Attacks on IGS
Michael Alford
have the time, come to channel and chat. Like most of us, they will
sometimes 'talk shop'. That is how I first became aware of what are called
SYN or 'denial of service' attacks. At the time, a couple years ago, it was
said that there was a person somewhere that could spoof his IP address and
was trying to flood the TCP\IP stacks at IGS. At the time, it was said that
this attack was not a problem. This attack came up in conversation a couple
more times, then I didn't hear anything about it for a quite a while. A
couple weeks ago, I thought of a way to use this attack in a flame, so I
sent an email to an admin asking if it was still occuring. What I learned
is that not only is it still occuring, it has increased. During a
conversation with an admin on IGS, the following terms were used to describe
these attacks: "constant", "all the time", "even as we speak"... These SYN
attacks are now a sixty minutes an hour, twenty four hours a day, seven days
a week reality. And it is not just one person. People who spoof an IP
address can be careless - the flood attack referred to above was traced to a
server in China (Please Note: It _IS NOT_ CWS). Other attacks have been
traced to Hungary and Romania. I got the impression it is a bit more of a
problem than it used to be, but I have not, thus far, as a user, been
bothered by these attacks, so the good folk at IGS are doing a good job
dealing with them.
So I went off to write my little flame, and I couldn't do it. I decided it
was more important just to remind people that this stuff goes on and advise
them of the level it has reached. Frankly, I hope that some of you have the
same reaction that I do, I am pissed off :) Discussion of these attacks has
elicited comments like "Oh well, it's just natural" and "Oh well, you have
to expect" and such... Maybe so, but I still don't have to like it. IGS
has become quite a resource for the Go community. Not only is it a great
place to get a game, it is now almost impossible to log on and not find pros
there. So, besides the great collection of games you find for replay, you
can watch the large nadari played a half dozen ways in thirty minutes, by 9p
players :) And the live tournament games. Living Go. I think it shows no
respect for these pros, let alone the rest of us, for someone to be actively
trying to interfere with access to IGS.
And it is a sad irony too, but I bet the people making these attacks play
Go. So I bet they use one of the telnet servers. And as we all know, the
telnet servers are 'related to IGS by the protocol file and by look and
feel', so anyone that uses a telnet server owes a certain amount of respect
and gratitude to tweet and tim. Sabotage does not seem to conform to the
definition...
OK, the rest of this is a flame:
OK, you know what I think of these attackers anyway :)
malf
eric hoffman
And it is a sad irony too, but I bet the people making these attacks play
Go. So I bet they use one of the telnet servers. And as we all know, the
telnet servers are 'related to IGS by the protocol file and by look and
feel', so anyone that uses a telnet server owes a certain amount of respect
and gratitude to tweet and tim. Sabotage does not seem to conform to the
definition...
thats quite a leap. since these attacks do* go on on the internet all
the time, and they can be perpretrated by any 12 year old with a
modem, what basis do you have for accusing the population of the
'telnet servers'. general ill will?
Patrick G. Bridges
community, and this silly. I'm less confident than you are that the
people doing the attacks are go players (these attacks happen to lots
of different public servers of all sorts on the net, IIRC), but go
players or not, they are certainly twits.
Happy to see that IGS seems to have weathered the attacks quite
nicely.
-Patrick Bridges
--
*** Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.arizona.edu ***
*** #include <std/disclaimer.h> ***
Bantari
> Agreed, this is a shame. IGS is a valuable resource to the go
> community, and this silly. I'm less confident than you are that the
> people doing the attacks are go players (these attacks happen to lots
> of different public servers of all sorts on the net, IIRC), but go
> players or not, they are certainly twits.
I am fairly confident that the jerks are not go players. I cannot
imagine a go player who would stage an attack like this. It seems to me
more like a hacker prank, maybe some kids got a hold of IGS' address and
are having "fun"? It could be a good idea to correlate with other net
servers/services to see who else is affected by attacks from the same
areas... just to smoke the scoundrels up and "hang 'em high".
>
> Happy to see that IGS seems to have weathered the attacks quite
> nicely.
Ditto.
>
> -Patrick Bridges
>
>
--
________________________
- Bantari (4d)
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem.
email: r1...@san666.rr.com (remove the 666)
homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafael
Tom Hoeber
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.134c0b29f7a502e898973e@nntp...
>
> I am fairly confident that the jerks are not go players.
>
>
> I cannot
> imagine a go player who would stage an attack like this. It seems to me
> more like a hacker prank,
>
cheats, and thieves. Why not hackers?
Tom Hoeber
Eric Osman
Actually, it seems that go servers are in a better
position than other types of servers to protect
against data overrun attacks (doa's).
This is because the expected data being sent to
a go server is very minimal. Even in a 1/1 game,
the amount of data being sent to the go server
is at most several characters a second.
Hence doa's can be defended against by doing
something like only receiving 100 characters
a second at most on any given client
connection. That's PLENTY of bandwidth
for all useful conversations with the go server.
On the output side, where the response to
commands can be longer, probably limiting
it to 1000 or 2000 characters a second will
be sufficient to give good service.
/Eric
Rich Brown
> On this very forum some go players have been shown to be escapers, liars,
> cheats, and thieves. Why not hackers?
And victims. Don't forget victims. Maybe it's revenge. God knows,
there's motive there.
On this very forum, some go players have shown themselves also to be
insecure, immature children who have developed no sense of honor
despite being given the benefit of every doubt.
The application of Occam's razor should apply here, as it does everywhere
else: These are just script kiddies, folks, with no particular agenda.
If you, Tom, are going to use this sort of snide innuendo to try and
implicate go players, perhaps you ought to come up with some evidence
for your convoluted, paranoiac suppositions. Did you have someone in
particular in mind? Who is the escaper? The liar? The cheat? The thief?
Where is your _evidence_ that what you say is true? I don't believe you.
In the absence of such evidence, it seems that the _simpler_ explanation
-- dat's Occam's razor fer ya -- is that IGS is the victim of the same
sorts of SYN attacks that _everyone_else_ on the Internet is.
For you to suggest otherwise, Tom, in the absence of any evidence, is
disingenuous at best. You jerk.
--
Rich Brown
Erik Van Riper
It is also quite easy to prove the source of the attacks, and to send
simple email messages back to the parent ISP's
(abuse@ispname.{net|com|org}), and the offending source is usually
removed very, very rapidly.
Perhaps the administrators / network administrators at IGS should start
sending email with router logs?
NNGS does get these quite frequently too, but it does not degrade the
service much since most of the cruft is dropped at the incoming router.
Ignoring the twits usually works well. :)
If the IGS administration or the network admins at the location that IGS
is at needs help in identifying the source of these attacks, they can
feel free to contact me via email and I will be happy to direct them to
industry experts who would be happy to help them out.
Bantari
>
> "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.134c0b29f7a502e898973e@nntp...
> >
> > I am fairly confident that the jerks are not go players.
> >
> Why, do you have inside knowledge?
Where have I said I do? One's belief does not necessarily has to
do with insider knowledge - just the knowledge of the character of most
of the Go players I have met.
> >
> > I cannot
> > imagine a go player who would stage an attack like this. It seems to me
> > more like a hacker prank,
> >
> On this very forum some go players have been shown to be escapers, liars,
> cheats, and thieves. Why not hackers?
Indeed... why not? Still... a Go player hacker would probably
still not attack a Go server. I would like to believe that all the
real Go players hold the Go servers in very high regard.... all the Go
servers, even IGS. Well... call me naive, hehe...
Do *you* have any inside knowledge? Please share.
Brent Locher
Michael Alford wrote:
> ...... And it is a sad irony too, but I bet the people making these
> attacks play
> Go.
assumption number one.
> So I bet they use one of the telnet servers.
Assumption number two built upon assumption number one.
But lets take your assumption to its logical conclusions:
Of course there are only two types of telnet servers: IGS and NNGS/NNGS clones.
The folks doing this are go players and use an NNGS/ NNGS clone go server. So
we have yet another likely case of NNGS folks resorting to dirty tricks against
IGS.
> And as we all know, the
> telnet servers are 'related to IGS by the protocol file and by look and
> feel', so anyone that uses a telnet server owes a certain amount of respect
> and gratitude to tweet and tim. Sabotage does not seem to conform to the
> definition...
The NNGS folks are so inconsiderate that not only do they copy the IGS protocol,
but they then try to ruin IGS - the creators of the protocol to begin with.
>
>
> OK, the rest of this is a flame:
>
> OK, you know what I think of these attackers anyway :)
>
> malf
I know what you think of the attackers. And I think I also know what you think
of the NNGSer's too.
Kirk McElhearn
> Of course there are only two types of telnet servers: IGS and NNGS/NNGS
> clones. The folks doing this are go players and use an NNGS/ NNGS clone go
> server. So we have yet another likely case of NNGS folks resorting to
> dirty tricks against IGS.
That's a pretty serious accusation. In many countries, people could
seek legal redress for it...
Don't start another server war thread, huh? Go play with yourself if
you need self-gratification....
Kirk
Bantari
> Brent Locher <loc...@avionics.bfg.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course there are only two types of telnet servers: IGS and NNGS/NNGS
> > clones. The folks doing this are go players and use an NNGS/ NNGS clone go
> > server. So we have yet another likely case of NNGS folks resorting to
> > dirty tricks against IGS.
First, let me say that I do not believe that it is "dirty tricks"
of IGS people this time. The problem is sad, and everybody has the right
to be upset about this. A few wrong words migh slip out... I do not
think malf wanted to accuse anygroup in specific.
Still - i am not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that the
attack was done using a Go client. I'd think that sending massive
amounts of data to a telnet address would be much easier when using a
generic telnet program.
>
> That's a pretty serious accusation. In many countries, people could
> seek legal redress for it...
Well... not to put any more oil on the flames... the initial
accusation, which Brent just pointed out, was as serious as this one
is... or more.
As malf said: " And it is a sad irony too, but I bet the people
making these attacks play Go. So I bet they use one of the telnet
servers."
Well... this just accuses the NNGS users or NNGS-clone users of
the attacks, no? Or do you believe that it is IGS users themselves? Or
maybe you know of other IGS-like telnet servers which are not related to
NNGS? If not - then you have to agree that malf's words plainly pointed
a finger at the NNGS-users. They have all the right to be peeved about
this, you know.
Anyways - back to the topic - whoever does this, should be
punished... and he/she/they are the person you should be screaming for
legal action against.
Rauli Ruohonen
> Kirk McElhearn says...
> > Brent Locher <loc...@avionics.bfg.com> wrote:
> > > server. So we have yet another likely case of NNGS folks resorting to
> > > dirty tricks against IGS.
>
> First, let me say that I do not believe that it is "dirty tricks"
> of IGS people this time.
"..of the NNGS people", you mean.
> Still - i am not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that the
> attack was done using a Go client.
He did not. He just thought it probable that these people play
Go. (probably on the grounds that others don't have much reasons to attack
IGS - one doesn't start this kind of attack just for the fun of it)
> I'd think that sending massive amounts of data to a telnet address would
> be much easier when using a generic telnet program.
If what the original poster said is true, the attacks weren't the kind you
can make using a telnet program. It's called SYN flooding, and requires
a program written for just that purpose. There are plenty of them
available on the net, for almost any operating system with a TCP/IP stack.
Launching this kind of attack is not all that hard. (maintaining it for a
long time without being caught can be, which is why you don't want to try
this at home)
[Propeller hat on.]
