you
quite a scare.
3.3.2) How do I prevent my message from being archived?
If you do not want news archivers like Deja News to archive your message
(i.e. if you do not want your message in their database), please add the
header
x-no-archive: yes
to the headers of your post. This will also be recognized if this string
occurs alone as the first line in the body of your message (use this method
if you do not know how to add headers to your post.)
This will not prevent your messages from being archived if they are copied
or referenced in a reply to your message. Furthermore, not all news
archivers have to respect this header.
Also see http://www.dejanews.com/help/pn_faq.shtml .
3.3.3) How do I delete an already archived post of mine?
To remove your post from dejanews go to
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/nuke.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
4) Other resources
4.1) Related newsgroups.
There are several newsgroups which are related to suicide: alt.suicide,
alt.suicide.methods, alt.suicide.finals, and alc.suicide. Of these,
alt.suicide.methods is the most relevant to a.s.h., as it discusses suicide
methods. However, these newsgroups are carried by fewer news servers and
have relatively little traffic.
There are also numerous traditional support groups for people dealing with
suicidal feelings, including: alt.support.grief, alt.support.grief.suicide,
and soc.support.depression.crisis.
The alt.support.depression (a.s.d) newsgroup is a traditional support
newsgroup with a great deal of traffic. As suicide is often associated to
depression, many people read both a.s.h and a.s.d .
However, a.s.d. has a very conventional response to suicide, strongly
opposing suicide as a valid option and urging intervention to prevent
suicides, according to the a.s.d faq:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-support-depression/faq/part1/
Because of the very different premises of a.s.d. and a.s.h. regarding the
legitimacy of suicide, it is strongly urged that people not crosspost
messages between the two newsgroups. Such crossposts often generate long
flamewars and seldom provide any useful posts.
There are also numerous support newsgroups and online resources dedicated to
specific circumstances that may be involved in suicidal feelings, such as
depression, loneliness, grief, particular disorders, etc.. Comprehensive
listings of these newsgroups can be found at
http://psychcentral.com/resources/ .
4.2) Mailing lists.
There are two mailing lists related to ash. These have a much better
signal-to-noise ratio than ash.
For more details, the ash mailing lists web page is at
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/5562/
4.3) Are there any other ash faqs?
Besides this 4 part FAQ, there are other FAQs and documents available at
http://ash.xanthia.com/nazguides.html and
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2150/
The "information FAQ for Newcomers" is posted weekly by the a.s.h Webmaster.
Note that anybody can put the word FAQ in the subject line. FAQs which have
not been mentioned here may have their origins outside the ash subculture.
Other faqs are in the making. If you are interested in helping contact the
maintainers of this faq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
REFERENCES
[1] "Starting Sociology", J. Levin and J.L. Spates, New York, Harper and
Row, 1976, pp. 76-77
[2] Frequently Asked Questions About Suicide, version 1.24, Graham Stoney,
http://www.rochford.org/suicide/inform/faq/
[3] "Death Wishes? The Understanding and Management of Deliberate
Self-Harm," H.G. Morgan, 1979, p.58
[4] "Suicide And The Meaning of Life," Margarethe Andics, 1947
[5] "The Savage God: A Study of Suicide," A. Alvarez, 1972
[6] "Are You For Real?" (to be published).
[7] "Caught in the net", Neely Kim, Rolling Stone, Dec 1, 1994. This is a
case of a university student who was committed to a mental hospital after
posting a suicide note on the net.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The following are excerpts from actual posts which appeared on
alt.suicide.holiday. All excerpts are quoted with permission by original
author:
[8] steward : "Some people have created a part-time, artificial, electronic
environment known as alt.suicide.holiday where they can withdraw from an
environment they see as poisonous to themselves, on a temporary basis. This
may, in fact, remove the need of some people to remove themselves
"permanently" for a short-term or even a long-term basis. Indeed, numerous
people who no longer post here have left this newsgroup counting on it as a
refuge should it be necessary again."
[9] LBN : "that's the beauty of a.s.h. it's the one place where we can
discuss this with people who share similar thoughts and views. one of the
great wonders of the internet - it allows all kinds of misfits to find each
other.... my point is that the discussions that take place on a.s.h would at
least get one labeled "unstable" in real life if not hospitalized. very few
people in real life are as understanding and supportive of catching the bus
as you'll find here...."
[10] stephie: "If it weren't for the posts here, and A.S.H. itself, I'm sure
I'd be screaming like a lunatic, awaiting the men in white coats to sedate
me into oblivion...
Posting here the first time was terrifying, but I don't regret a thing."
[11] syxx : "I have only been posting here for about a week, but I have been
more open with my thoughts here than I ever have been with a person irl. And
that is because here I know you guys all understand. We are here because of
our common dilemma, this is the only place we can share our thoughts and
experiences.... I like to think that this NG can bring us a little peace
when we confront the reality of dying alone and afraid."
[12] call_me_dan: "It is not, in truth, the fact that I may freely speak of
my desire to die that I have grown to love a.s.h, but rather the fact that
all of my losses, and more importantly my predisposition to and tendency
toward complete and utter failure - which prior to now has been my personal
demon - are now able to be vented and cast forth in an open and public
manner. I have seen many, many replies to (my first a.s.h.) post, to the
effect of "I wish you good luck, feel free to return should things not go
your way..." and this is the very heart and soul of this group. Our failures
are not cause for derision and expulsion, but rather deserving and receiving
of empathy and comfort."
[13] katrin: "For me it feels that ash has become my family where it is
allowed to talk about suicide without to justify oneself.
And in the same time there are people who give you the feeling of being with
you. So i have the feeling of however i will decide i won't be left alone. I
am glad to find the way to ash."
[14] jenwolf: "this group has saved my life. i don't care how much that
makes everyone puke, but i like this place, depressing as it is at times..."
[15] pacifier: "... What I also want is to share my feelings with others.
This is IMHO one of the worst things for depressed people: that there is
nobody who under- stand them. Here in a.s.h. we share these feelings. I
think the knowledge that there ARE people who are also depressed is giving
some kind of good feeling to some ashers so they won't commit suicide..."
[16] laterain: "I hate not being able to talk to anybody in my life about
what it feels like to be up at 4a.m. thinking about whether I can do it or
not. If I were to broach the subject with friends, they would see it as a
ploy for attention. they don't understand that what I really want is a
chance to really DISCUSS this as a viable option. that's why I am so
grateful for you all. I'm so glad that there is SOMEPLACE on this (cyber?)
earth that I can go to be with like-minded people."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Part II: Subculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This section is part 2 of the alt.suicide.holiday FAQ, co-authored by
Meredith, Ramble and EverDawn.
Introduction
Ash culture is a fluctuating thing. Like any Usenet newsgroup it varies from
week to week and with who is participating at any one time. Furthermore, it
is many things to many people.
A document trying to describe the ash subculture cannot avoid
generalizations. Indeed, we do not claim it is accurate. However we hope
this document may prove to be useful, especially for newcomers to ash, to
obtain an initial idea of how ashers think, feel, talk and behave.
Note that at any given time, any forum related to ash may have non ashers
participating in the discussion. This article talks only about ashers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contents
1) Suicide
1.1) Is suicide good or bad?
1.2) Is suicide a right?
1.3) A right for whom?
2) How ashers react to various situations
2.1) When newcomers arrive, or oldtimers return
2.2) When an asher commits suicide
2.3) When an asher who attempted suicide returns to ash
2.4) Why didn't I get a reply?
3) Attitude to outsiders
3.1) Friends of people who committed suicide
3.2) alt.support.depression
3.3) Psychologists and psychiatrists
3.4) Posters who are against suicide
4) Ash Lingo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1) Suicide
Ashers do not think suicide is immoral, irrational, or selfish. For further
information about our views on these topics please read the "ash FAQ -
Suicide The Debate".
1.1) Is suicide good or bad?
A newcomer to ash may think that since most of society believes that suicide
is bad, and we disagree with society, then it must be that we believe that
suicide is good. But this is not the case.
In most societies, the common belief is that suicide is bad in general. The
ash subculture believes that suicide may be a good option at least for some
people. Therefore, the faq "is suicide good or bad" is misleading, since for
each individual the answer may be different.
However, in contrast with the dominant culture, we do not presume to know
what the answer is for each person. This is one of the reasons why we are
pro-choice.
1.2) Is suicide a right?
It is important to distinguish between a legal right and a moral right.
Depending on the laws of your country, suicide may or may not be a legal
right. But the question of the legality of suicide is not of much interest
to ashers.
As for whether suicide is a moral right, we think it is. This is our main
disagreement with society.
1.3) A right for whom?
The common opinion on ash is that suicide should be a right for all, with
the exception of children, and adults who are not responsible for
themselves. However, there are may variations and divergence from this view.
In one extreme, some believe that children should have this right as well.
However, there is usually some age below which they agree that suicide
should not be a right. It seems that the real issue here is disagreement
about the definition of a child/adult. It is obvious that current
definitions which uses arbitrary age limits are inaccurate, however they are
easy to use and clear-cut.
On the other side of the spectrum, some believe that the right to suicide is
superseded in the case of other existing moral or legal obligations, such as
having young children which require care, or even having pending financial
obligations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
2) How ashers react to various situations
2.1) When newcomers arrive, or old-timers return
Sometimes someone who posted a farewell message returns later to inform us
s/he failed the attempt. Or decided not to go through with it at the last
moment. Other people leave ash because they want to go on with their lives
without the presence of ash, to return later because they found out they
still needed ash in their lives.
Those that remained behind on ash sometimes experience opposite emotions
about these returns. Whenever you know somebody is in pain and really wants
to die, one feels saddened for that person if it did not work out the way it
was supposed to. At the same time, a lot of ashers feel ashamed for being
glad that this person is back. Glad because of their presence, ashamed
because we basically get something positive out of this persons misery.
These opposing emotions are the origin of the customary ash welcome:
"Welcome to ash, sorry you're here."
Our true wish is that ash would be empty, but not because the former readers
would have committed suicide. We wish that all ashers find happiness and
contentment, however we know this is not always possible. Due to our
altruistic desire for ashers to have better lives, some ashers find it
difficult to admit that they are selfishly happy when someone returns to
ash. However, ashers understand this conflict - nobody has every been
offended by being welcomed back.
2.2) When an asher commits suicide
Whenever an account of suicide by an asher reaches the group, those staying
behind deal with their own emotions. We understand that suicide was probably
the best option available to this person. We respect this decision, we are
glad that they have finally managed to escape their pain.
At the same time we are often saddened. After all, this is a person we have
come to know, often even come to like. Because of their presence, they added
something to our lives. A nice remark, an insightful post, a good joke,
everybody has something to add to our subculture. And because they added
some extra flavor to our lives, they made our lives just a bit more
bearable. Because of this, we feel sad to see one of us leave.
2.3) When an asher who attempted suicide returns to ash
Ashers understand the difficulties of committing suicide, and are
sympathetic of people who have attempted.
Some ashers who have attempted suicide, feared they might be ridiculed for
their unsuccessful attempts. Many feel ashamed having failed in death on top
of their perceived failure in life and were afraid to return to the group.
However, it is precisely at such times where ash can help most. As
alienation from family and friends can increase after a suicide attempt, ash
may be the best outlet to talk things over. On top of this discussion about
unsuccessful attempts is usually of great interest to other ashers as it
provides information on what does and does not work.
2.4) Why didn't I get a reply?
When someone makes a post, sometimes there are no follow-up posts and the
reasons for this vary:
a.. Sometimes it's not entirely clear that the poster wants a reply. If
you want replies, say so.
b.. Ashers are mostly depressed and may not have the energy to reply.
c.. Often, people just don't know what to say.
d.. Distractions on the newsgroup (e.g. , a flamewar).
e.. Keep in mind that this is Usenet and your post may not have even
reached all of the news servers.
The main thing is to not take no replies (especially to a first post)
personally. If you don't get a response and want one then it's OK to ask
(nicely) again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
3) Attitude to outsiders
The key to understanding our relationship with other groups is the concept
of social control. Social control includes any process or mechanism which is
designed to achieve conformity. The goal of social control is to ensure that
members of society behave appropriately [1].
Involuntary treatment is a form of formal social control which ashers might
have to deal with. In this case some formal institution or authority
attempts to force conformity.
Informal social control, on the other hand, is much more common. It takes
place during normal, everyday interaction in the form of negative responses.
An example of informal social control on ash is posters who try to persuade
ashers that suicide is immoral.
In this section we describe how ashers relate to other groups either online
or in real life. Groups who tend to apply more social control on ashers are
usually those who are disliked the most. The section is roughly organized
such that groups which appear later apply increasing degrees of social
control to ash and ashers.
3.1) Friends of people who committed suicide
As long as they acknowledge our values and do not try to "help" us, there
are tolerated.