The first packet sent by a client whenever it wishes to make a connection
is a SYN packet. The server replies to this in order to negotiate of
certain things with the client and to establish the connection.
[The propeller attains its maximum angular velocity.]
SYN flooding means sending lots of these packets with different
source addresses/ports, and the server thinks that there are a LOT of
people trying to establish connections. The flooding program sets the
source address information incorrectly, and it takes a while for the server
to notice that the client's really not there. Because there can be only so
many connections in state of "being established", legitimate users will
have hard time trying to connect. Modern systems use a variety of
techniques to be safe from this, though.
[The propeller begins to cough and stutter sporadically.]
SYN flooding is better Denial of Service attack than many others in the
sense that it's not easy to determine the real source of the
packets. "Attacks" such a connecting and sending lots of crap to the server
are very easy to deal with, since the real source is known. A connection
can't be established without revealing this information.
[The propeller halts spontaneously. Propeller hat off.]
> > That's a pretty serious accusation. In many countries, people could
> > seek legal redress for it...
>
> Well... not to put any more oil on the flames... the initial
> accusation, which Brent just pointed out, was as serious as this one
> is... or more.
Yep. It's funny how easily you can be misunderstood, if you don't
literally mean every sentence you write.
> If not - then you have to agree that malf's words plainly pointed
> a finger at the NNGS-users.
Right. And just to be sure the point comes through to everybody:
Brent didn't point his finger at NNGS users. He just pointed out that
Michael's statements seem awfully lot like thinly veiled accusations
against NNGS users.
> Anyways - back to the topic - whoever does this, should be
> punished... and he/she/they are the person you should be screaming for
> legal action against.
They can be found if the attacks become a real problem. Until then,
why not just let them have their fun? Maybe they'll be content and
not come up with anything really nasty. "If your opponent can't win
by getting what he wants, let him have it." I believe tenuki is the
strongest reply in this case.
Fu, Ren-Li
Assuming IGS really is under constant, 24 hour a day DOA attacks, we
have to understand what is going on here.
First of all look for a motive. WHO would want to bring down IGS and
what possible motive woudl they have?
For one thing, these people must know by now that they will never
bring down IGS. I never have any problem using IGS. Anyways.
If there was no IGS who would benefit? Certainly not yoru average go
player. Instead if there was no IGS everyone on IGS would have to go
to another go server. But which one? I know of at least five public go
servers in north america.
Another question to ask is that if these pachets are storming IGS 24
hours a day then they could be traced. Eventually you would be able to
figure out who is sending them if you talk to your ISP and trace it
back. It might take a while but even if the attacks stop, tweet could
still continue the investigation as 99% of real ISPs keep logs.
It'd be interesting to see who these fools are and shut them down,
make an example of their idiocy.
-frl
Rauli Ruohonen
> I would like to believe that all the real Go players hold the Go servers
> in very high regard....
Yeah, right. Next you'll be saying that any Go player who attacks any
Go server is not a *real* Go player. Then come the tales of unobedient
Go players' hell where you're forced to play chess all day, and the
heaven where you become a Go God. After that, the movement to make
all people Go players *really* gets started, when enough people realize
the obvious truth that despite what history teaches us, there really
*are* some ideologies (or games) that make all people behave properly. Then
we have the paradise we want, and will live there happily ever after.
Any similarities with fairy tales, christianity and communism is completely
in the eye of the beholder. And yes, I said "communism" just to sell my
argument to all Americans in this group (1).
Note for all the straight-faced flamers reading this: This article is only
half-serious!
(1) For some strange reason, anything can be sold to them if it implies
that communism is bad(TM). For some even stranger reason, they think
this also applies to non-Americans. Goodwin's law should really be
extended!
jum...@my-deja.com
>> From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
>>> I am fairly confident that the jerks are not go players.
>>
> Tom Hoeber says...
>> Why, do you have inside knowledge?
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> ... One's belief does not necessarily has to do with insider
> knowledge - just the knowledge of the character of most of the
> Go players I have met.
He said "inside knowledge," not "insider knowledge."
Find the insider knowledge located at:
http://www.viewzone.com/alllights.html (solution in 15 moves)
- regards
- jb
.
================================================================
From: CWelch3333 <cwelc...@aol.com>
Subject: Ecological Disaster in the making
Date: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:58 AM
Ozone levels are down as much as 35% over US,Europe & Canada
Scientists are warning that the highest level of destuction of the
ozone layer over the northern hemisphere will appear this spring. It
is likely to trigger public alerts against going out in the sun
without protective clothing across Europe. Actually the ozone is
deteriorating over the United States and Canada as well.
We have images and the current report update(3/16/2000) from The World
Meteorological Organization on solcomhouse-
http://www.solcomhouse.com/europeozone.htm
A super iceberg, perhaps the biggest recorded in the satellite era, is
breaking off Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf, drawing attention to
concerns about the polar ice melt it was first reported by The
University of Wisconsin 2/22/2000.Around the world, ice sheets and
glaciers are melting at a rate unprecedented since record-keeping
began. Changes in the area and volume of the two polar ice sheets in
Antarctica and Greenland are intricately linked to changes in global
climate and could result in sea-level changes that would severely
affect the densely populated coastal regions on Earth. We have the
images on http://www.solcomhouse.com/globalwarming.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Morgan J
>
>"Rich Brown" <r...@darkstar.uwsa.edu> wrote in message
>news:8bttep$ik8k$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>>
>> The application of Occam's razor should apply here, as it does everywhere
>> else: These are just script kiddies, folks, with no particular agenda.
>>
>that these attacks are caused by "just script kiddies", (whatever that is),
>or that no go player would do such a thing, as the other guy said, well then
>I know that you either know something about it, or you're just blathering
>without a clue. I suspect the latter.
Actually, you're making yourself look silly here - firstly, excuse me
for sticking my oar in on this one. I'm nothing but a humble .au Go
player (beginner - but loving it) who hasn't really spoken up here
previously. I'm also something of a techie, and the company I'm
involved with runs a number of live servers, fulfilling a number of
purposes.
The supposition that these are just script kiddies with no special
agenda is quite strong - when I read the first message in this thread,
that was exactly what I thought. I didn't think it would go any further
(I'm used to reading tech groups where this kind of knowledge is
common).
Let me make something pretty clear - and you can go off and do your own
research on this if you don't believe me.
*every* site on the internet suffers these attacks. Ask any sys-admin
of any system that recieves more than token traffic per day. They
will have had an attack on these lines within the last week. Any *big*
site recieves these attacks daily, hourly or constantly. It's
considered part of life.
This is why security is a good thing. IGS is eveidently weathering
these attempts at hacking/DOSing well, and it's nothing to worry about.
Theres no reason to expect this is anything but regular, random
port-scanning by script kiddies. The 'constant' nature of them is a
little odd, but I'd like to know what *sort* of attack it is before
passing judgement, and what exactly 'constant' means.
Pointing fingers makes you all look foolish - read up on this, check the
logs (if Tweedie wants to make them avaliable) and go from there.
And by the way, Tom? Your post is one of the most ignorant and clueless
I've read in a while, specifically because you accuse someone else of
the same in an area where you know nothing. Don't accuse others of
cluelessness on a basis you don't understand - you'll end up looking the
fool in public.
Morgan Jaffit
Thiele Everett
: Brent Locher <loc...@avionics.bfg.com> wrote:
: > Of course there are only two types of telnet servers: IGS and NNGS/NNGS
: > clones. The folks doing this are go players and use an NNGS/ NNGS clone go
: > server. So we have yet another likely case of NNGS folks resorting to
: > dirty tricks against IGS.
: That's a pretty serious accusation. In many countries, people could
: seek legal redress for it...
Kirk, remember the maxim: a text without a context is a pretext.
That means: read more carefully.
Brent was interpreting Malf's statement with the above, not stating
it himself. He prefaced the above with: "But lets take your assumption
to its logical conclusions"
If anything, Brent's intention seems to be to call malf's insinuations
into question through a reductio ad absurdum.
regards,
--Rett
: Don't start another server war thread, huh? Go play with yourself if
: you need self-gratification....
: Kirk
Thiele Everett
^^^^
: Rich Brown continued with more stuff about razors ending with "You jerk."
: Typical Brown. Next we can look forward to his trademark stream of
: obscenities.
No one is looking forward to anything except people like you, Tom,
and malf who go out of their way to rekindle old conflicts and then
nurture the flames. That must be why your domain is called 'pyro'.
--Rett
Thiele Everett
: As most of you are aware, I have posted that the IGS admins, when they
: sometimes 'talk shop'. That is how I first became aware of what are called
Do they still slip you tidbits of information so that you will run
off and fight their battles for them?
--Rett
Thiele Everett
: It'd be interesting to see who these fools are and shut them down,
: make an example of their idiocy.
Yeah, that'd be truly fascinating. While you're at it, could you
stop all the spam e-mail I get too? It's really bugging me, and
you seem to really know the ropes.
--Rett
Mike Vaughn
(Michael Alford) wrote:
[long rambling monolog deleted to appease mailer]
> I got the impression it is a bit more of a
> problem than it used to be, but I have not, thus far, as a user, been
> bothered by these attacks, so the good folk at IGS are doing a good job
> dealing with them.
If you haven't been bothered, then why are you writing this stuff?
Real life getting too hard again?
> OK, the rest of this is a flame:
Life must be dull without server wars on r.g.g.
> OK, you know what I think of these attackers anyway :)
Whoever they might be :)
> malf
Fu, Ren-Li
Sure, first give me the appropriate logs and then I will send a team
of trained ninjas to take em' out.
-frl
karl...@my-deja.com
is necessary". It says, FYI, nothing about selecting the simplest
solution in the absense of evidence. The primary concern is that
additional assumptions would increase the uncertainity of the soundness
of any proof. Thus, given two proofs of the same conclusion, the
"simpler" one, in the sense of requiring fewer conditions to be true, is
the better proof.
Despite Bertrand Russell and the movie "Contact" suggestion, it is
highly questionable to eliminate "God" or any other assumption without
full knowledge of the system under investigation. Who is to determine
the complexity necessary to provide correctness? One can imagine dozens
of scenarios in which the "simpler" explanation is not the right one.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence IMHO, no application of Occam's
razor can be made, because one cannot determine if one theory has
"multiplied" *beyond* what is necessary.
It would seem equally reasonable to me that the alleged "hacker" would
be famalier with the game of Go, and it is through that connection that
the address for the servers is known. However, that theory cannot be
properly verified by any means, let alone Occam's razor, without further
investigation.
Rich Brown
> In article <se7n1tk...@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Hoeber wrote:
>>
>>"Rich Brown" <r...@darkstar.uwsa.edu> wrote in message
>>news:8bttep$ik8k$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>>>
>>> The application of Occam's razor should apply here, as it does everywhere
>>> else: These are just script kiddies, folks, with no particular agenda.
>>>
>>I don't know anything about razors, but I know that if one says, as you do,
>>that these attacks are caused by "just script kiddies", (whatever that is),
As much as I would enjoy teaching you a lesson, it's not my job to
educate you with regard either to logic or to network security.
>>or that no go player would do such a thing, as the other guy said, well then
>>I know that you either know something about it, or you're just blathering
>>without a clue. I suspect the latter.
Wrong. It's the former. I know something. So also, apparently, does
Morgan Jaffit. It's Tom Hoeber that's doing all the clueless blathering.
> Actually, you're making yourself look silly here - firstly, excuse me
> for sticking my oar in on this one. I'm nothing but a humble .au Go
> player (beginner - but loving it) who hasn't really spoken up here
> previously. I'm also something of a techie, and the company I'm
> involved with runs a number of live servers, fulfilling a number of
> purposes.
Whoa! Credentials! Cool!
> The supposition that these are just script kiddies with no special
> agenda is quite strong - when I read the first message in this thread,
> that was exactly what I thought. I didn't think it would go any further
> (I'm used to reading tech groups where this kind of knowledge is
> common).
You too?
> Let me make something pretty clear - and you can go off and do your own
> research on this if you don't believe me.
Fat chance.
> *every* site on the internet suffers these attacks. Ask any sys-admin
> of any system that recieves more than token traffic per day. They
> will have had an attack on these lines within the last week. Any *big*
> site recieves these attacks daily, hourly or constantly. It's
> considered part of life.
Well, what do you know about that?
> This is why security is a good thing. IGS is eveidently weathering
> these attempts at hacking/DOSing well, and it's nothing to worry about.
> Theres no reason to expect this is anything but regular, random
> port-scanning by script kiddies. The 'constant' nature of them is a
> little odd, but I'd like to know what *sort* of attack it is before
> passing judgement, and what exactly 'constant' means.
That will take some work. Lucky for IGS, some kind folks have
already volunteered to help with this sort of discovery.
> Pointing fingers makes you all look foolish - read up on this, check the
> logs (if Tweedie wants to make them avaliable) and go from there.
I for one sincerely hope that the perpetrators are brought to justice.
> And by the way, Tom? Your post is one of the most ignorant and clueless
> I've read in a while, specifically because you accuse someone else of
> the same in an area where you know nothing. Don't accuse others of
> cluelessness on a basis you don't understand - you'll end up looking the
> fool in public.
You're new around here, aren't you?
--
Rich Brown
jo
>Sure, first give me the appropriate logs and then I will send a team
>of trained ninjas to take em' out.
Can you give my mate a hand too? He was scanned 1000 times in 42
minutes the other night.
Probably by a Go server.
ROFL.
--
jo
karl...@my-deja.com
karl...@my-deja.com
karl...@my-deja.com
karl...@my-deja.com
Brent Locher
Michael Cummings
<karl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Occam's razor states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond what
>is necessary".
This post, however, was multiplied beyond what was necessary.
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Mike Cummings | "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." <
> mo...@drizzle.com | -- H. G. Wells <
> ICQ #34152632 | <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Bantari
> He said "inside knowledge," not "insider knowledge."
Well.. thanks for pointing this out. It, obviously, changes the
whole meaning of Tom's words. How could I have missed it. Duh!!
Get a life, Jeff. :-)
jum...@my-deja.com
> jum...@my-deja.com says...
>> He said "inside knowledge," not "insider knowledge."
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Well.. thanks for pointing this out. It, obviously, changes the
> whole meaning of Tom's words. How could I have missed it. Duh!!
Yes it does change the meaning, and since you couldn't discern
the difference even after a hint was provided you're about to get
your thrashing right here. "Insider knowledge" refers knowledge
that those "on the inside" might have, but it does not necessarily
say the knowledge insiders have is complete, or correct. In other
words the "insiders" might -NOT- have the "inside" knowledge, but
only imagine that they do. Now "inside knowledge" refers to that
knowledge which is deeper, or interior, to external appearances
and might be found, or not found, among "insiders" -AND- "outsiders."
For example, you could put the symbols "4d" inside parenthesis, but
that would not mean your rank is 4-dan. Judging from the level of
discourse you provide on the newsgroup, I'd calculate your rank at
approximately 4-kyu, including all of those suggested trimmings.
> Get a life, Jeff. :-)
There's nothing to indicate that my posts here to the newsgroup
indicate any less of getting a "life" than your activities. Have
you solved the "all lights" problem yet? Tried the 7x7 version?
Why haven't you posted your findings of the errors in "FMGT" series
as I had requested from you last August 1999? Do you need more time?
I'd have more to say about Occam's razor (other thread) but decided
the shorter version was sufficient for disproving parsimony notions.
- regards
- jb
.
=============================================================
http://www.viewzone.com/baboquivari.html
----------------------------------------
Ancient History
The O'Odham: Native-Americans
With Ancestors From India?
By Gene D. Matlock, BA, M.A.
Hindu scholars have always claimed that in remotest times, their
ancestors visited every part of the globe, mapping it accurately, and
mining gold and copper in such places as Michigan, Colorado, Arizona,
England, Ireland, Peru, and Bolivia. Known to us as "Indo-Europeans,"
they lost their grip on the world in about 1500 BC., retreating to
what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Northern India. However, they
continued to visit the Americas in their large teakwood ships, many of
them 250 feet long and five- to six-masted, until about 1200 A.D.
After that, the sectarian fanaticism and territorialism of their
religious leaders, rebellions among their conquered subjects, constant
internecine rivalries, and troubles with Moslem invaders forced them
into isolation. No Westerner naively accepts India's claims of having
once dominated the world. Right? Well, some of us do.
In an essay entitled On Egypt from the Ancient Book of the Hindus
(Asiatic Researchers Vol. III, 1792), British Lt. Colonel Francis
Wilford gave abundant evidence proving that ancient Indians colonized
and settled in Egypt. The British explorer John Hanning Speke, who in
1862 discovered the source of the Nile in Lake Victoria, acknowledged
that the Egyptians themselves didn't have the slightest knowledge of
where the Nile's source was. However, Lt. Colonel Wilford's
description of the Hindu's intimate acquaintance with ancient Egypt
led Speke to Ripon Falls, at the edge of Lake Victoria.
The Hindus also claim that the gospel of their deity Shiva was once
the religion of the world and the progenitor of all religions coming
after it.
"Isvar was the only god in India, the whole of Asia, the southern
parts of Russia, Mediterranean countries, Egypt, Greece, the whole
of Europe, the human inhabited places of both Americas…and also in
England and Ireland. In all these lands, Isvar was the religion with
slight variations in the pronunciation of the word Isvar….the Isvar
religion is the mother of all religions in the world, including
Christianity and Islam."
(Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism, by Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon; p.
36.)
While the languages our forefathers spoke thousands of years ago would
be completely unrecognizable to us now, the names of their deities
(those that survived to this modern age) may be immediately
recognizable to their respective modern adherents, such as the
Christians, Jews, Moslems, Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus. Names of
deities tend not to change.
Isvar was and is especially visible (to discerning eyes) in our own
Southwest as well as in Northern and Central Mexico. Some tribes even
worshiped God Shiva's wives and consorts. Spanish priest, Andres Perez
de Ribas wrote in his book, My Life Among the Savage Nations of New
Spain, that a Northern Mexican tribe worshiped two deities: Viriseva
and a mother goddess named Vairubai. Viriseva means "Lord Siva" in
Sanskrit. Vairubai has to be (a mispronouncing of) Bhairava, another
name of Siva's consort, Goddess Durga.
A few Hindu scholars insist that not all their gods and religious
traditions are natives of the Indian subcontinent. When the ancient
Nagas retreated to India, they also took back the deities and
religious traditions they had acquired abroad, incorporating them into
"Hinduism," a term meaning "The Indus Valley Way of Life."
Historian Chon states:
"There are strong indications in our ancient texts that the places
and events described in them are lying outside the geographical
limits of India But when we talk of geographical limits, …are they
the national boundaries of post-independent India? Or are they the
boundaries of India, the ancient?"
(Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism; p.30.)
I'm especially impressed with the traditions of the Pimas (Akimel
O'Odham) and Papagos (Tohono O'Odham) of Southern Arizona and Northern
Mexico. Although I could write a lengthy article about Isvarist
(worship of the Hindu deity, Shiva) practices in practically every
Southwestern United States, Mexican, Central and South American Indian
tribe, even India-Indian spiritual geography is reproduced abundantly
in the O'Odham nation.
Though the pre-conquest era O'odhams were relatively primitive, the
Spaniards admired them for their intelligence, industry, and high
philosophy. Some Catholic missionary priests thought they were the
progenitors of the Aztecs.
About 5,000 BC or earlier, a brilliant deified Phoenician Naga king
and philosopher named Kuvera (also Kubera) learned how to smelt
copper, gold, and other metals. These activities took place in the
kingdom named after him, Khyber ("Kheeveri"), which consisted of a
group of craggy mountains in what are now Southeastern Afghanistan and
Northeastern Pakistan (i.e. the Khyber Pass). According to Hindu
mythology, Kuvera and God Shiva lived in the totally barren,
mineral-poor, goldless, frigid, lofty, bell-shaped or pyramidical peak
of Kailasa in Western Tibet.
Edward Pococke stated in his book India in Greece,
The Khyber; its region is wealthy and abounds with rubies; gold is
found in the mines in its vicinity, and it (the Kheeveri kingdom)
was likewise the ruling power in those early days. (p.220.)
We derived our word "copper" from Kuvera's name. Eventually, the Nagas
extended their influence over all of India. If you've intuited that
Afghan Khyber (Kheever), Hebrew Heber (pronounced Kheever), Egyptian
Khepri, Greek Khyphera, Cabeiri, Cypriotic Cip'ri (Kheep'ri), biblical
Capernaum, Arabic Khabar, O'Odham Babo-Quivari (Kheeveri), Francisco
de Coronado's search for the fabled Quivira (Kheevira), ad infinitum,
are somehow linked, you've intuited correctly.
But why do the Hindus and Buddhists worship Kuvera and Shiva in a
barren peak and not in the Khyber mountain range itself? I don't want
to get "mystical," but the "reason" for this anomaly is the world's
best-kept millennium's-old secret. Besides, it's not the focus of this
article.
Kuh or Koh = "Hump; Mountain" while Vera or Vira = "Hero; Lord."
The Nagas, also called Nakas and Nahu(a)s, were a highly civilized
ruling, maritime and mercantile class who once inhabited what is now
Afghanistan, Tibet, Pakistan, and Northwestern India. The Nag
("Self-Consuming Serpent") was one of their principal tribal emblems.
The substance of Kuvera's teachings is that God, then called Dyau,
Deo, Dyaus or Jyaus, put all the plants, animals, ores, and minerals
on earth for Man's enjoyment. As long as Man protects the happiness
and security of all humanity, he need not place any limits on his
greed. Kuvera's teachings spread throughout the whole world.
"Originally, the Asuras or Nagas were not only a civilized people,
but a maritime power, and in the Mahabharata, where the ocean is
described as their habitation, an ancient legend is preserved of how
Kadru, the mother of serpents, compelled Garuda (the Eagle or Hawk)
to serve her sons by transporting them across the sea to a beautiful
country in a distant land, which was inhabited by Nagas, The Asuras
(Nagas) were expert navigators, possessed of very considerable naval
resources, and had founded colonies upon distant coasts."
(The Encircled Serpent, by M. Oldfield, p. 47.)
"Asura" is the Indian equivalent of Assyria (really Asuriya and Asir)
and the Persian Ahura of Zoroastrianism. It derives from the name of
the ancient Hindu sun god Ashur. The Naga capital was called Oudh,
Iodh, Yudh, and Ayodhya. Located near what is now Herat, Afghanistan,
it is not to be confused with todays Oudh or Ayodhya in the Indian
state of Uttar Pradesh. The citizens of Oudh were called Oudh-am and
Otia-Am. Am = "People" in Sanskrit.