In fact, participation of such people in our discussions can help both
sides. They can gain better understanding of suicidal people and learn to
accept the suicide as a valid option. In turn, ashers can learn what pain
suicide leaves on those left behind, and although such pain is not an
overriding reason to denounce suicide, it is a factor which can be taken
into account if so desired.
3.2) alt.support.depression
The existence of ash and alt.support.depression (asd) is proof to how
differently people can express suffering and pain. Though each group's
membership consists of people who are in enough emotional pain that they are
considering ending their lives, the environment of each group is vastly
different and in a way they are almost opposites. In ash, people can make
choices about what they wish to do with their lives (be it change it,
continue it, or end it.) Asd is more of a traditional suicide support group
whose goal is to help its members find reasons to continue their lives and
to find solutions to the problems they face. Both try to offer a safe
supportive environment for their members. Since both are unmoderated Usenet
newsgroups the success of this varies.
Ashers are happy to give their experience when asked, but you have to ask.
Asd assumes that you want to feel better and that you desire their advice,
opinions, support and e-hugs (which they express by putting your name inside
of brackets {{{{{name}}}}}}, something you should not do on ash.)
On ash, you are perfectly free post "I want to die" and generally no one is
going be say "No, you don't." More likely, the replies will be along the
lines of "Yes, I feel that way too and it's hell." On the other hand,
posting the same thing on asd will often get replies like "Yes, you may feel
that way now, but the feeling will pass, and in some time period it will
feel different." Asd assumes that you want to be talked out of suicidal
tendencies, ash does not.
Given that the two groups are so fundamentally different, please never
crosspost between the two, no matter how appropriate it may seem. Instead,
ask both groups separately and you will get some very different and
potentially useful opinions from both. Crossposting usually causes horrible
flame wars and your question will go unanswered. The members of each group
often do not really understand the mindset of the other, so a flame war
between the two can cause serious psychological damage (which can be quite
dangerous). These groups are sometimes the only support that some of the
participants have and when that support is disrupted by a flame war, then
some folks may choose to take their lives sooner than they would have if
that support had been there. This may sound trite, but this is not a game
we're all playing. Agree with it or not, some people do live and die by
these groups and it's important to respect that.
A note to ashers. Some ashers dislike and ridicule online forums like asd,
that provide a more traditional forms of support, as useless and requiring
insincere displays of affection. This view is quite subjective. The support
on asd suits those who read it, and not ashers. In fact the number of
participants in asd substantially outnumbers those in ash. In short, don't
put asd down. Many people find it useful.
3.3) Psychologists and psychiatrists
Our relation with mental health professionals is ambivalent at best. They
may be helpful in many cases. However, there are also some serious problems.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are not magicians. They cannot solve all
problems. Furthermore, like any profession, some of them are good and some
are not. Many ashers have had bad experiences from traditional therapy -
long yet unhelpful treatment, long lasting side affects from psychiatric
drugs or being put into a mental institution against one's will. However,
the reason for these experiences may be just that their particular doctors
were lacking.
The real problems are more fundamental. The mental health establishment and
us have different value systems that are difficult to reconcile. Our
differences are simply a reflection of our disagreement with society in
general. A society which does not acknowledge the right to commit suicide.
Mental health establishments attitudes are based on current laws/government,
which, in turn, are reflections of the current society's values. To be
licensed as a therapist you have to agree to uphold a code of conduct.
Furthermore, mental health practitioners belong to a professional
association and are obligated to adhere to a code of ethics as a condition
of membership. The code is a statement of standards of conduct towards
clients and others. In most cases, the law sets only minimum standards of
conduct. Ethics demands more. This is especially true in regard to suicidal
individuals.
The attitude of mental health practitioners in your area depends largely on
the legislation in you country and the codes of ethics of the professional
associations with which they are affiliated. But most of all it depends on
the individual beliefs of values of the therapist.
From the point of view of ashers, mental health practitioners are agents of
social control. This does not that there are not some therapists who are
understanding and may acknowledge the right to suicide in some cases, but
legal and ethical codes make finding such therapists a difficult task.
The use of psychology as a device for social control is not new - runaway
slaves and homosexuality in America, masturbation in England and political
dissidence in the Soviet Union have all been classified as mental illness in
the past, and thus exposed to enforce treatment[1]. Such treatment can be as
coercive as any other form of social control.
For therapy to succeed the doctor and patient must establish a relationship
of trust. This allows the patient to be open and discuss anything which may
help in the process of therapy. The patient trusts the doctor to do
everything possible for the patient's best interest. However, ashers face
serious obstacles in establishing trust with their doctors.
Ashers consider suicide to be a valid option. The mental health
establishment rejects this. Note that an essential prerequisite for making a
rational decision is that all reasonable options be taken into account.
Therefore, from an asher's point of view, just by entering the mental health
system, the asher compromises his ability to exercise a rational decision
process.
To exemplify this, consider the following scenario: after many years of
treatment, the doctor of an asher concludes that the situation is hopeless -
there is nothing the doctor can do to help the asher out of depression. The
asher could have used this information to make a rational choice: if life in
the current situation is unbearable then suicide may be considered,
otherwise it may still be possible to continue on living despite depression.
But the doctor has reasons not to disclose this information. Many doctors
simply accept the values of society - for them suicide is indeed
unthinkable. However, even if the therapist realizes that suicide might be a
reasonable option for a patient, there are external forces at work.
The suicide of a patient is considered in the eyes of relatives, other
patients and professional peers, as a failure for the therapist. The cost to
the doctor can range from a decline in stature and prestige, to law suits
and disciplining acts within their professional association.
To prevent suicide, the therapist might prolong the treatment indefinitely,
adopt different or more coercive forms of treatment, raise false hopes, or
refer the patient to another professional. These options are not inherently
bad. However, not addressing the possibility of suicide is a betrayal of the
patient.
The patient trusts the doctor to do what is best for the patient. The
problem is that they disagree on what the best thing is. A doctor denying
the possibility of suicide is serving as an agent of social control. The
doctor becomes part of the problem rather than the solution.
For these reasons there are voices on ash against the existing mental health
establishment, but on the whole, ash is not against it. With all its
problems we recognize that traditional therapy may be helpful to some
people. If somebody believes they can benefit from such treatment then we
would recommend trying it out. Keep in mind that you may likely need to talk
to several therapists in order to find one that you feel comfortable with.
However, one must always remember the limitations of such therapy: if while
in therapy you are to make a decision about whether to suicide or not, you
will have to make this decision by yourself, without the therapist's
assistance. Furthermore, to avoid involuntary hospitalization you might have
to lie, claiming that although you are suicidal you have no intentions of
acting upon this, or better yet deny that you are suicidal altogether. It is
unfortunate that the delicate relationship between doctor and patient has to
be underlined by deception.
3.4) Posters who are against suicide
Ashers are very protective of ash as it's a unique place. At the time of
this writing there are over 35000 newsgroups, yet ash is the only one that
is devoted to talking about suicide in a non-judgemental environment. People
who deliberately disrupt ash are dealt with sometimes quite harshly, but
this usually happens after the person has been gently told where to find the
FAQ (or even been emailed it). They decide that their viewpoint is somehow
important/unique (it isn't, we've heard it all before) that they should
receive special status and post their anti-suicide opinion anyway. Then they
have earned the title of troll.
There is a group of regular ash posters who are fiendishly good at having a
good deal of fun at the troll's expense. Ashers protect the group because
they do not want newcomers to misunderstand what ash is about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
4) Ash Lingo
4.1) Pdoc
A Pdoc is a shorter word for "psychiatrist" or "psychologist".
4.2) 'suicide' vs. 'attempt'
A suicide is when a person has killed themselves. An attempted suicide is
where a person has tried, and failed.
4.3) "catch/climb on/get on/board the bus".
The the bus phrase is a much loved ash metaphor for committing suicide.
"Does anyone know if XXX caught the bus?" means "Does anyone know if XXX
died (by suicide)?" The original idea was created by "just another
onionhead" and can be found at http://ash.xanthia.com/ashbus.html .
Ash itself is often described as a bus stop where several people have
decided to stop and chat before deciding on whether or not to get on the
bus. The image resonates with many ashers.
4.4) Shiny-happy people
Shiny-happy people is an ash term that we shamelessly stole from the REM
song of the same name. It refers to those who are not ashers yet want to
cheer ashers up, however, they can not understand or sympathize with someone
who is not happy. The most common characteristic is if they imply something
like: "I'm happy and you should be to and here's how...", a message not
appropriate for ash.
Calling them evangelists for happiness would not be far off the mark.
Shiny-happies give those folks who have gone through bad times and are now
OK or even happy (something that ash respects) an undeserved bad name.
4.5) Troll
An intrusive poster who willfully disregards the posting rules spelled out
in the FAQ.
4.6) come out/come out of the closet
To come out in an ash context means to tell someone that you are suicidal.
Some will also use the term when telling a person they know that they are
depressed.
4.7) >>cuts<<
This is a play on {{hugs}} which is normally used in conventional support
groups. The word "cuts" refers to some ashers tendency towards self harm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References
[1] Society in transition: a humanist introduction to sociology, Rodney D.
Elliott, Don H. Shamblin, Prentice-Hall 1992, p. 123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Part III: Are you for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This section is part 3 of the alt.suicide.holiday FAQ, co-authored by mori
qendi, Ramble and EverDawn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1.1) You don't really want to die, you just talk about suicide because
it is cool
1.2) You don't really want to die, you just want attention
1.3) People who failed in their suicide attempt are just looking for
attention
1.4) You don't *really* want to die, otherwise you would have done so
by now
1.5) You don't *really* want to die, you just want to have a better
life
1.6) It is easy to commit suicide.
Not all ashers are suicidal or depressed [1]. However, many of the posts on
ash express suicidal viewpoints. Some people don't believe such expressions
are for real. They may question the honesty of an individual poster who is
considering suicide, or even doubt that any asher is truly suicidal.
There are many problems with arguments which claim that "ashers are not
really suicidal." Often such claims make sweeping assumptions about the
situation and reasoning of ashers.
Some claims assume that ashers post about suicide only because of some
ulterior motive and are therefore not truly suicidal. However, suicidal
expressions may have several motivations; just pointing to a different
motivation (which may or may not be true) does not mean that one is not
honestly suicidal.
Most other claims are the result of a basic misunderstanding of the issues
related to suicide, and of what ash is about. For an introduction to ash
please refer to the ASH FAQ part 1: Introduction [1].
The rest of this article expands on common judgments, statements, and
opinions which doubt the sincerity and motives of ashers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1) You don't really want to die, you just talk about suicide because it is
cool
Some people think we talk about suicide in ash because we consider it "cool"
or shocking. In fact, ashers try to take a realistic approach to suicide. We
wish that society would accept this approach and not be shocked when suicide
occurs or is even merely discussed.
To shock people, one would have to talk about something that is not
acceptable to those people. In ash though, suicide is accepted, so talking
about it does not shock anybody. By reading some posts, it will also become
clear that the people in ash don't think suicide is cool. Suicide is merely
part of life, one possible decision to make.
2) You don't really want to die, you just want attention.
Any form of communication is a call for attention. Every time you talk or
write to somebody about any topic, you are requesting the attention of the
recipient. This is also true for posts to ash.
However, this particular statement generally refers to wanting another form
of attention. In this context, "getting attention" means either an indirect
request for psychiatric help or an effort to get others to be more attentive
and caring. The hope in this scenario would be that the shock of such an
extreme action as suicide would cause everyone to reevaluate their
relationship with one who attempted (or even mentioned) committing suicide.
On ash, discussion about suicide is to the point--we are not alarmed by
suicidal ideation. If somebody wants startled responses, there are many
forums which could provide it (any of the support newsgroups for example).
ash is the last place to get this sort of attention.
3) People who failed in their suicide attempt are just looking for
attention.
Some ashers have had failed attempts in the past. Perhaps some failed
attempts are attention ploys, but it would be a mistake to generalize this,
especially to ashers. Failed attempts happen frequently, even if the person
was serious in his/her intentions. Suicide is often not easy to carry out
(see item (6) below).
Trying to commit suicide is often accompanied by high emotional stress which
in turn may cause confusion about one's intention to commit suicide or about
the application of the chosen method. Some people may want to exit, yet at
the same time have hopes for rescue and a better life. Other people fail
attempts due to apathy--at the time of the attempt they do not care whether
they live or die. Such half-hearted attempts are likely to fail. For people
whose attempt has failed for these reasons, the motivation for suicide may
persist, and thus they might commit suicide in the future.
Note that even if drawing attention is one motive for displaying suicidal
gestures, this does not exclude the possibility that these people are also
truly suicidal and may eventually kill themselves.
Most people who accuse us of wanting to get attention seem to focus on some
sort of supportive attention that would be the result of the attempt. But in
many cases, the attention one gets after a failed attempt is far from
supportive. People stay away or treat you differently after an attempt.
Chances are you will be closely watched by all sorts of people, maybe even
be "persuaded" to get involved with mental health care. The problem with
asking for attention by way of a suicidal gesture is that you can never be
sure what kind of attention you will get.
Mental health practitioners consider suicide attempts to be one of the best
indications of a risk for suicide. About 30 to 40 percent of suicides have
made a previous attempt. Furthermore, the probability of completed suicide
is 100 times greater than average in the first year after an attempt. [2]
Just because someone fails in an effort to kill themselves doesn't mean they
weren't sincere about it and clear in their intent.
4) You don't *really* want to die, otherwise you would have done so by now.
Obviously, some people really want to die since people do manage to commit
suicide. This includes people who used to post to ash. [3] There is a stigma
that people who commit suicide do it irrationally, spontaneously or without
much thought. The conclusion would be that if people have suicidal thoughts
then they would commit suicide within a short period of time.
In fact, many people give much thought to whether they should commit suicide
as in the case of Dan Reinfurt [4]. This is only logical since the decision
is perhaps the most difficult one ever has to make. However, there are
additional factors which prolong this decision making process.
In any important life decision it is possible to consult books, people or
experts to help one decide. Ironically, for the most difficult decision--to
be or not to be--no assistance is possible.
Many complicating factors require significant time to think through in order
to decide whether or not to commit suicide. But even if one has decided to
exit, there is also a matter of choosing, planning, and carrying out a
suicide method. Suicide is not easy (see below) and many people require much
deliberation before deciding how to go about it.
Finally, there are people who are suicidal, yet still choose not to commit
suicide, at least for the time being. Some are not able to eliminate their
suicidal tendencies even though they have tried to do so. Others may feel
that being suicidal is part of their true identity. In either case, they
choose to accept that they are suicidal rather than fight it. They have the
desire to die, yet they decide to live.
Suicidal ashers are in various stages of deliberation. By open discussion,
ash encourages people to evaluate their situation carefully and rationally.
Some are trying to make decisions about their lives, others just like to
talk with like-minded people. This is what fuels the paradox of a crowded
pro-choice-suicide group, and what keeps ashers around for many years.
5) You don't *really* want to die, you just want to have a better life.
Some ashers believe that if they had a better life, they would not want to
die. Others believe that they would want to die no matter what changed in
their life. A better life is simply not attainable for some people. If one's
body, family, spirit, emotions, or mind have been irreparably damaged, there
may be no way to attain a better life in the ways that truly matter. Some
have tried for a better life for so long that they no longer believe it is
possible. They desire only death.
It is possible to want a better life and at the same time crave death. If
you are hungry, you may want a sandwich and at the same time crave a pizza.
Either would take away the discomfort of hunger. Either death or a better
life would take away the life of misery many ashers experience. Regardless
of their motivation, ashers have chosen to accept suicide as their most
likely way to deal with their present situation.
6) It is easy to commit suicide.
This claim is commonly used to support the argument above (i.e., if you
wanted to die you would have done so by now).
On the surface, the availability of methods, such as jumping from a high
place, supports the claim that suicide is easy. However, availability is not
the only obstacle. Three stages are necessary to commit suicide. All of them
introduce problems.
1.. Getting the physical means of suicide: Many of the more reliable
methods are difficult to obtain. For example, suitable drugs/poison in
lethal quantities are only easily accessible by doctors, pharmacists, or
chemists. Guns are readily available only in some areas.
2.. Using the physical means appropriately: To apply a method quickly,
painlessly, and with high probability to succeed, it is vital to know how to
apply it correctly . Although a small number of authoritative books on
methods are available, the information they contain is not completely
reliable since no real tests can be performed for confirmation. For example,
the toxicity of various substances is measured by administering them to
laboratory animals, whose reactions may differ from those of humans. For
most other methods there are no empirical data to confirm successful method
usage. Although there is a lot of information on the net, it is of low
credibility; at best it relies on the books already mentioned above.
3.. Getting over the psychological barrier: Suicide is against our
instincts. We are programmed to fear death, to survive. Overcoming this fear
is not easy. It can be terribly hard to take the last step. To jump. To pull
the trigger.
There are methods in which some of these stages are easy, but usually the
other stages will be very difficult. For example, methods which are
physically easy to execute usually require much more determination in order
to carry them out (taking a bunch of pills is a lot easier than jumping from
a high building), and thus the psychological barrier is more difficult to
overcome.
Indeed, of the three stages the psychological barrier is the most
significant. Many factors contributing to the psychological barrier are the
consequence of problems with using the physical means appropriately (the
second stage). The following are just some of these factors:
a.. Lack of assistance: There are many risks one has to face when
committing suicide. In practically any risky task one would have some kind
of assistance from a professional (e.g., a doctor or instructor), who would
not only ensure that your physical gear is in order, but would help you
carry out the task step by step and provide encouragement and support. Can
you imagine going to a psychologist and asking for help to get over the fear
of committing suicide? No assistance is possible when committing suicide,
and that makes the task much harder.
b.. Agonizing death: The risk of having a slow and agonizing death is what
many people fear most, since it is likely that the person committing the act
would not be able to alleviate his/her own pains. Add to this the fact that
suicide is usually done in solitude (so there are no other people who can
help) and you can imagine how one would continue to helplessly suffer until
death.
c.. Survival: There are no 100% guaranteed methods. A failed attempt may
occur due to poor execution of the chosen method, or even due to being
"saved" by a friend. If the attempt caused injury, one might not be
physically capable of carrying out another attempt, and thus would be forced
to live in a situation much worse than before, truly deprived of any escape.
This can be compounded by having to face family and friends, who might treat
you differently (or even cut their connections with you). To top it off one
might be forced to undergo psychiatric treatment. In light of the physical
and emotional pain which might be caused, the risk of survival could be
paralyzing.
There are other factors which contribute to the psychological barrier:
a.. Lack of role models: A role model is someone who does things you
admire, who you look up to, or who you want to be like. There are very few
role models for suicide. Just the fact that you see other people do it makes
it a lot easier to do it yourself. Having a role model has a significant
impact on the ability to commit suicide. There is evidence that suicide
reports in media cause an increase in suicide using the same method.[5] In
an effort to prevent suicides by diminishing the effect of possible role
models, Centers for Disease Control in the USA have developed guidelines for
mass-media coverage and for counseling of close friends of those who have
attempted or committed suicide.[6] The concern of mental health
practitioners of what they refer to as "imitation" or "contagion" indicates
that the lack of role models makes suicide more difficult to carry out.
b.. Norms of society: Yet another factor is connected to societal norms.
It is much more difficult to do something that society disagrees with. This
is probably when courage is really tested to the limit. All our lives we are
taught to conform. Some people might find it difficult to "rebel" in any
manner, however irrational their submission to society might be.
c.. Indecision: Obviously, before one takes steps to exit, they must make
a decision that they indeed want to commit suicide. Some factors, which are
similar to those contributing to the psychological barrier, also affect this
decision process. Even after a decision to exit has been made, the lack of
assistance in making the decision, lack of role models, and the norms of
society would raise doubts in any rational human being. It requires great
determination to follow such a decision given its overwhelming significance
on one hand, and the limiting constraints under which it was made on the
other.
These factors explain some of the difficulties facing one who wants to
commit suicide, however, their effect varies for different people. It may be
difficult for some and not for others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Conclusion:
The common claim that ashers "do not really want to die" usually implies
that ashers are hypocrites and probably not suicidal at all. However, in
light of the issues addressed in this FAQ, it is not at all clear what the
phrase "really suicidal" actually means.
For example, in the context of the claim "You don't really want to die,
otherwise you would have done so by now," the expression "you don't really
want to die" only means that up until now you did not want to die enough to
actually do it.
All other claims presented here do not make any substantiated argument that
indicates that ashers are not suicidal. "You are not really suicidal", is
just a meaningless slogan intended to delegitimize our right to contemplate
or even just talk about suicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References
[1] ASH FAQ part 1 : Introduction
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2150/intro.html
[2] Suicide (Part II), The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Vol. 13, No. 6,
December 1996
[3] a.s.h web expressions index page at http://ash.xanthia.com/nazgsoul.html
[4] Article from the Boston Globe, Wednesday, August 20, 1997 Michael Hill.
The article describes the suicide of Dan Reinfurt, 45, a high school
football coach from Watervliet, New York, who was suffering from depression
for 20 years. He tried counseling, group therapy, medication, self-help
tapes, but nothing helped. Quotes of his sisters: "Nobody could have tried
harder than he did, and it didn't work" "So you can never, ever be mad at
him for what he did. You think: 'Oh my God, how did you go on as long as you
did?' "
[5] "Advances in Youth Suicide Research Update", David Shaffer, In the
Lifesavers newsletter, Fall 1993, The American Foundation for Suicide
Prevention. http://www.afsp.org/research/articles/shaff2.html
[6] "Suicide Contagion", Madelyn S. Gould , In the Lifesavers newsletter,
Spring 1992, The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.
http://www.afsp.org/research/articles/gould.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Part IV: The Debate
This section attempts to answer claims which state that suicide is
necessarily immoral or irrational. Such claims and answers to them were
collected from the usenet news group alt.suicide.holiday (ash), and other
sources. This article is part 4 of the alt.suicide.holiday FAQ.
The first version of this section was written by EverDawn. In this later
revision the foreword was edited by Mori Qendi. Many sections have been
moved to other places. Some to part 3 ("Are you for real?") and others to an
article which is still just a rough draft, called "To be or not to be".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contents:
0 Foreword
0.1 Goals of FAQ
0.2 Organization of FAQ
1 Duty to god
1.1 Life is a gift from god
1.2 People who commit suicide go to hell
1.3 Believe in god and he will save you
1.4 Only god decides in matters of life and death
2 The Philosophical Debate
2.1 Duty to society (Suicide is selfish)
2.2 Life is the only thing you have
3 Layman clichés
3.1 Suicide is not a solution
3.2 Suicide is not natural
4 The Suicidological Debate
5 Layman clichés about rationality
5.1 Suicide is the easy way out
5.2 Suicide is an act of a coward
5.3 Aren't all suicidal people crazy?
5.4 Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem
References
Acknowledgements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
0 Foreword
Suicide is not uncommon. It is the third most common cause of death among
young adults in North America after car wrecks and homicides [2]. The
subject of suicide is highly sensitive and complicated. It involves
philosophical, psychological, medical, theological and legal issues.
Most people believe suicide is foolish, crazy, and/or immoral. When suicide
is discussed it is routinely condemned, however, since the topic is taboo,
people are rarely willing to discuss it even hypothetically.
It is ironic that an event as common as suicide is one that permits little
discussion in any venue due to the fiercely held opinions against it.
Although some people may agree in theory to a person's right to suicide,
they are unwilling to address the individual's right to a reliable means of
death. A suicidal person has no access to professional assistance in
self-delivery.
Suicide is reported in the media and many people have known someone who
committed suicide. Why is such a relevant topic not explored in open
conversation? How can such an intractable issue be approached? Why are so
many people so sure about their convictions? Why is it that ash, one of the
few places where the pros and cons of suicide may be discussed freely, is
seen as a terrible influence that should be bombarded with the same
invalidating, condemnatory comments again and again?
Clichés allow society to bridge the gap between the inherent complexities of
the problem and the will of society to preserve life. Some clichés divert
attention from the topic. Some exploit the psychological situation of people
who want to commit suicide. But many of them are simply irrelevant,
illogical or rely on questionable assumptions [3]. Clichés are simple enough
for everyone to understand but they don't really address the issues.
The current state is one of paranoia, where any suicidal tendency is
regarded as an illness to be cured. In some cases, suicidal desires are
indeed a symptom of illness, but many other situations are not so clear cut
as society would have us believe.
Even dying patients in excruciating pain are not allowed to end their life.
How can society be so numb to the needs of its citizens? In the 21st
century, we are still using the Hippocratic oath[4], which is more than 2000
years old, as our moral guide.
Changing these attitudes is not an easy task. This is demonstrated by the
fight of euthanasia organizations around the world to change legislation and
allow the terminally ill and the aged to end their lives in peace. Their
slow progress is due to the democratic society we most live in. Indeed
democracy is the rule of the majority via representatives, and people who
wish to commit suicide are always the minority (and are a weak one at that
since suicidal people often do not have the energy to be politically
active).
However, democracy is not simply the rule of the majority. The essence of
democracy is in the restrictions that should be placed on the government to
preserve the individual's rights from the will of the majority.
We are lucky to live in times where values are constantly changing.
Minorities around the world are reclaiming their natural rights, from the
progress of women's liberation movements to the fall of apartheid. Sexual
preferences, for which in the past one could be sent to jail, are
increasingly recognized as the private concern of the individuals involved.
The control over our bodies, the ultimate civil right, is yet another limit
our governing bodies should acknowledge and embrace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
0.1 Goals of FAQ
The ash newsgroup is under constant attack from pro-life advocates. This is
an attempt to organize these attacks and answer them. No attempt is made to
show that suicide is right, permissible or moral in general or in particular
cases.
The only thing demonstrated here is that suicide is not proven to be wrong
by these attacks.