In those days, only a few million people inhabited the earth. Most
humans were cavemen and less. The Nagas didn't entrust their highly
developed technologies to such aborigines. But they did teach them how
to build simple thatch and adobe homes, and to raise vegetable and
animal foods. They also taught them about the Creator of All Life,
Dyaus or Jyaus. Even today the O'Odhams call it Jeoss or Josh. Joshi
is one of God Shiva's many names. Some White Arizonians mistakenly
insist that the O'Odhams derived this term from Dios (Spanish for
"God"), Jesus, or Joshua.
The innocent Arizona aborigines believed these Nagas from Oudh,
Afghanistan (part of India until the late 1700s) were gods. They even
named themselves Oudham, which they pronounced as O'Odham or O'Ot'ham.
An ancient Sanskrit word for "brotherhood; fraternity" is Ton; Tahun.
The Papagos called themselves Tohono O'Odham, or "Oudh-am Fraternity."
Tohono now means "Desert" in the O'Odham language. The Pimas settled
along winding rivers, which seemed to look like writhing serpents.
They named themselves Akimel O'Odham. "Akimel" derives from the
Sanskrit Ahi-Mahal (Great Serpent). This name eventually came to mean
"River."
The Nagas dug deep wells in the desert, siphoning water out of the
ground with long, thick tubes. The exterior ends of these tubes were
large and bulbous, and painted to look like human heads, in order to
mystify the aborigines. The water spouted out from what looked like
round, puckered human mouths. The heads had horns which were really
handles for pulling tubes to different irrigation channels. As the
flowing water caused these tubes to writhe and undulate like serpents,
the primitive Arizonians thought they were real. In Kashmiri, Nag
means "a snake, esp. a fabulous serpent-demon or semi-divine being,
having the face of a man and the tail of a serpent, and said to
inhabit Patala. In Kashmir, they are the deities of springs."
(Grierson's Dictionary of the Kashmiri Language; p. 624, item 2.) The
Kashmirians also called these siphons Nag-Beg (Snake-Lords). Patala
was one of the ancient Indian names for "America." It's real meaning
is "Underworld," but not an underground world. They used it as we
often call Australia: "The Land Down Under."
The Arizonian O'Odhams similarly called the water siphon Nah-Big.
According to both Kashmiri and O'Odham legends, the Nah-Big was
harmless. However, if someone "killed" it, the spring dried up - and
for good reason. Without a proper siphon, needed water could no longer
spew out of the well. Several Southwestern Indian tribes worship exact
replicas of the Kashmiri Nag-Beg (siphon) in special religious
ceremonies. However, some of them call it by other names. Certain
O'Odham and other Native-American clans in the Southern Arizona and
Northern Sonora area also call this mythical serpent Corua (KoROOah,
with the "R" trilled as in our English "City"). It derives from
Sanskrit: Krura-Sarpavat (Violent-Serpent); Kadruja (Serpent Mother
Kadru's equally serpent son).
Another O'Odham word for "snake," Vah-Mat, is nearly identical to the
Kashmiri/Sanskrit Veh-Mar: "Poisonous-Snake." The O'Odham language
contains an unusually high number of North Indian words.
When the Nagas arrived in Arizona, they found a huge stone peak in the
desert, resembling Kuvera and Shiva's (I-Itsoi's) Kailasa in nearly
every way except one. The Indian Kailasa, also in a desert, is nearly
four times higher above sea level than the O'Odhams' holy peak. To
honor their spritual progenitor, the Nagas named this Arizona peak
Babu-Kheever ("Grandfather" or "Illustrious Indian Immigrant" Kuvera),
adhering closely to the exact pronunciation of the mineral-rich
Kheever (Khyber) mountain range of Afghanistan.
Baboquivari (Babo-kheeveri) has retained almost the same name after
more than six millenniums. The O'odhams also call it Waw-Kiwulk, which
sounds like "Vahv-Kivur'." Just as the Hindus, Jains and Buddhists
call Kailasa the navel of the world, so do the O'odhams give
Baboquivari the same distinction.
Babo-Kheeveri and the Afghan Kheeveri mountains were supposedly filled
with unlimited gold, copper, and precious stones. Even today, much of
the gold mined in that part of Arizona keeps leaking endlessly out of
the Babo-Kheeveri (Baboquivari) mountain range.
Jutting upward at more than 7,750 feet above sea level, Baboquivari
can be seen on a clear day from as far away as 80 miles, even from the
Mexican side of the border. Few natural wonders equal the majesty and
beauty of this spectacular peak. In my opinion, it is a "must-see" for
any lover of Nature's wonders. You will notice that the mountain
enjoys the close association of lesser peaks, forming a large trident.
Being such a prominent landmark, Baboquivari keeps incoming
undocumented Mexican aliens and drug smugglers from getting lost. That
part of the desert also abounds in water-filled cacti to slake their
thirst, including edible fauna and flora. Evidently, the INS knows
about Baboquivari. On the day my wife and I visited the peak, we saw
several of their vans in the area, waiting to pick up uninvited guests
and transport them back to the border - or to prison.
When I told the O'Odhams that I had learned about the unlimited
quantities of gold within Baboquivari from Hindu books written
millenniums ago, one woman moaned hopelessly, "Now that this news is
out, the White man will even rob us of our God." She wasn't too far
afield. The government has always wanted to probe the interior of
Baboquivari.
A Possible Historical Scenario
About 3,000 BC, a saintly Indian prince and high priest of the
Kheeveri empire left Afghanistan for Arizona, to manage the mining
operations at Baboquivari and govern the O'Odhams. In India, he is
variously called Shiva, Siva, Shaveh, Suva, Su, Ish, Esh, Yesh, Isa,
Itsa, Ishvara, Yishvara, Yeshva, Moshe, Mahesh, Mahisa, etc. The
suffixes Va and Veh refer to someone who is vengeful and short of
temper. Vara = "Blessings of." The prefixes Mo, Mu. and Mah means
"Great." Ish, Esh, Yesh, Isa, etc., = "Material Universe" in both
Sanskrit and Hebrew cabalism. From these Sanskrit elements we derived
our term "Messiah," which in Sanskrit is Masiha, and Massee'akh in
Hebrew. These terms were honorific titles of the highest
ecclesiastical and leadership castes of that period in history. These
supreme "Sivas," whether good, bad, or indifferent, were also regarded
as earthly gods.
We may never know what this "Shiva's" real name was. The Pimas call
him Se-eh-ha; Siwa; Su-u (Elder Brother). The Papagos worship him as
I'Itoi or I'Itsoi, which linguistically is nearly identical to "Isa."
Not yet united by a centralized government, the ancient Hindus weren't
conscious of themselves as Indians - just as similar peoples separated
by different tribes and kingdoms. All of them competed by fair and
foul means for the resources of the world. Internecine rivalries tore
them apart constantly.
During Shiva's Arizona reign, a powerful Indian emperor, Priyavarta,
sent his armies to all the countries of the world, to unite all
Indians and their colonial possessions as one nation. He appointed his
sons as viceroys. One son, Sevana or Sewana, was sent to conquer and
govern North America. Notice that he, too, was a "Siva." O'odham
legends mention this Sewana whom they call Siwana. When I'Itoi or
Se-eh-ha wouldn't submit to Priyavarta, he and Siwana met on the
battle field. Ultimately, I'Itoi prevailed; Siwana was killed.
According to some Indian historians, later on, back in Southeast Asia,
the volcano Krakatoa exploded violently, creating the China Sea. Our
globe became extremely unsteady on its axis, causing rains,
earthquakes, and floods to occur all over the world. The coastlands of
Western India submerged by more than fifty feet and as many miles
inland in some places. Even as you read this article, Indian
archeologists are uncovering fabulous ruins lying just off the
mainland, under the Arabian sea. Dwarka, Indian deity Lord Krishna's
capital city, is the focal point of these underwater digs. Dwarka may
prove to be the greatest archeological dig in human history.
These floods forced millions of Indian refugees to flee to other parts
of the world. When the Arizona desert flooded, the Pimas and Papagos
took refuge on Baboquivari where I'Itoi or Se-eh-ha (Siva) helped them
survive. After the waters had subsided, he helped the O'Odham
re-establish themselves. Therefore, no matter to what religion they
are converted, the O'Odham are always going to revere and respect
I'Itoi.
Nearly all of today's O'Odham are Catholics. However, the Franciscan
fathers tending to their spiritual needs allow them to set up the
Swastika, I'Itoi or Isa's standard, on the altars of the Catholic
churches there, even on the altar of San Xavier Mission church near
Tucson. There are other Shaivite reminders among the O'odhams. O'Odham
Catholic churches usually face east as the Shaivite temples do in
India. And, like the Hindus, they bury their dead in an east-west
direction. They also revere the Shiva-Linga or Pillar of Energy,
usually erected in front of and some distance away from their
churches, placed on a tiered pyramid or pyramidical mound, exactly as
in India. However, nowadays the Shivling is a Christian cross. In the
book he wrote in 1644, Father Ribas acknowledged that the Northern
Mexican Indians worshiped Shivlings.
"One of the padres, traveling along a trail near Guasave, observed
an Indian suddenly depart into the woods. In curiosity they followed
this Indian, presently coming upon him in the act of making
reverence before a stone. This stone was about a vara (33 inches) in
height, shaped in the form of a pyramid, and had some crude
inscriptions carved upon it.
San Xavier Mission Church near Tuscon, Arizona.
"The Padre ordered this false idol destroyed. The Indian, horrified
at the thought, declared that he dare not destroy it, for fear of
death." (My Life Among the Savage Nations of New Spain; p. 34.)
During my visit at San Xavier mission, I also saw representations of
the undulating serpent Nah-Big on the exterior of the church of San
Xavier. And get this: The O'Odhams call their way of life Himday or
Himdag! Hindi?
I was especially intrigued by the Pima name for "Medicine-Man:"
Javet-Makai. Dyaus-Pitar or Jyapeti (Japhet) is really another title
of Shiva. Makai may be derived from Maga (Priest-Magician).
Javet-Makai = Jyapeti Maga?
DNA analysis may prove that today's O'Odhams are genetically related
to the India-Indians. Arjuna, Krishna's companion in the Mahabharata
Wars (fought on Northern India's Kuruksetra plains in about 3000 BC),
was married to a Patalan (American) princess. Military forces from
Patala, possibly even some O'Odham among them, fought in those famous
wars. How did I'Itoi's deification get exported to India? Because
Isvar was once the religion of all mankind, It could have been a
partial contributor to all worldwide myths about Siva, eventually
becoming consolidated in the Indian subcontinent. I'Itoi earned
"godhood" on his own merits. Also, as a Hindu supreme leader, he was
deified anyway. After all, the O'Odham and the Hindus do share the
same India-originated "Way of Life."
Hindu immigrants to this country often tell me that they see the
Southwestern Native-Americans as long-lost brothers. They say that
many Native-Americans tell them the same thing. If we use Sanskrit
language resources, Hindu mythology, Shaivite practices and mutually
identical holy names as measuring sticks, the kinship between
Native-Americans and South Asians becomes easily verifiable, no matter
what the "experts" say. Could there be a special political reason why
"The Great White Father" doesn't want certain Native-Americans to know
they're Himday?
Some tribes, such as the Huicholes in Central Mexico, even remember
from what Indian seaport they left for America - Aramra in Gujarat.
The Huicholes revere a part of the beach at the old Mexican seaport of
San Blas, Nayarit, as Aramara, "Place of Origin of the Huicholes."
Millenniums ago, Gujarat was called Jukhar. Juj-Kha is an O'Odham name
for "Mexicans." The Navajos call them Nakaii (Nagas). The Apaches
claim to be Inde (Indus People.) They worship Shiva as Yusn. In
Sanskrit, Yishan = "Shiva." Apache = "Enemy" in O'Odham. In Sanskrit,
Apachnan = "Destroyer." Another name of the Zunis ("Zoonyees") is
Ashiwi (Azhuva?, "Way of the Serpent," in Sanskrit). Two of their
principal deities are Shivani and Shiwanikoya. Zoonya (Zuni?) and
Zeenya ware epithets of ancient Kashmir. According to Indian historian
K. P. Chon, the Naga Azhuvas, perhaps the forefathers of the Zunis,
were India's oldest ruling dynasty. He said that they ruled for more
than a thousand years.
"The descendants of this dynasty are still to be found in the
southernmost part of India in Kerala. They are even now called Azhuva
or Ezhava. The emperor Azi Dahaka, -- with two snakes around his neck
-- was a devotee of Isvara."
(Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism; p. 22.)
The Ezhavas' ships were said to have sailed all over the world. The
Hopis worship Siva under several of his names, one of which is Massawa
(Maheswa?). The Hopis are ophiolators (snake worshippers). Thousands
of years ago, a famous Naga cult called Hophiz lived near Kabul,
Afghanistan. Orginally, this nation was named Oph (Serpent) + Gana
(Group; Family) + Stan (Nation). "Afghanistan" evolved from
"Oph-gana-stan." The Afghan Hophiz snake cult spread to Greece,
becoming Ophis. The Ophis cult was popular in the ancient world, even
among the Christian gnostics. Needless to say, it also found its way
to the American Southwest. We may never know the exact "hows."
The name of the ancient Hopi village of Oraibi causes me to wonder
whether the Hopi nation was a famous stronghold of Saivism, known even
in India. This unusual word lacks only the "Bh" in Bhairavi, epithet
of Goddess Durga. However, Grierson's Dictionary of the Kashmiri
Language mentions another meaning of the term, which may explain
exactly how and why Oraibi got its name: "Name of a certain class of
lower deities who form Siva's host..." One of these is after the local
godling of some locality or tract of country. Special localities
protected by him are looked upon as sacred" (p. 129; item 44.) Was
Southwestern United States an important Shaivite holy center in
earliest times?
Other ancient Naga sea-faring miners, traders, conquerors and
colonizers who left their bloodlines and names all over the Americas
and the rest of the world were the Ute, Yuti, Yutiya, or Juti (Jutes).
The Northern Mexican Indians called the invading Spaniards,
"People-Who-Came-Before:" Yutiya ("Judeeya"); Yuti; Juti ("Jodee" or
"Judee)." In Spanish, the word is usually spelled as Yori; Yuri. "R"
is trilled as in "City." "Y" often approximates our "J." Because of
the Spanish spelling, we can't see that this word is really the
English "Jute.". Why did these Indians believe the Spaniards were
Jutes? Juti now means "non-Indian Mexicans and Gringos." In Sanskrit,
Juddhi; Yuddhi = "Conquerors." Our history books tell us that the
"Jutes" were "Northern German or Danish tribes."
Does it surprise you to find "People-Who-Came-Before" in Southwestern
United States and Northern Mexico?
Such human groups as "Phoenicians, Assyrians, Teutons, Jutes, Celts,
Scythians, Chaldeans, Hittites, Kassites," plus many others, were not
exactly who and what we've been told they were. The India-Indians can
give mankind broader and more accurate descriptions of these principal
actors on the stage of Ancient History. The Native-Americans are
"Indians" after all!
Skeptics often tell me that I'm just using a fertile imagination to
link the Southwestern Native-Americans with certain ethnicities and
communities in South Asia. Just in case any of my readers think I'm
imagining all these correspondences, put yourself in my place. Pretend
that you've read a book about ancient Tibet. In this book, you read
about a little mountain village called Dina. The villagers practice
their national Tibetan religion: Bon. Their shamans use sand-paintings
to heal the sick. After that, you read a book about the Navajos. Their
real name is Diney. Their religion is Bahanney. Their shamans use sand
paintings to heal the sick. Intrigued, you start comparing other
Native-American tribes with peoples living in India, consistently
finding tight similarities. What would you then think - or know? Of
course, these India-related correspondences are not confined only to
Native-Americans. But the rest of the world's peoples is not what this
article is all about.
The spirit of I'Itoi, one of many Isas around the world, wanders
within the bowels of Kheever or Quivari eternally, in a maze of
tunnels running throughout the interior of Baboquivari. These tunnels
may be shafts from which the ancient Hindus extracted unending
quantities of gold, transporting it to India.
Like I'Itoi's swastika (on left), this maze (right) is also a sacred
O'Odham emblem.
It, too, stands at the altar of San Xavier Mission.
About Coronado's Ill-Fated Expedition
During my fact-finding mission to the O'Odham nation in September,
1999, a young O'Odham man told me that at the beginning of the Spanish
conquest, a certain Spanish officer and his men tried to dig their way
into Baboquivari. Suddenly, the ground under them opened; Baboquivari
swallowed them. I intuited that he was giving me a mythologized
version of Francisco de Coronado's search for the Seven Cities of
Cibola and a place called Quivira, where, he was told, he could get
his hands on unlimited quantities of gold.
Francisco Vasquez de Coronado (1510-1554) was the first explorer of
America's Southwest. He arrived in Mexico in 1535, becoming governor
of Nueva Galicia (the present states of Aguascalientes, Jalisco and
Zacatecas). During his governorship he heard about the supposedly
gold-rich Seven Cities of Cibola and Quivira, believed to be in what
is now the American Southwest, somewhere in Arizona or New Mexico.
With 300 Spanish soldiers and some Native-Americans, he marched to the
present state of Arizona. The news about the Spaniards' obsession for
gold surely reached the O'Odham nation long before he did. Esteban,
also called El Turco, led the Spaniards away from Baboquivari, to what
is now the Lindsborg, Kansas area. Coronado began to suspect that he
had been tricked. Another Indian accompanying the expedition could
have grown fearful that El Turco might be persuaded to lead the
Spaniards back to Arizona. He begged Coronado to quit paying attention
to El Turco, promising to lead the Spaniards farther northward, to the
real "Quivira," but Coronado had lost his fascination with fairy
tales. He had El Turco strangled to death, returning to Mexico in
disgrace in 1542. It never occurred to Coronado to remove "Babo" from
"Quivari."
Henric Bergsåker
karl...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelandet <8c2rpl$9qe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Occam's razor states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond what
>is necessary". It says, FYI, nothing about selecting the simplest
>solution in the absense of evidence.
1) There is no need to post your messages more than once.
2) Implicit in batmagoo's original use of the term 'Occams razor'
was the contention that the 'attacks' on IGS are readily explained
by the existence of ordinary 'hackers' or 'script kids' and that it is
consequently unnecessary to invoke any other, conspiratory
explanations. It would seem to me that the use of the term 'Occams
razor' was reasonably relevant.
h.
Henric Bergsåker
Fu, Ren-Li skrev i meddelandet
>First of all look for a motive. WHO would want to bring down IGS and
>what possible motive woudl they have?
>
Interesting subject for speculation!
>For one thing, these people must know by now that they will never
>bring down IGS. I never have any problem using IGS.
>
Are you familiar with earlier ingenious conspiracy theories that have
been put forward on this newsgroup? I recall for instance the rather
clever hypothesis that Tom Hoeber, Joe McClendon et al. are the
number one ennemies of IGS, portraying themselves as IGS friends,
then doing all they can to draw everybod's anger towards themselves,
thus towards IGS. Rather neat theory!
From your arguments ( particularly your observation that the
hypothetical perpetrators must be aware that the attacks will not bring
IGS down) it would seem that the whole thing is probably staged by
fanatic anti-NNGS activists, with the aim to discredit NNGS,
or didn't I understand you correctly?
best regards,
h.
jum...@my-deja.com
Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation (EHPA)
Author: Xuanyuan Shi <xuan...@shi.retro.edu>
Date: 2000/03/30
Forum: alt.alien.visitors
"Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation (EHPA)"
at the "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)"
See: http://www.darpa.mil/baa/baa00-34.htm
-O-
Haptic (force feedback) Applications in Virtual Reality:
High-frequency vibrations,
Pressure distribution
Thermal properties.
-O-
Announcement and call for papers Ninth Annual Symposium on
HAPTIC INTERFACES FOR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
AND TELEOPERATOR SYSTEMS
To be held at the International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition [ http://www.asme.org/conf/congress00/index.htm ]
The Winter Annual Meeting of the ASME
November 5-10, 2000 Walt Disney World Dolphin Orlando, Florida
Sponsored by the Robotics Panel of the Dynamics Systems and
Control Division [ http://www.ecn.missouri.edu/~asme2000/ ]
of the ASME [ http://www.asme.org/ ]
-O-
A gallery of haptic interfaces:
http://haptic.mech.nwu.edu/intro/gallery/
-O-
"Magnetic Levitation Haptic Interfaces
The Microdynamic Systems Laboratory operates within
the Robotics Institute [ http://www.ri.cmu.edu/ ]
which is a department of the School of Computer Science
[ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Web/FrontDoor.html ] at Carnegie
Mellon University [ http://www.cmu.edu/ ]. Some of our
projects are affiliated with the Institute for Complex
Engineered Systems [ http://www.edrc.cmu.edu/ ] at CMU."
-O-
NANOTECH:
NAS Nanotechnology Gallery
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Groups/Nanotechnology/gallery/
-O-
There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom
An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics
by Richard P. Feynman
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
-O-
Nanotechnology
http://www.zyvex.com/nano/
-O-
MACHINE PSYCHOLOGY
and the politics of everyday robots
http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm
-O-
We, Borg
Speculations on Hive Minds as a Posthuman State
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Posthumanity/WeBorg.html
-O-
* Co-founder of Sun Microsystems sees doom in technology
The Washington Post
"A respected creator of the Information Age [Bill Joy, chief
scientist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems] has written an
extraordinary critique of accelerating technological change in
which he suggests that new technologies could cause 'something
like extinction' of humankind within the next two generations.
[...]
"He views as credible the prediction that by 2030, computers
will be a million times more powerful than they are today.
He respects the possibility that robots may exceed humans in
intelligence, while being able to replicate themselves.
"He points to nanotechnology - the emerging science that seeks
to create any desired object on an atom-by-atom basis - and
agrees that it has the potential to allow inexpensive production
of smart machines so small they could fit inside a blood vessel.
Genetic technology, meanwhile, inexorably is generating the power
to create new forms of life that could reproduce.
"Joy is deeply worried that these technologies collectively
create the ability to unleash self-replicating, mutating,
mechanical or biological plagues..."
http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/doom_20000313.html
See also:
Mission-Critical Deployment
Sun's Jini™ Technology Drafted for Service in the U.S. Army
http://www.sun.com/dot-com/studies/jiniinthearmy.html
-O-
WILL SPIRITUAL ROBOTS REPLACE HUMANITY BY 2100?
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/symbol/Hofstadter-event.html
Douglas Hofstadter presents...
Kurzweil/Moravec Symposium
FREE and open to the public
April 1, 2000, 1pm - 5:30. TCSEQ room 200.