This should come as no surprise. Most moral questions are difficult or even
impossible to resolve one way or the other. What *is* surprising is the
conviction of some pro-life posters and total disregard to the opinions of
ashers. Although this document might actually convince some pro-lifers that
they are wrong, its real purpose is to help people who are new to ash to
*understand* our point view and realize that the issues are far from
trivial.
For regular ashers, the FAQ can serve as a repository of answers to various
pro-life arguments, but as a whole it serves another purpose. Being
depressed, suicidal, and always hearing 'suicide is not a solution', 'only
madmen contemplate suicide' makes some people feel more guilty and more
depressed. Seeing it as a choice can help people, without having to burden
them more by getting more depressed by their depression.
0.2 Organization of FAQ
We tried to include most of the arguments we could find. Some of these have
been the discussion of philosophers for centuries. Other attacks are silly
but are still frequently posted. Not all arguments could possibly be added
to this FAQ. The basic criteria for exclusion is if the answer is too simple
to be of interest.
The first question if obvious: "is suicide immoral?". This breaks up into
three different questions. Is suicide immoral towards god? towards society?
or towards oneself?
Suppose that the conclusion is that suicide cannot be proven to be immoral.
The debate is not over. A pro life advocate can still claim that suicide is
irrational. Informally, we consider an act to be irrational if neither the
person doing the act, nor anyone else, is able to explain the act by showing
that there are good reasons for doing it.
Immorality towards god is discussed in section 1, and towards society and
self in section 2. Section 3 contains arguments which usually appear on ash
as unsubstantiated statements against suicide in general.
The first 3 sections answer a-priori arguments against suicide, i.e.
arguments derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions which are
independent of experience. Such arguments claim that no person can be
justified in committing suicide. In contrast, the following 2 sections
implicitly acknowledge that in some cases, suicide is justified, however, in
practice, most cases are not. This direction is pursued, using findings from
suicidology, in section 4. The arguments in section 5 makes generalizing
claims about the rationality of those committing suicide.
The question of whether society has a right to prevent people from
committing suicide (e.g. by legislation) is not in the scope of this FAQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1 Duty to god
Many ashers are atheists, therefore claims about moral obligations to god
have no effect on them. On the other hand someone who strictly follows a
particular religion must accept some of the following claims, however, these
are a minority among ash readers since religion provides inherent
psychological solutions, which would prevent such people from coming to ash
in the first place.
To make things interesting we assume that answers to the following cliches
are made by a somewhat sceptical theist who believes in a super being but
questions the insight of common religions. Such a combination is possible:
David Hume [1], an 18th century philosopher, believed in god but did not
consider suicide to be a crime against ourselves, society or god.
1.1 Life is a gift from god.
What this cliché implies is that we should take care of our lives. This is
our duty to god. God gave us this gift for us to keep.
Answer:
If life is a gift then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it
once it's mine, this includes throwing the gift away.
What the cliché suggests is that since god has given us the precious gift of
life (and thus has been good to us) then we should return the favor and
preserve ourselves to the best of our ability since this is gods wish ( well
that's the reason he gave us life in the first place isn't it? ). Many
ashers will say that life is a burden, not a gift, so they feel no need to
return gods "favor".
1.2 People who commit suicide go to hell.
The basic Christian belief about suicide is that God has given us the gift
of life and that there is some divine purpose to it. But to convolute this
"purpose" we are also given free will. This free will is so that we can
choose good or evil. Committing suicide is evil since one abandons hope in
God, and without God all that is left is evil. After death those who have
chosen good end up in Heaven and those who have chosen evil are eternally
tormented in Hell.
Islam has clear principles regarding suicide. The prophet Muhammad said that
people who commit suicide will spend eternity killing themselves just as
they did in this world. Do you really want to spend eternity shooting
yourself in the mouth or poisoning yourself?
In Buddhism , the basic belief is that whatever effects from whatever karma
you're suffering from now will follow you into your next life, and in fact
probably have followed you from your last life because you didn't deal with
it then. In other words, you might as well deal with it now and change
whatever is bothering you as you'll have to eventually.
Answer:
This is a good method of social control to convince people that depending on
their behavior, they would wind up someplace totally pleasant or unbearable
for eternity, after death. But the fact is that we don't really know what
happens when we die and we shall probably never know.
This can be viewed as an issue of religion evolution. A religion which would
encourage suicide would not survive very long. However, a religion which
condemns suicide is more attractive ( to most people ) so such religions
have prevailed. Most people are not in a suicidal state, so such religions
are a better match to their point of view.
People who commit suicide for the usual reasons (emotional problems or deep
pain of some sort) often act out of fear or hurt rather than willfully, they
are not fully responsible for their actions. I have a hard time believing
that God will be anything less than fair and merciful to these people, even
if they do kill themselves.
1.3 Believe in god and he will save you from suicide
"my belief in God and faith in his love and power is the only thing that's
held me back from committing suicide"
Answer:
It wasn't the grace of the benevolent and merciful god which saved you from
suicide, but simply -your belief- in him. Your power of decision.
1.4 Only god decides in matters of life and death
... life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and
makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as
he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he
who usurps (holds without right) to himself judgment of a matter not
entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death
and life ...
St. Thomas Aquinas [5], Summa Theologica II-II, 64,5
Answer:
Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province
of the Almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right, for men to
dispose of their own lives; it would be equally criminal to act for the
preservation of life as for its destruction. If I turn aside a stone which
is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the
peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the
period which by the general laws of matter and motion he had assigned it.
David Hume, Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul [1]
The paradox is that if life and death is totally in the hands of god then to
extend our lives or to terminate them is equally sinful. In this case a rock
is about to fall on someone's head. This is a natural event. Since god
created the universe and all the physical laws which govern matter then the
fall of the rock is god's will. To avoid the rock would be a sin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
2 The Philosophical Debate
These clichés refer to the relationship and duties of the person committing
suicide to society.
2.1 Duty to society (Suicide is selfish)
We all have duties to society, family and friends.
... every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of
the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by
killing himself he injures the community ...
St. Thomas Aquinas [5], Summa Theologica II-II, 64,5
Answer:
This could be turned on its head, of course: *not* to suicide, in the light
of the vast overpopulation of the world, is an extremely self-centered act.
Therefore evil or negative. It's an equally valid point, which makes it fair
rebuttal.
From a more traditional point of view suicide might be considered a selfish
act, but aren't most actions we take selfish? And don't our family and
friends want us to continue to live for their own selfish reasons? Note also
that in some cases the people around you (society, family and friends) are
the ones contributing to (if not causing) your torture, and thus to your
will to commit suicide, should we be bound by duties to others in such a
case?
The sole argument that suicide is selfish doesn't mean that it shouldn't be
allowed. Let's consider a man who leaves his country, family and friends,
and goes for instance to India to join a secluded religious sect. He too has
abandoned all of his previous duties, but his acts are not illegal.
I wonder what people who use this cliché would say about an old lonely man
who has no friends and family and is retired ( so he is also of no use to
society ). Would they approve the suicide of such a man? I guess not.
However the death of this man does not cause any harm to the community.
Furthermore, even if it might be possible for this man to contribute to
society ( doing some volunteer work at a hospital for example ) then the
cost of suffering for this man might still substantially outweigh the
benefits for society.
2.2 Life is the only thing you have.
"Maybe life is depressing. But it's all we got. How can you give it up for
nothing?"
Answer:
People who use the cliché are performing a "mapping" from the state of mind
of an individual to ... lets say the non negative integers! Where death = 0
and anything else is positive. The analogy seems logical since when we die
we don't exist, there is nothing, zero. The problem is that they are mixing
up between the physical state and the mental state. Nobody can have a
negative amount of bodies, but why map the mental state ( which is what
matters ) into the non negatives? Are there mental states which are worse
than death? I think there are but there is no way to prove it one way or the
other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
3 Layman clichés
The following sections are common lines which appear in many posts. These
are usually stated without any substantiation.
3.1 Suicide is not a solution.
Answer:
Of course it's a solution. A solution is an action which when taken at a
state with a problem, results to another state without that problem. So when
one commits suicide he definitely solves his problems ( all of them at once
as a matter of fact ), however he might create new problems to other people,
but this is a different matter.
Perhaps what people really mean when they say this cliché is actually a bit
more complicated. What they mean is that committing suicide is not in the
framework, it does not conform to the moral system of the society.
Like if somebody comes up with an original solution to a riddle. Suppose the
riddle involves crossing a river with some limited means and somebody tries
to solve it by saying "They can cross the river with a helicopter" albeit a
helicopter was not mentioned in the riddle. Someone might then say "that's
not a solution" because the framework was broken. Generally in riddles you
should use only the presented objects.
Society has its own framework - values. And when it's broken some people
might reply "that is not a solution".
But perhaps the real problem in this cliché is defining the problem to which
suicide is or is not a solution. Indeed there are many problems that suicide
does not solve, Islamic fundamentalism and global warming to name a few. If
the problem is "find happiness" then suicide is not a solution, but if it's
"stop pain" then it is. At least give us the credit of defining our own
problems.
3.2 Suicide is not natural
... everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything
naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can.
Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature,... Hence suicide
is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law
St. Thomas Aquinas [5], Summa Theologica II-II, 64,5
Answer:
It is not true that all things naturally avoid self destruction. It is a
well known phenomena that groups of whales get stranded on beaches, and
ultimately die. This does not seem to be just an accident.
Furthermore, some people are also naturally inclined to kill themselves. For
instance, people suffering from inbarable pain and who are terminally ill.
Another point is that the fact that an act runs against one's nature this
doesn't mean that this act is immoral or unlawful. Ear piercing is quite
unnatural, and in fact painful, yet acceptable for women ( and men ) in most
societies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
4 The Suicidological Debate
Suicidology is a field of research which employs methods and findings from
sociology, psychology and psychiatry for the research and prevention of
suicide.
Some suicidologists feel that the philosophical approach to the issue of
suicide is too distant and abstract[8]. They claim that this approach has
lead people to the misguided conclusion that rational suicide is to be
accepted. According to [7], a better approach might be to use the knowledge
and findings made by mental health practitioners and researches which are
familiar with suicide in reality, and thus have a better understanding of
the issues involved.
However, the suicidological approach has several problems. Suicidology, as
any social science, uses empirical research that can only provide
predictions which are probabilistic by nature. For example, even if it would
be possible to perform some research which would conclude that suicide, in
practice, is irrational, the most that could be hoped to predict is that it
would be irrational for a high percentage of the population. Yet still for
some of the population it could be rational.
No research in the social sciences can lead to a conclusion that suicide is
categorically wrong or irrational. The refusal of the mental health
establishment to assist in cases where suicide is rational is evidence that
the real reason behind their approach is their moral values, which brings us
right back to the philosophical debate.
Another problem is cultural. All findings are based on research which is
performed in a society which is predominantly pro-life. This may have a
great affect on the results of the research, not just because of the
assumptions of the ones carrying out the research, but mainly because the
subjects of such research have grown up in such a society.
Note that the subject of suicide is mostly taboo. Mental health
professionals provide no counseling on choosing whether or not to commit
suicide. They can only help in *exploring* *life*. By not providing
counseling on choice, mental health practitioners are encouraging irrational
decisions about suicide.
Finally, the fact that suicidologists are not versed in philosophy makes
much of their research prone to logical fallacies. These are usually
circular arguments where the researcher assumes that suicide is wrong and
the research is used to reaffirm that assumption.
Returning to the problem of choosing between the philosophical and the
suicidological approaches, the question remains: what is the *appropriate*
tool for analyzing the problem of suicide. Perhaps philosophy may seem too
distant from the problem, but suicidology is too close. One main goal of
suicidology is to prevent suicide. One cannot expect a discipline which is
based so deeply on the assumption that suicide is wrong, to be able to turn
back and question its own foundations. Only philosophy allows us to look at
our cultural influences and false beliefs from a distance, and clarify the
big picture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
5 Layman clichés about rationality
These clichés analyze the reasons why people want to die and then claim that
these reasons do not justify suicide. Perhaps some of them our true for some
people. But doing something for the wrong reasons is only bad if the action,
suicide in this case, is itself wrong. These clichés don't deal with this
aspect at all. People can do good things for bad reasons and bad things for
good reasons.
5.1 Suicide is the easy way out.
Answer:
What the cliché implies is that people who commit suicide are choosing the
easy solution instead of the "correct" solution. This cliché simply defers
the discussion from the real issue - is suicide a solution.
The fact is that committing suicide is not easy ( see part 3 ), however if
at a given situation suicide is indeed the easiest solution, this alone is
not a negative property and does not comprise a reason not to take it. In
fact easiness is usually positive, isn't this what the western society is
all about. Doing things more efficient, faster, easier.
5.2 Suicide is an act of a coward.
Answer:
This is very similar to the previous cliché, but with a twist of slander. It
is also a dangerous generalization. There are many reasons to commit
suicide. The obvious example is the terminally ill who simply want to
alleviate their suffering.
Again, committing suicide requires courage, however even if it is least
courageous option it does not make the action itself wrong. In combat a
soldier might commit an act of bravery just because he is afraid of the
reaction of his peers if he would not do that action ( this is part of the
way how soldiers are conditioned to behave like killing machines ). A good
act was motivated by a seemingly bad reason ( cowardliness ). The action
also required courage, but perhaps less than facing the other soldiers in
his unit.
5.3 Aren't all suicidal people crazy?
Answer:
No, having suicidal thoughts does not imply that one is crazy, or
necessarily mentally ill [9]. For example, Appleby and Condonis[10] write:
The majority of individuals who commit suicide do not have a diagnosable
mental illness. They are people just like you and I who at a particular time
are feeling isolated, desperately unhappy and alone. Suicidal thoughts and
actions may be the result of life's stresses and losses that the individual
feels they just can't cope with.
Note that the definition of depression as a diagnosable mental illnesses is
inexact, and varies according to the culture and also the person making the
diagnosis. It is not unlikely that in a society which objects to suicide,
more suicidal people would be unjustly classified as mentally ill in order
to be able to enforce treatment upon them. Of course, some people who are
suicidal do have some mental illness. Even so, describing someone as
"crazy", which has strong negative connotations, isn't helpful and is more
likely to dissuade someone from seeking help which may be beneficial,
whether they have a diagnosable mental illness or not.
5.4 Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem
Answer:
First of all, for many, the problems are not temporary. The obvious example
is the terminally ill. Depression also, is not "curable" in all cases.
However, even in cases where the problem is temporary suicide could still be
a rational decision[11].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References
[1] David Hume, Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul, 1783,
Version 1.0, ed. James Fieser (Internet Release, 1995)
http://www.infidels.org/library/ historical/david_hume/suicide.html
[2] Robert Wright, The Evolution of Despair, TIME Magazine August 28, 1995
Volume 146, No. 9 http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/
archive/1995/950828/950828.cover.html
[3] Alt.Atheism FAQ: Logic and Fallacies - Constructing a Logical Argument
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
[4] The Oath, Hippocrates, 400 B.C
http://the-tech.mit.edu/Classics/Hippocrates/hippooath.sum.html
[5] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 64,5
http://www.knight.org/advent/summa/306405.htm
[6] Fred Feldman, Confrontations with the Reaper, Oxford University Press,
1992
[7] Karolynn Siegel, Rational Suicide, in "What we Know about Suicidal
behavior and how to treat it", Ed. Stanley Leese, 1988.
[8] Maris, R. Suicide, Rights and Rationality. Suicide Life Threat. Behav.
13:223-228, 1983
[9] Greyham Stoney, "Suicide - Frequently Asked Questions" General
information about suicide and suicide prevention.
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/suicide/info
[10] Appleby and Condonis, "Hearing the cry: Suicide Prevention", 1990.
[11] "To Be or Not to Be", To be published
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Acknowledgements
Many of the clichés and answers to them were taken from posts on ash made by
Last Year's Man, xopher, steward, chrisleonard, Tiffany H., JDD(Jeff),
transhumanist and Mark M. . Special thanks to Skito and xopher for their
comments. and to Schop for his comments for his advice on html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Tracy Barber
rahim) wrote:
Then don't cross-post to asd. Remove the cross-postings for me,
please?
Tracy Barber
Kathleen
rahim <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
Excuse me, dear, but I don't even belong to the "club" or the "secret
society of ASH poster who truly belong."
Of course this is an unmoderated forum with no moderator per se. At
the same time, ashers have long held that crossposting between other
groups, even groups which may share some similar characteristics such
as alt.support.depression or alt.suicide. methods is not welcomed nor
desirable. Why? Because our purposes are different and those
differences may erupt into flame wars.
If you really can't get the difference between your group and ours, you
must be either a mental case of the highest proportion, or simply rude.
We live with suicide ideation everyday for the most part. Do you
really think we are all that concerned about some obscure French actor
who took the gas? Get real.
Kathleen
Kathleen
Doug
Well, if Kathleen does not care for the outcome of a real person's suicide,
why should anyone believe Kathleen gives a hoot about a nym's posting to
ASH?
Answer: Kathleen does not give a hoot about anyone but getting attention
solely to herself.
Of course, the blather about cross-posting is silly. Kathleen and steward
both cross-posted their replies. Hypocrites.
Cross-posting, when the subject is proper for all groups, is not bad
netiquette.
In this case, all newsgroups have a common interest in this Frenchman's life
and end of it.
Doug
connie rahim
>
>
> And the big question is: Who the hell are you people
---to continue, just b/c we are not one of the 5 or 10 people whose
posts you accept as "legitimate," why should we have to explain
ourselves in what is a public USENET group?
as for that FAQ, that's just one person or clique's idea of what the
newsgroup should be. Nobody has the right to mandate a definition of
an unmoderated group and impose it on the various posters who may
wander on by. If i had the energy and the time to waste, I could
compose a FAQ for ash and it would be no less legitimate than the one
that your minion posted.
In fact, unless you were all to restrict yourselves to posting about
suicide on national holidays, you are all in violation of ash's
original intent.
as for the other groups and the need to stay relevant with them, i
think it is a real scandal that dewaere never won a Cesar. i wonder
what the french film industry had against him.
Kathleen
rahim <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
Once again, you are showing the density of your brain cells. Too many
French films have compacted your smarts down to miniscule pieces of
brain shit.
There are few people posting to a.s.h. that could be considered less in
the "In crowd" than me. I do, however, keep my posts concerning
suicide, it's reasons and methods within this group and don't bother
those in other forums, such as soc.culture.french or
alt.support.depression, which incidentally is not pro-choice suicide,
with my views.
Stupid and stubborn is not a good combination. If you persist in
posting to this group your french film concerns, don't be surprised if
you receive less than a warm welcome. You've been asked to stop
crossposting to a.s.h. as well as a.s.d. Now will you respect those
requests, please?
Kathleen
steward
> ---to continue, just b/c we are not one of the 5 or 10 people whose
> posts you accept as "legitimate," why should we have to explain
> ourselves in what is a public USENET group?
> as for that FAQ, that's just one person or clique's idea of what the
> newsgroup should be. Nobody has the right to mandate a definition of
> an unmoderated group and impose it on the various posters who may
> wander on by. If i had the energy and the time to waste, I could
> compose a FAQ for ash and it would be no less legitimate than the one
> that your minion posted.
First off, Kathleen's relatively new, I've been on the Internet from back
when it was the ARPAnet. A United States invention, no doubt showing
the lack of skills in, say, French culture, or modern Europe in general.
Secondly, yes, according to RFC1855, your posts are supposed to be
within the conventions of the group. Just because people who like to
discuss French culture appear to be assholes doesn't mean that other
places aren't civilized. Yes, according to USENET culture, at least
since 1995, the newsgroup does have the right to assemble conventions
and expect them to be abided by.
Although, of course, maybe Connie's not a regular in your group either.
Is she a regular there, or is she trolling to get an internewsgroup war
started?
Network Working Group S. Hambridge
Request For Comments: 1855 Intel Corp.
FYI: 28 October 1995
Category: Informational
Netiquette Guidelines
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network
Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for
their own use. As such, it is deliberately written in a bulleted
format to make adaptation easier and to make any particular item easy
(or easier) to find. It also functions as a minimum set of
guidelines for individuals, both users and administrators. This memo
is the product of the Responsible Use of the Network (RUN) Working
Group of the IETF.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 One-to-One Communication 2
3.0 One-to-Many Communication 7
4.0 Information Services 14
5.0 Selected Bibliography 18
6.0 Security Considerations 21
7.0 Author's Address 21
1.0 Introduction
In the past, the population of people using the Internet had "grown
up" with the Internet, were technically minded, and understood the
nature of the transport and the protocols. Today, the community of
Internet users includes people who are new to the environment. These
"Newbies" are unfamiliar with the culture and don't need to know
about transport and protocols. In order to bring these new users into
the Internet culture quickly, this Guide offers a minimum set of
behaviors which organizations and individuals may take and adapt for
their own use. Individuals should be aware that no matter who
supplies their Internet access, be it an Internet Service Provider
through a private account, or a student account at a University, or
Hambridge Informational [Page 1]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
an account through a corporation, that those organizations have
regulations about ownership of mail and files, about what is proper
to post or send, and how to present yourself. Be sure to check with
the local authority for specific guidelines.
We've organized this material into three sections: One-to-one
communication, which includes mail and talk; One-to-many
communications, which includes mailing lists and NetNews; and
Information Services, which includes ftp, WWW, Wais, Gopher, MUDs and
MOOs. Finally, we have a Selected Bibliography, which may be used
for reference.
2.0 One-to-One Communication (electronic mail, talk)
We define one-to-one communications as those in which a person is
communicating with another person as if face-to-face: a dialog. In
general, rules of common courtesy for interaction with people should
be in force for any situation and on the Internet it's doubly
important where, for example, body language and tone of voice must be
inferred. For more information on Netiquette for communicating via
electronic mail and talk, check references [1,23,25,27] in the
Selected Bibliography.
2.1 User Guidelines
2.1.1 For mail:
- Unless you have your own Internet access through an Internet
provider, be sure to check with your employer about ownership
of electronic mail. Laws about the ownership of electronic mail
vary from place to place.
- Unless you are using an encryption device (hardware or software),
you should assume that mail on the Internet is not secure. Never
put in a mail message anything you would not put on a postcard.
- Respect the copyright on material that you reproduce. Almost
every country has copyright laws.
- If you are forwarding or re-posting a message you've received, do
not change the wording. If the message was a personal message to
you and you are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission
first. You may shorten the message and quote only relevant parts,
but be sure you give proper attribution.
- Never send chain letters via electronic mail. Chain letters
are forbidden on the Internet. Your network privileges
will be revoked. Notify your local system administrator
Hambridge Informational [Page 2]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
if your ever receive one.
- A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and
liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated messages
(we call these "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other
hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's
prudent not to respond to flames.
- In general, it's a good idea to at least check all your mail
subjects before responding to a message. Sometimes a person who
asks you for help (or clarification) will send another message
which effectively says "Never Mind". Also make sure that any
message you respond to was directed to you. You might be cc:ed
rather than the primary recipient.
- Make things easy for the recipient. Many mailers strip header
information which includes your return address. In order to
ensure that people know who you are, be sure to include a line
or two at the end of your message with contact information. You
can create this file ahead of time and add it to the end of your
messages. (Some mailers do this automatically.) In Internet
parlance, this is known as a ".sig" or "signature" file. Your
.sig file takes the place of your business card. (And you can
have more than one to apply in different circumstances.)
- Be careful when addressing mail. There are addresses which
may go to a group but the address looks like it is just one
person. Know to whom you are sending.
- Watch cc's when replying. Don't continue to include
people if the messages have become a 2-way conversation.
- In general, most people who use the Internet don't have time
to answer general questions about the Internet and its workings.
Don't send unsolicited mail asking for information to people
whose names you might have seen in RFCs or on mailing lists.
- Remember that people with whom you communicate are located across
the globe. If you send a message to which you want an immediate
response, the person receiving it might be at home asleep when it
arrives. Give them a chance to wake up, come to work, and login
before assuming the mail didn't arrive or that they don't care.
- Verify all addresses before initiating long or personal discourse.
It's also a good practice to include the word "Long" in the
subject header so the recipient knows the message will take time
to read and respond to. Over 100 lines is considered "long".
Hambridge Informational [Page 3]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- Know whom to contact for help. Usually you will have resources
close at hand. Check locally for people who can help you with
software and system problems. Also, know whom to go to if you
receive anything questionable or illegal. Most sites also
have "Postmaster" aliased to a knowledgeable user, so you
can send mail to this address to get help with mail.
- Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture,
language, and humor have different points of reference from your
own. Remember that date formats, measurements, and idioms may
not travel well. Be especially careful with sarcasm.
- Use mixed case. UPPER CASE LOOKS AS IF YOU'RE SHOUTING.
- Use symbols for emphasis. That *is* what I meant. Use
underscores for underlining. _War and Peace_ is my favorite
book.
- Use smileys to indicate tone of voice, but use them sparingly.
:-) is an example of a smiley (Look sideways). Don't assume
that the inclusion of a smiley will make the recipient happy
with what you say or wipe out an otherwise insulting comment.
- Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you
have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via
FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example:
FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth
it takes to send it. It's illogical and poorly
reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me.
FLAME OFF
- Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in
messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer
encodes these. If you send encoded messages make sure the
recipient can decode them.
- Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to a message,
include enough original material to be understood but no more. It
is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including
all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material.
- Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line
with a carriage return.
- Mail should have a subject heading which reflects
the content of the message.
Hambridge Informational [Page 4]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.
- Just as mail (today) may not be private, mail (and news) are
(today) subject to forgery and spoofing of various degrees of
detectability. Apply common sense "reality checks" before
assuming a message is valid.