(Parking in "A" lots OK on Saturdays)
[The Teaching Center is located in the
Science and Engineering Quad at
Stanford University]
Primary speakers:
- Ray Kurzweil (inventor of reading machine for the blind,
electronic keyboards, etc., and author of "The Age of
Spiritual Machines")
- Hans Moravec (a pioneer of mobile robot research, and
author of "Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind")
- Bill Joy (co-founder of, and chief scientist at,
SUN Microsystems)
Panel members:
- Ralph Merkle (well-known computer scientist and one of
today's top figures in the explosive field of
nanotechnology)
- Kevin Kelly (editor at "Wired" magazine and author of
"Out of Control", a study of bio-technological hybrids)
- John Holland (inventor of genetic algorithms, and
artificial-life pioneer; professor of computer science
and psychology at the U. of Michigan)
- Frank Drake (distinguished radio-astronomer and head of
the SETI Institute -- Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence)
- John Koza (inventor of genetic programming, a rapidly
expanding branch of artificial intelligence)
Symposium organizer and panel moderator:
- Douglas Hofstadter (professor of cognitive science at
Indiana; author of "Gödel, Escher, Bach", "Fluid
Concepts and Creative Analogies", etc.)
[ See website:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/symbol/Hofstadter-event.html ]
-O-
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/mirage4.jpg
"Quantum mirage" may enable atom-scale circuits
IBM Scientists Discover Nanotech Communication Method
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/mirage.html
Thiele Everett
: If Occam's razor were an operative principle to the universal
: aesthetic in mathematico-physical theory then it wouldn't require
: any statement of itself.
Clever, but deceptive. You are conflating the levels of object-language
and meta-language. Occam's razor is a methodological statement (or as
you say 'operative priniciple') as to how to proceed with theoretic
explanation. As such it is not part of the scientific discourse itself,
but rather the metadiscourse, at which level it is an appropriate
thing to state.
regards,
--Rett
Tom Hoeber
>
> In article <se4ssjh...@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Hoeber writes:
>
> > On this very forum some go players have been shown to be escapers, liars,
> > cheats, and thieves. Why not hackers?
>
> These are just script kiddies, folks, with no particular agenda.
>
> implicate go players, perhaps you ought to come up with some evidence
> for your convoluted, paranoiac suppositions. Did you have someone in
> particular in mind? Who is the escaper? The liar? The cheat? The thief?
> Where is your _evidence_ that what you say is true? I don't believe you.
>
Well, it's a matter of public record that a go player cheated in a big
money IGS tournament, lied about it, then admitted it, then other go
players lied about it, but of course none of that has anything to do
with what _you_ believe. Since you don't seem to read very carefully, I
will tell you that I was answering a poster who, "couldn't imagine a go
player who would stage an attack like this." It's also on public record
that there is a deep and abiding hatred of IGS in general and tweet in
particular from some go players around the world. Anyone who follows
this newsgroup has seen ample evidence of such creatures.
>
> In the absence of such evidence, it seems that the _simpler_ explanation
> -- dat's Occam's razor fer ya -- is that IGS is the victim of the same
> sorts of SYN attacks that _everyone_else_ on the Internet is.
>
> For you to suggest otherwise, Tom, in the absence of any evidence, is
> disingenuous at best. You jerk.
>
I suggested that it was _possible_ that these attacks could have come
from go players. You, and the self-proclaimed 'expert' that you quote
so extensively elsewhere, seem to feel that because these things happen
to others on the internet, go players couldn't possibly be involved in
this particular case. It's too bad your deep study of philosophy didn't
extend to simple logic or common sense. Of course go players _could_ be
involved. Which is all I ever said.
Tom Hoeber
jo
> Of course go players _could_ be
>involved. Which is all I ever said.
So _could_ the Pope.
--
jo
jum...@my-deja.com
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Recently, I had all my accounts invalidated on IGS. When I asked
> the admin (Tweedie) why, I was given no answer.
First of all your account was "deregistered" and not invalidated.
You were provided with a login under your original handle with a
status equivalent to "guest" only asking for reverification of your
e-mail address through the simple and straightforward process called
registration. Second, `tweedie' was not the admin who had done the
deregistration, and it took some time to research your question and
provide a reply, after `tweedie' had been assiduously working through
several hundred in-basket emails.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> For a while, I couldn't play on IGS and couldn't open up new
> accounts.
All you needed to do was re-register on your original handle.
New accounts were temporarily suspended from your email address.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Then, again without explanation, I was given the ability to open
> new accounts, but all my old ones remained useless.
The explanation was in preparation but in the meantime temporary
suspension of your email address was lifted.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I got "invalid password" when I tried to use them.
You got the equivalent of "guest login" after "invalid password."
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I have tried several times to communicate with the Tweedie fellow,
> who has never answerd my questions, and who has accused me of many
> things, including "vague threats" against him, which I have never
> made.
Since you say these were "vague threats" rather than "obvious
threats" then it would seem you are granting `tweedie' the lattitude
to construe the degree to which they were "vague" (not "obvious").
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> When I asked him to explain himself, he responded by completely
> blocking my ability to use IGS by blocking the entire domain I log
> in under.
Though you could create new accounts, and activate the old accounts
if only you would consent to "re-register" them, perhaps you had then
confused `tweedie' by complaining/whining about inessentials. Your
domain was thereby -temporarily- blocked, pending resolution of your
status, as a probing maneuver to see what you might do next.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> This person has treated me very unfairly. He has acted like a little
> dictator.
Seems reasonable to allow people the right or privilege to act "like
a little dictator" since we're mostly concerned about the problems of
those who act like big dictators, not the little dictators.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Many of my friends have had the experience of having their ability
> to play, observe or speak summarily cut off by Tweedie ( apparently
> whenever he dislikes anything that anyone says! )
Well, what did they say exactly?
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Too bad that even though we live in the wonderful age of the
> internet, there are some who think that they can act like some lord
> who is ordering peasants around.
I wouldn't know who is doing that here.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Many people have complained to me about these nasty tactics on IGS.
> I want the go-world to know what an un-democratic and mean-spirited
> person this man has been to me.
It's no news that IGS is "un-democratic" since five years of flames
on this newsgroup have more than adequately spelled out the discussion
parameters. I think upon reflection that you can trace the alleged
"mean-spirited" quality to a communications disconnect on your part.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I now use NNGS (nngs.cosmic.org 9696) and recommend that everyone do
> the same! The people there are very nice, and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND
> that everyone switch to NNGS - everything about their attitude is
> superior as far as I am concerned.
It is beyond dispute that NNGS offers superior attitudes,
whereas IGS offers superior games of Go, so take your pick.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> If Tweedie had been forthright, just and courageous, and
> answered my reasonable questions, he would be considered to be a
> decent person by me. But my opinion is that this is far from the
> case. I believe he considers IGS to be his kingdom, with him as
> King, and everyone who uses it his subject -IS THAT THE KIND OF
> WORLD WE WANT? NO WAY!
All of your reasonable questions will be answered, but so far
the only one you've posed here asks if IGS has anything to do
with "THE KIND OF WORLD WE WANT" and so I can uncategorically
state without equivocation that IGS has nothing to do with that
"WORLD" much less any other term qualifiers, as per 1 John 2:15.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Please go to NNGS and support the people who really care about
> you as a human being! We live in a world of open, honest
> communication. It seems IGS wants to take us back to the dark ages.
> Don't let this happen.
You have your choice of the soft pillow, or hard rocks.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I have now received many, many emails in only 24 hours since my
> last posting. Many have told me that they are responding to me
> privately because they, too, are afraid of reprisals against them
> by Tweet or other IGS admins for speaking the truth. When will the
> person "Tweet" (who chooses to remain hidden and annonymous behind
> his cyber-identity) have the courage to respond to the charge that
> he represses open, honest disagreements of opinion by disabling the
> ability of many who question him to accesss IGS??
This is your second question posed, emphasized by two "?" marks.
It seems that after the exchange of heated correspondence you have
entered into that twilight-zone domain called "banned" status, so
you are the only other individual who shares company with Mr. Erik
Van Riper himself! This is a momentous occasion indeed since there
are now TWO, and ONLY TWO, "banned" individuals from IGS (defined
by non-acceptance of any attempt at apology for IGS reinstatement).
You must have pushed the wrong buttons altogether in order to so
distinguish yourself in that manner. Should this be congratulatory
or shall we shed the required crocodile tears on your behalf? I
wish we could all review the correspondence you sent to `tweedie'
and since you're in favor of "open, honest disagreements" then I'm
fairly certain you shall find no reluctance at publishing to r.g.g.
Sequence of events, as we understand them presently:
(a) Mr. Saltman engages in scurrilous practices while playing
games on IGS, reminiscent of disreputable tactics, which
inspire his opponents to complain to IGS admins.
(b) As preliminary measure, an IGS admin places Mr. Saltman's
account into "deregistered" status, which means he can
login under the old handle but needs to retype his email
address in order to register, obtain a new password, and
again be allowed to play games.
(c) Mr. Saltman fails to comply with the needed "re-registration"
process (utilized infrequently whenever IGS needs updates
to user email addresses that might change).
(d) Mr. Saltman opens another account and can play games on IGS
but doesn't have his old handle and win/loss record so it
becomes a sore point, and meanwhile he's been holding his
breath waiting for `tweedie' to plow through hundreds of
emails in the administration mailbox, and locate the cause
of Mr. Saltman's undocumented reason for "deregistration."
(e) Mr. Saltman's correspondence to `tweedie' becomes hostile
and vituperative, perhaps indicative of poor breeding and
firing-off danger signals of potential mental instability
on a public access system where children may also connect.
(f) While still pursuing research on the causes of Mr. Saltman's
grievances, `tweedie' next disables new account registration
from Mr. Saltman's email address, and after receiving even
more of the same imflammatory and volatile "vague threats"
from Mr. Saltman, then disables Mr. Saltman's ISP connect.
(g) Mr. Saltman increases the level of volatility by running to
this newsgroup (which has no administrative connectivity
to IGS), causing most of us to scratch our noggins.
(h) Mr. Saltman becomes unofficially "banned" (as contrasted to
Mr. VanRiper's official "ban") so as to become Number Two,
which rhymes with .... ?
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Hiding is the act of a coward! When someone does something that is
> illegal or harmful to society, that person should be punished.
Under a "rule of law" punishment would occur only -after- the
conviction and sentencing phase, which implies the need for legal
systems, courts, and trials, inclusive of "presumption of innocence"
doctrine, due process, and equal protection. We're all primed to
play "Judge Judy" or "Judge Wapner" so present your case!
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> But when someone is punished SIMPLY FOR SPEAKING HIS MIND IN AN
> OPEN SOCIETY, then the person doing the punishing MUST BE BROUGHT
> TO JUSTICE. HE - not the innocent victim-is the truly guilty party -
> Guilty of violating Constitutional rights of free speech.
Please read the past five years of flame-wars and be reminded
that IGS is owned and operated by a foreign corporation. The
U.S. Constitution places restriction upon congressional powers
and not upon individuals to act in a manner which limits speech.
The "open society" does not mean that all speech must be tolerated
but only that intolerant speech requires higher degree of scrutiny.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Unless and until the go-world has the courage to go to other go
> servers, and abandon any server where the administrators are clearly
> oppressive, this anti-democratic process will continue. I urge
> everyone to show your support for free speech and the right to
> express opinions without punishment by abandoning IGS and going to
> NNGS or other servers where YOUR RIGHTS ARE RESPECTED, and you are
> treated as a free and valued individual. Anyone who lets oppressors
> walk over anybody else without protesting is giving silent approval
> to this type of feudal behavior.
Agreed. That's the purpose of having more than one server, as
has been repeatedly stipulated to this newsgroup for five years.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Again, I await the response of Tweet here, in an open forum where
> the world can read his "reasoning". I demand that a Bill of Rights
> for go server-users be proposed by IGS which should show it is
> ready to attone for its callous treatment of me and others by
> leading the way to a truly democrtatic and just processs for all
> users - whenever there is a dispute. That would show good faith on
> IGS part.