- If you think the importance of a message justifies it, immediately
reply briefly to an e-mail message to let the sender know you got
it, even if you will send a longer reply later.
- "Reasonable" expectations for conduct via e-mail depend on your
relationship to a person and the context of the communication.
Norms learned in a particular e-mail environment may not apply in
general to your e-mail communication with people across the
Internet. Be careful with slang or local acronyms.
- The cost of delivering an e-mail message is, on the average, paid
about equally by the sender and the recipient (or their
organizations). This is unlike other media such as physical mail,
telephone, TV, or radio. Sending someone mail may also cost them
in other specific ways like network bandwidth, disk space or CPU
usage. This is a fundamental economic reason why unsolicited
e-mail advertising is unwelcome (and is forbidden in many contexts).
- Know how large a message you are sending. Including large files
such as Postscript files or programs may make your message so
large that it cannot be delivered or at least consumes excessive
resources. A good rule of thumb would be not to send a file
larger than 50 Kilobytes. Consider file transfer as an
alternative, or cutting the file into smaller chunks and sending
each as a separate message.
- Don't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people.
- If your mail system allows you to forward mail, beware the dreaded
forwarding loop. Be sure you haven't set up forwarding on several
hosts so that a message sent to you gets into an endless loop from
one computer to the next to the next.
Hambridge Informational [Page 5]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
2.1.2 For talk:
Talk is a set of protocols which allow two people to have an
interactive dialogue via computer.
- Use mixed case and proper punctuation, as though you were typing
a letter or sending mail.
- Don't run off the end of a line and simply let the terminal wrap;
use a Carriage Return (CR) at the end of the line. Also, don't
assume your screen size is the same as everyone else's. A good
rule of thumb is to write out no more than 70 characters, and no
more than 12 lines (since you're using a split screen).
- Leave some margin; don't write to the edge of the screen.
- Use two CRs to indicate that you are done and the other person may
start typing. (blank line).
- Always say goodbye, or some other farewell, and wait to see a
farewell from the other person before killing the session. This
is especially important when you are communicating with someone
a long way away. Remember that your communication relies on both
bandwidth (the size of the pipe) and latency (the speed of light).
- Remember that talk is an interruption to the other person. Only
use as appropriate. And never talk to strangers.
- The reasons for not getting a reply are many. Don't assume
that everything is working correctly. Not all versions of
talk are compatible.
- If left on its own, talk re-rings the recipient. Let it ring
one or two times, then kill it.
- If a person doesn't respond you might try another tty. Use finger
to determine which are open. If the person still doesn't respond,
do not continue to send.
- Talk shows your typing ability. If you type slowly and make
mistakes when typing it is often not worth the time of trying to
correct, as the other person can usually see what you meant.
- Be careful if you have more than one talk session going!
Hambridge Informational [Page 6]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
2.2 Administrator Issues
- Be sure you have established written guidelines for dealing
with situations especially illegal, improper, or forged
traffic.
- Handle requests in a timely fashion - by the next business day.
- Respond promptly to people who have concerns about receiving
improper or illegal messages. Requests concerning chain
letters should be handled immediately.
- Explain any system rules, such as disk quotas, to your users.
Make sure they understand implications of requesting files by
mail such as: Filling up disks; running up phone bills, delaying
mail, etc.
- Make sure you have "Postmaster" aliased. Make sure you have
"Root" aliased. Make sure someone reads that mail.
- Investigate complaints about your users with an open mind.
Remember that addresses may be forged and spoofed.
3.0 One-to-Many Communication (Mailing Lists, NetNews)
Any time you engage in One-to-Many communications, all the rules for
mail should also apply. After all, communicating with many people
via one mail message or post is quite analogous to communicating with
one person with the exception of possibly offending a great many more
people than in one-to-one communication. Therefore, it's quite
important to know as much as you can about the audience of your
message.
3.1 User Guidelines
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
- Read both mailing lists and newsgroups for one to two months before
you post anything. This helps you to get an understanding of
the culture of the group.
- Do not blame the system administrator for the behavior of the
system users.
- Consider that a large audience will see your posts.
That may include your present or your next boss. Take
care in what you write. Remember too, that mailing lists and
Newsgroups are frequently archived, and that your words may be
Hambridge Informational [Page 7]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
stored for a very long time in a place to which many people have
access.
- Assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they
say does not represent their organization (unless stated
explicitly).
- Remember that both mail and news take system resources. Pay
attention to any specific rules covering their uses your
organization may have.
- Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't
wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post
messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing
or spelling. These, more than any other behavior, mark you
as an immature beginner.
- Subject lines should follow the conventions of the group.
- Forgeries and spoofing are not approved behavior.
- Advertising is welcomed on some lists and Newsgroups, and abhorred
on others! This is another example of knowing your audience
before you post. Unsolicited advertising which is completely
off-topic will most certainly guarantee that you get a lot of
hate mail.
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
- Again, be sure to have a signature which you attach to your
message. This will guarantee that any peculiarities of mailers or
newsreaders which strip header information will not delete the
only reference in the message of how people may reach you.
- Be careful when you reply to messages or postings. Frequently
replies are sent back to the address which originated the post -
which in many cases is the address of a list or group! You may
accidentally send a personal response to a great many people,
embarrassing all involved. It's best to type in the address
instead of relying on "reply."
Hambridge Informational [Page 8]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- Delivery receipts, non-delivery notices, and vacation programs
are neither totally standardized nor totally reliable across the
range of systems connected to Internet mail. They are invasive
when sent to mailing lists, and some people consider delivery
receipts an invasion of privacy. In short, do not use them.
- If you find a personal message has gone to a list or group, send
an apology to the person and to the group.
- If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person,
make your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to
send messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a
point on which the group might have some interest, you may
summarize for them later.
- Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond
to incendiary material.
- Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
gratuitous replies to replies.
- Be careful with monospacing fonts and diagrams. These will
display differently on different systems, and with different
mailers on the same system.
- There are Newsgroups and Mailing Lists which discuss topics
of wide varieties of interests. These represent a diversity of
lifestyles, religions, and cultures. Posting articles or sending
messages to a group whose point of view is offensive to you
simply to tell them they are offensive is not acceptable.
Sexually and racially harassing messages may also have legal
implications. There is software available to filter items
you might find objectionable.
3.1.2 Mailing List Guidelines
There are several ways to find information about what mailing lists
exist on the Internet and how to join them. Make sure you understand
your organization's policy about joining these lists and posting to
them. In general it is always better to check local resources first
before trying to find information via the Internet. Nevertheless,
there are a set of files posted periodically to news.answers which
list the Internet mailing lists and how to subscribe to them. This
is an invaluable resource for finding lists on any topic. See also
references [9,13,15] in the Selected Bibliography.
- Send subscribe and unsubscribe messages to the appropriate
address. Although some mailing list software is smart enough
Hambridge Informational [Page 9]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
to catch these, not all can ferret these out. It is your
responsibility to learn how the lists work, and to send the
correct mail to the correct place. Although many many mailing
lists adhere to the convention of having a "-request" alias for
sending subscribe and unsubscribe messages, not all do. Be sure
you know the conventions used by the lists to which you subscribe.
- Save the subscription messages for any lists you join. These
usually tell you how to unsubscribe as well.
- In general, it's not possible to retrieve messages once you have
sent them. Even your system administrator will not be able to get
a message back once you have sent it. This means you must make
sure you really want the message to go as you have written it.
- The auto-reply feature of many mailers is useful for in-house
communication, but quite annoying when sent to entire mailing
lists. Examine "Reply-To" addresses when replying to messages
from lists. Most auto-replys will go to all members of the
list.
- Don't send large files to mailing lists when Uniform
Resource Locators (URLs) or pointers to ftp-able versions
will do. If you want to send it as multiple files, be
sure to follow the culture of the group. If you don't
know what that is, ask.
- Consider unsubscribing or setting a "nomail" option (when it's
available) when you cannot check your mail for an extended
period.
- When sending a message to more than one mailing list, especially
if the lists are closely related, apologize for cross-posting.
- If you ask a question, be sure to post a summary. When doing so,
truly summarize rather than send a cumulation of the messages you
receive.
- Some mailing lists are private. Do not send mail to these lists
uninvited. Do not report mail from these lists to a wider
audience.
- If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
issues rather than the personalities involved.
Hambridge Informational [Page 10]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines
NetNews is a globally distributed system which allows people to
communicate on topics of specific interest. It is divided into
hierarchies, with the major divisions being: sci - science related
discussions; comp - computer related discussions; news - for
discussions which center around NetNews itself; rec - recreational
activities; soc - social issues; talk - long-winded never-ending
discussions; biz - business related postings; and alt - the alternate
hierarchy. Alt is so named because creating an alt group does not go
through the same process as creating a group in the other parts of
the hierarchy. There are also regional hierarchies, hierarchies
which are widely distributed such as Bionet, and your place of
business may have its own groups as well. Recently, a "humanities"
hierarchy was added, and as time goes on its likely more will be
added. For longer discussions on News see references [2,8,22,23] in
the Selected Bibliography.
- In NetNews parlance, "Posting" refers to posting a new article
to a group, or responding to a post someone else has posted.
"Cross-Posting" refers to posting a message to more than one
group. If you introduce Cross-Posting to a group, or if you
direct "Followup-To:" in the header of your posting, warn
readers! Readers will usually assume that the message was
posted to a specific group and that followups will go to
that group. Headers change this behavior.
- Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
- Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.
Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world
probably is NOT interested in a personal response. However, don't
hesitate to post when something will be of general interest to the
Newsgroup participants.
- Check the "Distribution" section of the header, but don't
depend on it. Due to the complex method by which News is
delivered, Distribution headers are unreliable. But, if you
are posting something which will be of interest to a limited
number or readers, use a distribution line that attempts to
limit the distribution of your article to those people. For
example, set the Distribution to be "nj" if you are posting
an article that will be of interest only to New Jersey readers.
Hambridge Informational [Page 11]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- If you feel an article will be of interest to more than one
Newsgroup, be sure to CROSSPOST the article rather than individually
post it to those groups. In general, probably only five-to-six
groups will have similar enough interests to warrant this.
- Consider using Reference sources (Computer Manuals, Newspapers,
help files) before posting a question. Asking a Newsgroup where
answers are readily available elsewhere generates grumpy "RTFM"
(read the fine manual - although a more vulgar meaning of the
word beginning with "f" is usually implied) messages.
- Although there are Newsgroups which welcome advertising,
in general it is considered nothing less than criminal
to advertise off-topic products. Sending an advertisement
to each and every group will pretty much guarantee your loss of
connectivity.
- If you discover an error in your post, cancel it as soon as
possible.
- DO NOT attempt to cancel any articles but your own. Contact
your administrator if you don't know how to cancel your post,
or if some other post, such as a chain letter, needs canceling.
- If you've posted something and don't see it immediately,
don't assume it's failed and re-post it.
- Some groups permit (and some welcome) posts which in other
circumstances would be considered to be in questionable taste.
Still, there is no guarantee that all people reading the group
will appreciate the material as much as you do. Use the Rotate
utility (which rotates all the characters in your post by 13
positions in the alphabet) to avoid giving offense. The
Rot13 utility for Unix is an example.
- In groups which discuss movies or books it is considered essential
to mark posts which disclose significant content as "Spoilers".
Put this word in your Subject: line. You may add blank lines to
the beginning of your post to keep content out of sight, or you
may Rotate it.
- Forging of news articles is generally censured. You can protect
yourself from forgeries by using software which generates a
manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US).
- Postings via anonymous servers are accepted in some Newsgroups
and disliked in others. Material which is inappropriate when
posted under one's own name is still inappropriate when posted
Hambridge Informational [Page 12]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
anonymously.
- Expect a slight delay in seeing your post when posting to a
moderated group. The moderator may change your subject
line to have your post conform to a particular thread.
- Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond
to incendiary material.
3.2 Administrator Guidelines
3.2.1 General Issues
- Clarify any policies your site has regarding its subscription
to NetNews groups and about subscribing to mailing lists.
- Clarify any policies your site has about posting to NetNews
groups or to mailing lists, including use of disclaimers in .sigs.
- Clarify and publicize archive policy. (How long are articles
kept?)
- Investigate accusations about your users promptly and with an
open mind.
- Be sure to monitor the health of your system.
- Consider how long to archive system logs, and publicize your
policy on logging.
3.2.2 Mailing Lists
- Keep mailing lists up to date to avoid the "bouncing mail" problem.
- Help list owners when problems arise.
- Inform list owners of any maintenance windows or planned downtime.
- Be sure to have "-request" aliases for list subscription and
administration.
- Make sure all mail gateways operate smoothly.
3.2.3. NetNews
- Publicize the nature of the feed you receive. If you do not get
a full feed, people may want to know why not.
Hambridge Informational [Page 13]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- Be aware that the multiplicity of News Reader clients may cause
the News Server being blamed for problems in the clients.
- Honor requests from users immediately if they request cancellation
of their own posts or invalid posts, such as chain letters.
- Have "Usenet", "Netnews" and "News" aliased and make sure someone
reads the mail.
3.3 Moderator Guidelines
3.3.1 General Guidelines
- Make sure your Frequestly Asked Questions (FAQ) is posted at
regular intervals. Include your guidelines for articles/messages.
If you are not the FAQ maintainer, make sure they do so.
- Make sure you maintain a good welcome message, which contains
subscribe and unsubscribe information.
- Newsgroups should have their charter/guidelines posted
regularly.
- Keep mailing lists and Newsgroups up to date. Post
messages in a timely fashion. Designate a substitute
when you go on vacation or out of town.
4.0 Information Services (Gopher, Wais, WWW, ftp, telnet)
In recent Internet history, the 'Net has exploded with new and varied
Information services. Gopher, Wais, World Wide Web (WWW), Multi-User
Dimensions (MUDs) Multi-User Dimensions which are Object Oriented
(MOOs) are a few of these new areas. Although the ability to find
information is exploding, "Caveat Emptor" remains constant. For more
information on these services, check references [14,28] in the
Selected Bibliography.
4.1 User Guidelines
4.1.1. General guidelines
- Remember that all these services belong to someone else. The
people who pay the bills get to make the rules governing usage.
Information may be free - or it may not be! Be sure you check.
- If you have problems with any form of information service, start
problem solving by checking locally: Check file configurations,
software setup, network connections, etc. Do this before assuming
Hambridge Informational [Page 14]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
the problem is at the provider's end and/or is the provider's
fault.
- Although there are naming conventions for file-types used, don't
depend on these file naming conventions to be enforced. For
example, a ".doc" file is not always a Word file.
- Information services also use conventions, such as www.xyz.com.
While it is useful to know these conventions, again, don't
necessarily rely on them.
- Know how file names work on your own system.
- Be aware of conventions used for providing information during
sessions. FTP sites usually have files named README in a top
level directory which have information about the files available.
But, don't assume that these files are necessarily up-to-date
and/or accurate.
- Do NOT assume that ANY information you find is up-to-date and/or
accurate. Remember that new technologies allow just about anyone
to be a publisher, but not all people have discovered the
responsibilities which accompany publishing.
- Remember that unless you are sure that security and authentication
technology is in use, that any information you submit to a system
is being transmitted over the Internet "in the clear", with no
protection from "sniffers" or forgers.
- Since the Internet spans the globe, remember that Information
Services might reflect culture and life-style markedly different
from your own community. Materials you find offensive may
originate in a geography which finds them acceptable. Keep an open
mind.
- When wanting information from a popular server, be sure to use
a mirror server that's close if a list is provided.
- Do not use someone else's FTP site to deposit materials you
wish other people to pick up. This is called "dumping" and
is not generally acceptable behavior.
- When you have trouble with a site and ask for help, be sure to
provide as much information as possible in order to help
debug the problem.
Hambridge Informational [Page 15]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- When bringing up your own information service, such as a homepage,
be sure to check with your local system administrator to find what
the local guidelines are in affect.
- Consider spreading out the system load on popular sites by
avoiding "rush hour" and logging in during off-peak times.
4.1.2 Real Time Interactive Services Guidelines (MUDs MOOs IRC)
- As in other environments, it is wise to "listen" first to
get to know the culture of the group.
- It's not necessary to greet everyone on a channel or room
personally. Usually one "Hello" or the equivalent is enough.
Using the automation features of your client to greet people is
not acceptable behavior.
- Warn the participants if you intend to ship large quantities
of information. If all consent to receiving it, you may send,
but sending unwanted information without a warning is considered
bad form just as it is in mail.
- Don't assume that people who you don't know will want to talk to
you. If you feel compelled to send private messages to people you
don't know, then be willing to accept gracefully the fact that they
might be busy or simply not want to chat with you.
- Respect the guidelines of the group. Look for introductory
materials for the group. These may be on a related ftp site.
- Don't badger other users for personal information such as sex, age,
or location. After you have built an acquaintance with another user,
these questions may be more appropriate, but many people
hesitate to give this information to people with whom they are
not familiar.
- If a user is using a nickname alias or pseudonym, respect that
user's desire for anonymity. Even if you and that person are
close friends, it is more courteous to use his nickname. Do
not use that person's real name online without permission.
Hambridge Informational [Page 16]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
4.2 Administrator Guidelines
4.2.1 General Guidelines
- Make clear what's available for copying and what is not.
- Describe what's available on your site, and your organization.
Be sure any general policies are clear.
- Keep information, especially READMEs, up-to-date. Provide READMEs
in plain ascii text.
- Present a list of mirrors of your site if you know them. Make
sure you include a statement of copyright applicable to your
mirrors. List their update schedule if possible.
- Make sure that popular (and massive) information has the bandwidth
to support it.
- Use conventions for file extensions - .txt for ascii text; .html
or .htm for HTML; .ps for Postscript; .pdf for Portable Document
Format; .sgml or .sgm for SGML; .exe for non-Unix executables, etc.
- For files being transferred, try to make filenames unique in the
first eight characters.
- When providing information, make sure your site has something
unique to offer. Avoid bringing up an information service which
simply points to other services on the Internet.
- Don't point to other sites without asking first.
- Remember that setting up an information service is more than just
design and implementation. It's also maintenance.
- Make sure your posted materials are appropriate for the supporting
organization.
- Test applications with a variety of tools. Don't assume everything
works if you've tested with only one client. Also, assume the low
end of technology for clients and don't create applications which
can only be used by Graphical User Interfaces.
- Have a consistent view of your information. Make sure the look
and feel stays the same throughout your applications.
Hambridge Informational [Page 17]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
- Be sensitive to the longevity of your information. Be sure to
date time-sensitive materials, and be vigilant about keeping
this information well maintained.
- Export restrictions vary from country to country. Be sure you
understand the implications of export restrictions when you post.
- Tell users what you plan to do with any information you collect,
such as WWW feedback. You need to warn people if you plan to
publish any of their statements, even passively by just making it
available to other users.
- Make sure your policy on user information services, such as
homepages, is well known.
5.0 Selected Bibliography
This bibliography was used to gather most of the information in the
sections above as well as for general reference. Items not
specifically found in these works were gathered from the IETF-RUN
Working Group's experience.
[1] Angell, D., and B. Heslop, "The Elements of E-mail Style",
New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
[2] "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet"
Original author: je...@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Maintained by: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Archive-name: usenet-faq/part1
[3] Cerf, V., "Guidelines for Conduct on and Use of
Internet", at: <URL://http://www.isoc.org/proceedings/
conduct/cerf-Aug-draft.html>
[4] Dern, D., "The Internet Guide for New Users", New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[5] "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette"
Original author: br...@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Maintained by: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Archive-name: emily-postnews/part1
[6] Gaffin, A., "Everybody's Guide to the Internet", Cambridge,
Mass., MIT Press, 1994.
Hambridge Informational [Page 18]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
[7] "Guidelines for Responsible Use of the Internet"
from the US house of Representatives gopher, at:
<URL:gopher://gopher.house.gov:70/OF-1%3a208%3aInternet
%20Etiquette>
[8] How to find the right place to post (FAQ)
by bug...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Aliza R. Panitz)
Archive-name: finding-groups/general
[9] Hambridge, S., and J. Sedayao, "Horses and Barn Doors:
Evolution of Corporate Guidelines for Internet Usage",
LISA VII, Usenix, November 1-5, 1993, pp. 9-16.
<URL: ftp://ftp.intel.com/pub/papers/horses.ps or
horses.ascii>
[10] Heslop, B., and D. Angell, "The Instant Internet guide :
Hands-on Global Networking", Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley,
1994.
[11] Horwitz, S., "Internet Etiquette Tips",
<ftp://ftp.temple.edu/pub/info/help-net/netiquette.infohn>
[12] Internet Activities Board, "Ethics and the Internet", RFC 1087,
IAB, January 1989. <URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1087.txt>
[13] Kehoe, B., "Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner's
Guide", Netiquette information is spread through the chapters
of this work. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ., Prentice-Hall,
1994.
[14] Kochmer, J., "Internet Passport: NorthWestNet's Guide
to our World Online", 4th ed. Bellevue, Wash.,
NorthWestNet, Northwest Academic Computing Consortium, 1993.
[15] Krol, Ed, "The Whole Internet: User's Guide and
Catalog", Sebastopol, CA, O'Reilly & Associates,
1992.
[16] Lane, E. and C. Summerhill, "Internet Primer for
Information Professionals: a basic guide to Internet networking
technology", Westport, CT, Meckler, 1993.
[17] LaQuey, T., and J. Ryer, "The Internet Companion",
Chapter 3 "Communicating with People", pp 41-74. Reading,
MA, Addison-Wesley, 1993.
Hambridge Informational [Page 19]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
[18] Mandel, T., "Surfing the Wild Internet", SRI International
Business Intelligence Program, Scan No. 2109. March, 1993.
<URL: gopher://gopher.well.sf.ca.us:70/00/Communications/
surf-wild>
[19] Martin, J., "There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for
Treasure in all the Wrong Places", FYI 10, RFC 1402,
January 1993. <URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1402.txt>
[20] Pioch, N., "A Short IRC Primer", Text conversion
by Owe Rasmussen. Edition 1.1b, February 28, 1993.
<URL: http://www.kei.com/irc/IRCprimer1.1.txt>
[21] Polly, J., "Surfing the Internet: an Introduction",
Version 2.0.3. Revised May 15, 1993.
<URL: gopher://nysernet.org:70/00/ftp%20archives/
pub/resources/guides/surfing.2.0.3.txt>
<URL: ftp://ftp.nysernet.org/pub/resources/guides/
surfing.2.0.3.txt>
[22] "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community"
Original author: ch...@apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach)
Maintained by: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Archive-name: usenet-primer/part1
[23] Rinaldi, A., "The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette",
September 3, 1992.
<URL: http://www.fau.edu/rinaldi/net/index.htm>
[24] "Rules for posting to Usenet"
Original author: sp...@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Maintained by: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Archive-name: posting-rules/part1
[25] Shea, V., "Netiquette", San Francisco: Albion Books,
1994?.
[26] Strangelove, M., with A. Bosley, "How to Advertise
on the Internet", ISSN 1201-0758.
[27] Tenant, R., "Internet Basics", ERIC Clearinghouse of Information
Resources, EDO-IR-92-7. September, 1992.
<URL: gopher://nic.merit.edu:7043/00/introducing.
the.internet/internet.basics.eric-digest>
<URL: gopher://vega.lib.ncsu.edu:70/00/library/
reference/guides/tennet>
Hambridge Informational [Page 20]
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
[28] Wiggins, R., "The Internet for everyone: a guide for
users and providers", New York, McGraw-Hill, 1995.
6.0 Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
7.0 Author's Address
Sally Hambridge
Intel Corporation
2880 Northwestern Parkway
SC3-15
Santa Clara, CA 95052
Phone: 408-765-2931
Fax: 408-765-3679
EMail: sal...@ludwig.sc.intel.com
Hambridge Informational [Page 21]
--
-steward
+-------------------------------------------------------+
|ste...@sillious.net | http://www.sillious.net/steward |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
lynx
> Nobody has the right to mandate a definition of an
> unmoderated group and impose it on the various posters who may wander on
> by.
the only people i have ever seen advocate that viewpoint, in whatever
newsgroup, have consistently been idiots and trolls. it's been shot down
so many times over, by so many people, it isn't even funny anymore. you'd
have to be actively psychopathic to actually _believe_ such a thing, and
since psychopaths don't listen to anybody else anyway, there's no point
in my disproving it all over again.
- lynx, feeling older than usual of late
--
PGP/GnuPG key (ID 1024D/3AC87BD1) available from keyservers everywhere
Key fingerprint = FA8D 5EA4 E7DC 84B3 64BC 410C 7AEE 54CD 3AC8 7BD1
"...if you can fill the unforgiving minute
with sixty seconds' worth of distance run..."
waggg
>when it was the ARPAnet. A United States invention, no doubt showing
>the lack of skills in, say, French culture, or modern Europe in general.
What is chiefly showing here is your arrogance, your stupidity and your
ignorance, asshole.
When you have taken advance in matter the progress you make is rather
exponential. while your country was recovering from 1929 and becoming
mega rich and mega powerful, ours were in ruins and exhausted ...
BTW , it doesn't stop the usa and in a minor way the ussr to take nazi
scientists what was very useful for your future (space race VS ussr etc
..) .
No doubts that there are a lot of intelligent and brilliant people in
USA but you should realize that unlike many countries you have a big big
trump ... You're sitting on a big heap of gold what helps you to suck
out a lot of foreign brains out of their countries and having them
working and teaching for your country. So calm down, wiseass.