Good faith is not the same as "truly democratic" since faith
preceeded democracy in the scheme of things.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> But do not be surprised if no answer is forthcoming soon. Or if an
> answer does come, it may simply attack me personally and not
> address the underlying issues of free speech and the right to have
> disputes setteled in an open and honest way. A real answer would be
> diplomatic and address the real issues - not just paranoid
> perceptions by someone who will not give the world his real name.
Nobody wants to argue that any kind of free speech should become
preferred to professional speech. That's why lawyers provide a
-better- means for client representation when brought before the
law and courts, where we'd least expect to find rights trampled.
- regards
- jb
==============================================================
From: Tom McDermott <tmcd...@netcom.ca>
> Speaking of dislikes: How about that extremely boring academic
> stuff that Jumangi posts that's three miles long?
Here's more of it.
http://www.mrob.com/extro_prin.html#princip
-------------------------------------------
Extropian Principles at MROB
V. 2.6
©1995 Max More, Ph.D.
mo...@extropy.org
max...@primenet.com
President, Extropy Institute
EXTROPY A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality,
experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth.
EXTROPIANISM The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy.
Extropianism is a transhumanist philosophy: Like humanism,
transhumanism values reason and humanity and sees no grounds for
belief in unknowable, supernatural forces externally controlling our
destiny, but goes further in urging us to push beyond the merely human
stage of evolution. As physicist Freeman Dyson has said: "Humanity
looks to me like a magnificent beginning but not the final word."
Religions traditionally have provided a sense of meaning and purpose
in life, but have also suppressed intelligence and stifled progress.
The Extropian philosophy provides an inspiring and uplifting meaning
and direction to our lives, while remaining flexible and firmly
founded in science, reason, and the boundless search for improvement.
Boundless Expansion: Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and
effectiveness, an unlimited lifespan, and the removal of political,
cultural, biological, and psychological limits to selfactualization
and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our
progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing
without end.
Self-Transformation: Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and
physical self-improvement, through reason and critical thinking,
personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking biological and
neurological augmentation.
Spontaneous Order: Supporting decentralized, voluntaristic social
coordination processes. Fostering tolerance, diversity, long-term
thinking, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.
Dynamic Optimism: Fueling dynamic action with positive expectations.
Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, shunning both blind faith
and stagnant pessimism.
Intelligent Technology: Applying science and technology creatively to
transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage,
culture, and environment. These principles are developed below. Deeper
treatments can be found in various issues of EXTROPY: The Journal of
Transhumanist Thought Spontaneous Order in issue 7, Dynamic Optimism
in issue 8, and Self-Transformation in issue 10.
BOUNDLESS EXPANSION
Extropians recognize the unique place of our species, and our
opportunity to advance nature's evolution to new peaks. Beginning as
mindless matter, parts of nature developed in a slow evolutionary
ascendence, leading to progressively more powerful brains. Chemical
reactions generated tropistic behavior, which was superseded by
instinctual and Skinnerian stimulus-response behavior, and then by
conscious learning and experimentation. With the advent of the
conceptual awareness of humankind, the rate of advancement sharply
accelerated as intelligence, technology, and the scientific method
were applied to our condition. We seek to sustain and quicken this
evolutionary process of expanding extropy, transcending biological and
psychological limits into posthumanity. In aspiring to posthumanity,
we reject natural and traditional limitations on our possibilities. We
champion the rational use of science and technology to eradicate
constraints on lifespan, intelligence, personal vitality, freedom, and
experience. We recognize the absurdity of meekly accepting "natural"
limits to our lifespans. The future will bring a graduation from Earth
the cradle of human and transhuman intelligence and the inhabitation
of the cosmos.
Resource limits are not immutable. Extropians affirm a rational,
market-mediated environmentalism aimed at sustaining and enhancing the
conditions for our flourishing. We oppose apocalyptic environmentalism
which hallucinates catastrophe, issues a stream of irresponsible
doomsday predictions, and attempts to strangle our continued
evolution. Intelligent management of resources and environment will be
fostered by the Extropian goal of vastly extended lifespan. The market
price system encourages conservation, substitution, and innovation,
preventing any need for a brake on growth and progress. Migration into
space will immensely enlarge the energy and resources accessible to
our civilization. Extended lifespans will foster wisdom and foresight,
while restraining recklessness and profligacy.
No mysteries are sacrosanct, no limits unquestionable; the unknown
will yield to the ingenious mind. We seek to understand the universe
and to master reality up to and beyond any currently foreseeable
limits.
SELF-TRANSFORMATION
Extropians affirm reason, critical inquiry, intellectual independence,
and honesty. We reject blind faith and the passive, comfortable
thinking that leads to dogma, mysticism, and conformity. Our
commitment to positive self-transformation requires us to critically
analyze our current beliefs, behaviors, and strategies. Extropians
therefore feel proud by readily learning from error rather than by
professing infallibility. We prefer analytical thought to fuzzy but
comfortable delusion, empiricism to mysticism, and independent
evaluation to conformity. We affirm a philosophy of life but distance
ourselves from religious dogma because of its blind faith, debasement
of human worth, and systematic irrationality.
We seek to become better than we are, while affirming our current
worth. Perpetual self-improvement -- physical, intellectual,
psychological, and ethical -- requires us to continually re-examine
our lives. Self-esteem in the present cannot mean self-satisfaction,
since a probing mind can always envisage a superior self in the
future. Extropians are committed to deepening their wisdom, honing
their rationality, and augmenting their physical and intellectual
capabilities. We choose challenge over comfort, innovation over
emulation, transformation over torpor.
Extropians are neophiles and experimentalists who track new research
for more efficient means of achieving goals and who are willing to
explore novel technologies of self-transformation. In our quest to
advance to a posthuman stage, we rely on our own judgment, seek our
own path, and reject both blind conformity and mindless rebellion.
Extropians frequently diverge from the mainstream because they refuse
to be chained by any dogma, whether religious, political, or
intellectual. Extropians choose their values and behavior
reflectively, standing firm when required but responding flexibly to
new conditions.
Personal responsibility and autonomy go hand-in-hand with
self-experimentation. Extropians take responsibility for the
consequences of their choices, refusing to blame others for the
results of their own free actions. Experimentation and
self-transformation require risks; we wish to be free to evaluate
potential risks and benefits for ourselves, applying our own judgment,
and assuming responsibility for the outcome. We seek neither to rule
others nor to be ruled. We vigorously resist those who use the
institutionalized coercion of the State to impose their judgments of
the safety and effectiveness of various means of self-experimentation.
Personal responsibility and selfdetermination are incompatible with
authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and
spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons.
Coercion, whether for the purported "good of the whole" or for the
paternalistic protection of the individual, is unacceptable to us.
Compulsion breeds ignorance and weakens the connection between
personal choice and personal outcome, thereby destroying personal
responsibility. Extropians are rational individualists, living by
their own judgment, making reflective, informed choices, profiting
from both success and shortcoming.
As neophiles, Extropians study advanced, emerging, and future
technologies for their self-transformative potential. We support
biomedical research to understand and control the aging process. We
examine any plausible means of conquering death, including interim
measures like biostasis, and long-term possibilities such as migration
of personality from biological bodies into superior embodiments
("uploading").
We practice and plan for biological and neurological augmentation
through means such as neurochemical enhancers, computers and
electronic networks, General Semantics, fuzzy logic, and other guides
to effective thinking, meditation and visualization techniques,
accelerated learning strategies, applied cognitive psychology, and
soon neural-computer integration. Shrugging off the limits imposed on
us by our natural heritage, we apply the evolutionary gift of our
rational, empirical intelligence, aiming to surpass the confines of
our humanity.
SPONTANEOUS ORDER
Extropians emphasize self-generating, organic, spontaneous orders over
centrally planned, imposed orders. Both types of order have their
place, but the under-appreciated spontaneous variety are crucial for
our social interactions. Spontaneous orders have properties that make
them especially conducive to Extropian goals and values; we see
spontaneously ordering processes in many contexts, including
biological evolution, the self-regulation of ecosystems, artificial
life studies, memetics (the study of replicating information
patterns), agoric open systems (market-like allocation of
computational resources), brain function and neurocomputation.
The principle of spontaneous order is embodied in the free market
system -- a system that does not yet exist in a pure form. We are
evolving away from tribalism, feudalism, authoritarianism, and
democracy towards a polycentric system of distributed power shared
among autonomous agents, their plans coordinated by the economic
network. The free market allows complex institutions to develop,
encourages innovation, rewards individual initiative, cultivates
personal responsibility, fosters diversity, and decentralizes power.
Market economies spur the technological and social progress essential
to the Extropian philosophy. We have no use for the technocratic idea
of central control by self-proclaimed experts. No group of experts can
understand and control the endless complexity of an economy and
society. Expert knowledge is best harnessed and transmitted through
the superbly efficient mediation of the free market's price signals --
signals that embody more information than any person or organization
could ever gather.
Sustained progress and effective, rational decision-making require the
diverse sources of information and differing perspectives that evolve
in spontaneous orders. Centralized command of behavior constrains
exploration, diversity, and dissenting opinion. Respecting spontaneous
order means supporting voluntaristic, autonomy-maximizing institutions
as opposed to rigidly hierarchical, authoritarian groupings with their
bureaucratic structure, suppression of innovation and dissent, and
smothering of individual incentives. Our understanding of spontaneous
orders grounds our opposition to self-proclaimed and involuntarily
imposed "authorities", and makes us skeptical of political solutions,
unquestioning obedience to leaders, and inflexible hierarchies. Making
effective use of a spontaneously ordering social system requires a
degree of tolerance and self-restraint, allowing others to pursue
their lives as they choose, just as we wish to be free to go our own
way. Mutual progress and fulfillment will result from a cooperative
and benevolent attitude towards all those who respect our rights.
Tolerating diversity and disagreement requires us to maintain control
of the impulses built into the human organism, and to uphold demanding
standards of rational personal behavior. Extropians are guided in
their actions by studying the fields of strategy, decision theory,
game theory, and ethology. These reveal to us the benefits of
cooperation, and encourage the long-term thinking appropriate to
persons seeking an unlimited lifespan.
DYNAMIC OPTIMISM
Extropians espouse a positive, dynamic, empowering attitude. Seeing no
rational support for belief in a non-physical "afterlife", we seek to
realize our ideals in this world. Rather than enduring an unfulfilling
life sustained by a desperate longing for an illusory heaven, we
direct our energies enthusiastically into moving toward our
ever-evolving vision.
Living vigorously, effectively, and joyfully, requires dismissing
gloom, defeatism, and ingrained cultural negativism. Problems
technical, social, psychological, ecological are to be acknowledged
but not allowed to dominate our thinking and our direction. We respond
to gloom and defeatism by exploring and exploiting new possibilities.
Extropians hold an optimistic view of the future, foreseeing potent
antidotes to many ancient human ailments, requiring only that we take
charge and create that future. Dynamic optimism disallows passively
waiting and wishing for tomorrow; it propels us exuberantly into
immediate activity, confidently confronting today's challenges while
generating more potent solutions for our future.
We question limits others take for granted. Observing accelerating
scientific and technical learning, ascending standards of living, and
evolving social and moral practices, we project continuing progress.