In some domains USA are presently slowpoke if we compare with Europeans
about satellite launcher (space rockets) for instance, and the
mightiest computer is now japanese, from afar.
Your school system is known for decades as being one of the worst of the
rich countries... so pack back your disdain and shut up, pinhead ...
HABD.
F**ckin' Trollo, Stay Away of my sight !
... and keep your set ideas off of soc.culture.french forever
TIA
John of Aix
> as for the other groups and the need to stay relevant with them, i
> think it is a real scandal that dewaere never won a Cesar. i wonder
> what the french film industry had against him.
I can't swear to it but as far as I remember Césars weren't even
invented then.
Bob
waggg wrote:
> >when it was the ARPAnet. A United States invention, no doubt showing
> >the lack of skills in, say, French culture, or modern Europe in general.
>
> What is chiefly showing here is your arrogance, your stupidity and your
> ignorance, asshole.
>
> When you have taken advance in matter the progress you make is rather
> exponential. while your country was recovering from 1929 and becoming
> mega rich and mega powerful, ours were in ruins and exhausted ...
Perhaps you should have avoided the European sport of killing each other in
mass. You idiots started WW1 as a feud between cousins ( The European
Royalty.). If France had had the balls to stand up to Hitler when he marched
his troops into the Saar, Hitler would have fallen, and WW2 would not have
been necessary. It was the vindictiveness of the French in collecting
reparations from Germany after WW1 that opened the door to Hitler.
Now, about this "Holier than thou" attitude of yours.
Bob
>
> BTW , it doesn't stop the usa and in a minor way the ussr to take nazi
> scientists what was very useful for your future (space race VS ussr etc
> ..) .
'That's because the German rocket scientists were smart enough to run from
the Russians to the Americans.
>
> No doubts that there are a lot of intelligent and brilliant people in
> USA but you should realize that unlike many countries you have a big big
> trump ... You're sitting on a big heap of gold what helps you to suck
> out a lot of foreign brains out of their countries and having them
> working and teaching for your country. So calm down, wiseass.
>
> In some domains USA are presently slowpoke if we compare with Europeans
> about satellite launcher (space rockets) for instance,
Oh horseshit. How many failures did the Arianne have before it FINALLY got
something up. Tell, just how is the European Space Shuttle coming along?
Oh. There IS no European Space Shuttle. I see.
> and the
> mightiest computer is now japanese, from afar.
> Your school system is known for decades as being one of the worst of the
> rich countries... so pack back your disdain and shut up, pinhead ...
> HABD.
Yes, that's why so many European students come to the USA for their higher
education.
>
>
> F**ckin' Trollo, Stay Away of my sight !
> ... and keep your set ideas off of soc.culture.french forever
> TIA
In your particular case, the term French and Culture are oxymorons.
I don't know about anybody else on your group.
connie rahim
> connie rahim wrote:
> >
> I can't swear to it but as far as I remember Césars weren't even
> invented then.
they most certainly were, if you go to http://dewaere.online.fr and
look up his filmographie, the cesars for which the movies were
nominated are given.
gmoreau
>It was the vindictiveness of the French in collecting
>reparations from Germany after WW1 that opened the door to Hitler.
>
In case you didn't know, the reparations weren't really paid -
completely shrunk - thanks to the US and GB (Dawes then Young plan)
that thought it was normal for Germany not to pay what it had
destroyed... in France.
No wonder.
I liked the part about not preventing Hitler crossing the Rhine, from
a fellow whose country entered the war only after it had cashed in all
the gold available (cash and carry law) and only got involve because
the Japs bombed them, you can sure give lessons...
Thanx to the Japanese for Pearl Harbor because, unlike some drop-out
who skipped History 101 say, we wouldn't speak german, but russian if
the States hadn't enter the war and decades of communist rule wouldn't
have certainly do good...
Gaėtan
------
Bien est donc vrai qu'aux hommes misérables,
Aveugles, imprudents, inquiets, variables,
Pas n'appartient de faire des souhaits,
Et que peu d'entre eux sont capables
De bien user des dons que le Ciel leur a faits.
waggg
>waggg wrote:
>
>> >when it was the ARPAnet. A United States invention, no doubt showing
>> >the lack of skills in, say, French culture, or modern Europe in general.
>>
>> What is chiefly showing here is your arrogance, your stupidity and your
>> ignorance, asshole.
>>
>> When you have taken advance in matter the progress you make is rather
>> exponential. while your country was recovering from 1929 and becoming
>> mega rich and mega powerful, ours were in ruins and exhausted ...
>
>Perhaps you should have avoided the European sport of killing each other in
>mass. You idiots started WW1 as a feud between cousins ( The European
France guilty of wanting the war ? are you trying to rewrite history ?
Oh sorry you said Europeans ... generalizations are more easy to use.
Sorry, as a french I don"t feel guilty...
>Royalty.). If France had had the balls to stand up to Hitler when he marched
>his troops into the Saar, Hitler would have fallen, and WW2 would not have
>been necessary.
The Western Democarcies wanted avoid the war with the germans. the
memories of the WWI was a traumatism for those countries, they lost
millions of people, traumatic isn't it ? I heard that USA has a
traumatism with the vietnam war (50 000 dead soldiers, see what i mean
?...) - BTW about 2 000 000 dead viets....
Anyway here's something interesting from the courageous noble english
government to the coward vindictive "holier-than-the-others" french
government, the english said to the french that they thought that the
remilitarization of the rhineland didn't threat the vital interests of
France ... You're so smart, I'm sure that you understand what it means
in diplomatical language .
>It was the vindictiveness of the French in collecting
>reparations from Germany after WW1 that opened the door to Hitler.
>Now, about this "Holier than thou" attitude of yours.
>Bob /* you're so proud of yourself that you're signing your prose in the middle of post ? */
Vindictiveness... It's easy to talk from afar, not involved with your
guts and your girefs !
1870-71 the germans attacked us (after having attacking austria and
denmark some years earlier) bombed Paris, have taken huge parts of the
Lorraine and the whole Alsace.
1914-18 we are pushed in a war of a new kind with atrocities,
destruction and pains at a scale that the human kind had never known
untill this time millions of young french (and not young) men
transformed in manur for grass.
Regions devastated ... chemical weapons, giant canons, apocalyptic
battles, catching diseases, awful life conditions.
Yeah the french were mad at the germans, we are very weirds, eh ?
The French attitude provoking the WWII, the typical (seen many times in
US guys' arguments) american arguments ... sheeshh !
"the holier than thou" is the kind of attitude you show.
After all USA is far of all the rest of the world, far mightier than its
neighbors (unedrsatnd "in security") and in your short history you were
in war against all of them (mexico and canada)
>> BTW , it doesn't stop the usa and in a minor way the ussr to take nazi
>> scientists what was very useful for your future (space race VS ussr etc
>> ..) .
>
>'That's because the German rocket scientists were smart enough to run from
>the Russians to the Americans.
Dodging ! and anyway the russians had (less) their german scientists
too.
>> No doubts that there are a lot of intelligent and brilliant people in
>> USA but you should realize that unlike many countries you have a big big
>> trump ... You're sitting on a big heap of gold what helps you to suck
>> out a lot of foreign brains out of their countries and having them
>> working and teaching for your country. So calm down, wiseass.
>>
>> In some domains USA are presently slowpoke if we compare with Europeans
>> about satellite launcher (space rockets) for instance,
>
>Oh horseshit. How many failures did the Arianne have before it FINALLY got
>something up. Tell, just how is the European Space Shuttle coming along?
>Oh. There IS no European Space Shuttle. I see.
talking about horseshit ... The new kind of Ariane (Ariane 5 ) had
problems, yeah... but its new, so the the failure are not so "speaking".
the new US launcher is at the level of the old Ariane 4, so stop
bragging, wiseass.
>> and the
>> mightiest computer is now japanese, from afar.
>> Your school system is known for decades as being one of the worst of the
>> rich countries... so pack back your disdain and shut up, pinhead ...
>> HABD.
>
>Yes, that's why so many European students come to the USA for their higher
>education.
In some domains, anyway as I said you can have the best foreign
specialists in the world (because of the money) - only "half-joking".
What about the general level in school ...
>> F**ckin' Trollo, Stay Away of my sight !
>> ... and keep your set ideas off of soc.culture.french forever
>> TIA
>
>In your particular case, the term French and Culture are oxymorons.
>I don't know about anybody else on your group.
Oh really ? I feel so bad... sheeshh
I wait you uttering something other than set ideas, champion.
waggg
>waggg wrote:
>
>> >when it was the ARPAnet. A United States invention, no doubt showing
>> >the lack of skills in, say, French culture, or modern Europe in general.
>>
>> What is chiefly showing here is your arrogance, your stupidity and your
>> ignorance, asshole.
>>
>> When you have taken advance in matter the progress you make is rather
>> exponential. while your country was recovering from 1929 and becoming
>> mega rich and mega powerful, ours were in ruins and exhausted ...
>
>Perhaps you should have avoided the European sport of killing each other in
>mass. You idiots started WW1 as a feud between cousins ( The European
France guilty of wanting the war ? are you trying to rewrite history ?
Oh sorry you said Europeans ... generalizations are more easy to use.
Sorry, as a french I don"t feel guilty...
>Royalty.). If France had had the balls to stand up to Hitler when he marched
>his troops into the Saar, Hitler would have fallen, and WW2 would not have
>been necessary.
The Western Democarcies wanted avoid the war with the germans. the
memories of the WWI was a traumatism for those countries, they lost
millions of people, traumatic isn't it ? I heard that USA has a
traumatism with the vietnam war (50 000 dead soldiers, see what i mean
?...) - BTW about 2 000 000 dead viets....
Anyway here's something interesting from the courageous noble english
government to the coward vindictive "holier-than-the-others" french
government, the english said to the french that they thought that the
remilitarization of the rhineland didn't threat the vital interests of
France ... You're so smart, I'm sure that you understand what it means
in diplomatical language .
>It was the vindictiveness of the French in collecting
>reparations from Germany after WW1 that opened the door to Hitler.
>Now, about this "Holier than thou" attitude of yours.
>Bob /* you're so proud of yourself that you're signing your prose in the middle of post ? */
Vindictiveness... It's easy to talk from afar, not involved with your
guts and your girefs !
1870-71 the germans attacked us (after having attacking austria and
denmark some years earlier) bombed Paris, have taken huge parts of the
Lorraine and the whole Alsace.
1914-18 we are pushed in a war of a new kind with atrocities,
destruction and pains at a scale that the human kind had never known
untill this time millions of young french (and not young) men
transformed in manur for grass.
Regions devastated ... chemical weapons, giant canons, apocalyptic
battles, catching diseases, awful life conditions.
Yeah the french were mad at the germans, we are very weirds, eh ?
The French attitude provoking the WWII, the typical (seen many times in
US guys' arguments) american arguments ... sheeshh !
"the holier than thou" is the kind of attitude you show.
After all USA is far of all the rest of the world, far mightier than its
neighbors (unedrsatnd "in security") and in your short history you were
in war against all of them (mexico and canada)
>> BTW , it doesn't stop the usa and in a minor way the ussr to take nazi
>> scientists what was very useful for your future (space race VS ussr etc
>> ..) .
>
>'That's because the German rocket scientists were smart enough to run from
>the Russians to the Americans.
Dodging ! and anyway the russians had (less) their german scientists
too.
>> No doubts that there are a lot of intelligent and brilliant people in
>> USA but you should realize that unlike many countries you have a big big
>> trump ... You're sitting on a big heap of gold what helps you to suck
>> out a lot of foreign brains out of their countries and having them
>> working and teaching for your country. So calm down, wiseass.
>>
>> In some domains USA are presently slowpoke if we compare with Europeans
>> about satellite launcher (space rockets) for instance,
>
>Oh horseshit. How many failures did the Arianne have before it FINALLY got
>something up. Tell, just how is the European Space Shuttle coming along?
>Oh. There IS no European Space Shuttle. I see.
talking about horseshit ... The new kind of Ariane (Ariane 5 ) had
problems, yeah... but its new, so the the failure are not so "speaking".
the new US launcher is at the level of the old Ariane 4, so stop
bragging, wiseass.
>> and the
>> mightiest computer is now japanese, from afar.
>> Your school system is known for decades as being one of the worst of the
>> rich countries... so pack back your disdain and shut up, pinhead ...
>> HABD.
>
>Yes, that's why so many European students come to the USA for their higher
>education.
In some domains, anyway as I said you can have the best foreign
specialists in the world (because of the money) - only "half-joking".
What about the general level in school ...
>> F**ckin' Trollo, Stay Away of my sight !
>> ... and keep your set ideas off of soc.culture.french forever
>> TIA
>
>In your particular case, the term French and Culture are oxymorons.
>I don't know about anybody else on your group.
Oh really ? I feel so bad... sheeshh
Doug
You just cross posted your complaint over cross posting.
Doug
"Kathleen" <mskat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:130120030937322370%mskat...@yahoo.com...