Today there are more researchers studying aging, medicine, computers,
biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other enabling disciplines than in
all of history. Technological and social development continue to
accelerate leading, in the eyes of some of us, to a Singularity a time
in the future when everything will be so radically different from
today, and changing so fast, that we cannot accurately foresee life
beyond that horizon. Extropians strive to maintain the pace of
progress by encouraging support for crucial research, and pioneering
the implementation of its results. Adopting dynamic optimism means
focusing on possibilities and opportunities, being alert to solutions
and potentialities. It means refusing to whine about what cannot be
avoided, learning from mistakes rather than dwelling on them in a
victimizing, punishing manner. Dynamic optimism requires us to take
the initiative, to jump up and plough into our difficulties, our
actions declaring that we can achieve our goals, rather than sitting
back and submerging ourselves in defeatist thinking.
Our actions and words radiate dynamic optimism, inspiring others to
excel. We are responsible for taking the initiative in spreading this
invigorating optimism; sustaining and strengthening our own dynamism
is more easily achieved in a mutally reinforcing environment. We
stimulate optimism in others by communicating our Extropian ideas and
by living our ideals.
Dynamic optimism and passive faith are incompatible. Faith in a better
future is confidence that an external force, whether God, State, or
extraterrestrials, will solve our problems. Faith, or the
Pollyanna/Dr. Pangloss variety of optimism, breeds passivity by
promising progress as a gift bestowed on us by superior forces. But,
in return for the gift, faith requires a fixed belief in and
supplication to external forces, thereby creating dogmatic beliefs and
irrationally rigid behavior. Dynamic optimism fosters initiative and
intelligence, assuring us that we are capable of improving life
through our own efforts. Opportunities and possibilities are
everywhere, calling to us to seize them and to build upon them.
Attaining our goals requires only that we believe in ourselves, work
diligently, and be willing to revise our strategies.
Where others see difficulties, we see challenges. Where others give
up, we move forward. Where others say enough is enough, we say:
Forward! Upward! Outward! We espouse personal, social, and
technological evolution into ever higher forms. Extropians see too far
and change too rapidly to feel future shock. Let us advance the wave
of evolutionary progress.
INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY
Extropians affirm the necessity and desirability of science and
technology. We use practical methods to advance our goals of expanded
intelligence, superior physical abilities, self-constitution, and
immortality, rather than joining the well-trodden path of comfortable
self-delusion, mysticism, and credulity. We regard science and
technology as indispensable means to the evolution and achievement of
our most noble values, ideals, and visions. We seek to foster these
disciplined forms of intelligence, and to direct them toward
eradicating the barriers to our extropian objectives, radically
transforming both the internal and external conditions of existence.
Technology is a natural extension and expression of human intellect
and will, of creativity, curiosity, and imagination. We foresee and
encourage the development of ever more flexible, smart, responsive
technology. We will co-evolve with the products of our minds,
integrating with them, finally merging with our intelligent technology
in a posthuman synthesis, amplifying our abilities and extending our
freedom.
Profound technological innovation excites rather than frightens us. We
welcome change, expanding our horizons, exploring new territory boldly
and inventively. We favor careful and cautious development of powerful
technologies, but will neither stifle evolutionary advancement nor
cringe before the unfamiliar. Regarding timidity and stagnation as
unworthy of us, we choose to stride valiantly into the future.
Extropians therefore favor surging ahead delighting in future shock
rather than ignobly stagnating or reverting to primitivism.
Intelligent use of biotechnology, nanotechnology, space and other
technologies, in conjunction with a free market system, can remove
resource constraints and discharge environmental pressures.
We see the coming years and decades as a time of enormous changes,
changes that we can use to vastly expand our opportunities and
abilities, transforming our lives for the better. This technological
transformation will be accelerated by genetic engineering, life
extending biosciences, intelligence intensifiers, smarter interfaces
to swifter computers, neural-computer integration, virtual reality,
enormous and interconnected databases, swift electronic
communications, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, neural
networks, artificial life, off-planet migration, and nanotechnology.
CONCLUSION
These are principles not only of belief but of action. We become
transhuman only when we have fully integrated these values into our
lives, when we have consciously transformed ourselves ready for the
future, rising above outmoded human beliefs and behaviors. When
technology allows us to reconstitute ourselves physiologically,
genetically, and neurologically, we who have become transhuman will be
primed to transform ourselves into posthumans persons of unprecedented
physical, intellectual, and psychological capacity, self-programming,
potentially immortal, unlimited individuals.
As posthumans we will both embody extropy and generate more more
intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity,
opportunity, and growth. The Extropian Principles serve as a
codification of values helpful in guiding us into the future. These
Principles continue to evolve and cannot replace independent thinking
by the individual.
READINGS
These books are listed because they express Extropian ideas. However,
appearance on this list should not be taken to imply full agreement of
a book or its author with the Extropian principles, or vice versa.
Reading just the the books listed in boldface will illuminate many
components of the evolving Extropian worldview.
Harry Browne: How I Found Freedom in An Unfree World
Paul M. Churchland: Matter and Consciousness; A Neurocomputational
Perspective
Stephen R. Covey: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Mike Darwin & Brian Wowk: Cryonics: Reaching For Tomorrow
Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene
Ward Dean & John Morgenthaler: Smart Drugs and Nutrients
Eric Drexler: Engines of Creation; Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery,
Manufacturing, and Computation
Eric Drexler, C. Peterson with Gayle Pergamit: Unbounding the Future:
The Nanotechnology Revolution
Freeman Dyson: Infinite in All Directions
David Friedman: The Machinery of Freedom (2nd Ed.)
F.M. Esfandiary: Optimism One; Up-Wingers; Telespheres
Robert Ettinger: The Prospect of Immortality; Man Into Superman
FM-2030: Are You A Transhuman?
David Gauthier: Morals By Agreement
Alan Harrington: The Immortalist
Timothy Leary: Info-Psychology
J.L. Mackie: The Miracle of Theism
Hans Moravec: Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human
Intelligence
Jan Narveson: The Libertarian Idea
Jerry Pournelle: A Step Farther Out
Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers: Order Out of Chaos
W. Duncan Reekie: Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty
Ed Regis: Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition
Albert Rosenfeld: Prolongevity II
Julian Simon: The Ultimate Resource
Julian Simon and Herman Kahn (eds): The Resourceful Earth
Alvin Toffler: Powershift
Robert Anton Wilson: Prometheus Rising; The New Inquisition
Fiction:
Roger MacBride Allen: The Modular Man
Greg Egan: Quarantine
Robert Heinlein: Methusaleh's Children; Time Enough for Love
James P. Hogan: Voyage To Yesteryear; Inherit the Stars
Charles Platt: The Silicon Man
Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged
Eric Frank Russell: The Great Explosion
Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson: Illuminatus! (3 vols.)
L. Neil Smith: The Probability Broach
Bruce Sterling: Schismatrix
Marc Stiegler: The Gentle Seduction
Vernor Vinge: True Names
"The Ungoverned" in Across Realtime
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
My thanks to all those who have commented on the numerous drafts of
the revised Principles, especially Jamie Dinkelacker, Derek Ryan, and
Ralph Whelan.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
The Extropian Principles 2.6 may be reproduced in any publication,
private or public, physical or electronic, without need for further
authorization, so long as they appear unedited, in their entirety and
with this notice. Notification of publication or distribution would be
appreciated. The Extropian Principles 2.6 are copyright ©1995 by Max
More, Ph.D., c/o Extropy Institute, 13428 Maxella Avenue, #273, Marina
Del Rey, CA 90292. mo...@extropy.org
===============================================================
A History of Byzantium
----------------------
476: End of Roman Empire in the West
493-526: Reign of Theodoric in Italy
518: Accession of Justin I
527: Accession of Justinian I
533-34: Belisarius reconquers Africa from Vandals
535-40: Belisarius reconquers Most of Italy from Ostrogoths
542: Plague in Constantinople
552-53: Final defeat of Ostrogoths by Narses
577: Invasion of the Balkans by Avars and Slavs begins
610: Accession of Heraclius
614-19: Persians conquer Syria, Palestine and Egypt
622: Mohammed flees Mecca to Medina.
Heraclius begins campaign against Persia
626: Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars
627: Heraclius defeats Persians at Nineveh
636-46: Arabs occupy Syria, Palestine and Egypt
and overrun Persian Empire
647: First Arab invasion of Asia Minor
674-78: Siege of Constantinople by Arabs
681: Foundation of Bulgarian state
711: Arab conquest of North Africa complete
717-18: Second siege of Constantinople by Arabs
726-87: First period of Iconoclasm
756-75: War between Byzantium and Bulgaria
811: Nicephorus I defeated and killed by Bulgarians
813-43: Second period of Iconoclasm
827: Arabs occupy Crete
864: Conversion of Bulgaria to the Greek-Orthodox faith
912-22: War between Byzantium and Bulgaria
923-44: Victorious campaigns of John Kurkuas against Arabs
961: Crete reconquered from Arabs
990-1019: Conquest of Bulgaria by Basil II
1022: Annexation of Armenia complete
1054: Schism between Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) Churches
1055: Seljuq Turks take Baghdad
1071: Seljuq Turks defeat and capture Romanus IV and
overrun much of Asia Minor. Bari captured by Normans
1082: Alexius I grants trading privileges to Venice
1097: First crusade
1133-43: Victorious campaigns of John I in Cilicia and Syria
1147: Second Crusade. Normans capture Corfu, Corinth and Thebes
1155: Successful Byzantine campaign in Italy
1176: Seljuq victory at Myriokephalon
1182: Massacre of Latins in Constantinople
1185: Normans capture and sack Thessaloniki
1204: Capture of Constantinople by Fourth Crusade and
establishment of Latin Empire
1259: Nicaean Army defeats Latins and Epirots at Pelagonia
1261: Recapture of Constantinople by Nicaean force and
end of Latin Empire
1274: Council of Lyons. Michael VIII accepts church union
1282: Sicilian Vespers: defeat of Charles of Anjou
1308: Ottoman Turks take Ephesus
1321-28: Civil war between Andronicus II and Andronicus III
1329: Turks take Nicaea
1337: Turks take Nicomedia
1341-47: Civil war between John V and John Cantacuzenus
1347: The Black Death
1354: Turks take Gallipoli
1365: Turks establish their capital at Adrianople
1376-79: Civil war in Byzantium
1387: Thessaloniki surrenders to Turks
1393: End of Bulgarian state. Turks Occupy Thessalia
1396: Defeat of crusaders at Nicopolis
1397: Manuel Chrysoloras begins teaching Greek in Florence
1397-1402: Siege of Constantinople by Sultan Bajezid
1422: Murad besieges Constantinople
1430: Turks recapture Thessaloniki
1439: Council of Florence proclaims Church union
1444: Turks defeat Hungarians and crusaders at Varna
1453: Turks take Constantinople on May 29.
Death of last emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus
1460: Turks take Mistra
1461: Turks take Trebizonda
Compiled by Nikolaos Provatas. Source, R. Browning.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Thiele Everett <m9...@abc.se>
> Has anyone tried this gomoku variant which occurred to me yesterday?
> In 'generalized gomoku', or 'hyper gomoku', instead of needing five
> in a row to win, you can win by getting five stones in any repetition
> of the same vector.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Intervening white stones would, of course, not interfere with forming
> a line of this sort.
>
> The idea seems obvious enough that it must have been tried before.
> Does anyone have any comments on playability, or related variants?
Yes, it has been called "Cartesian Pente" for the Pente variant
and would probably be named "Cartesian Gomoku" for the version
without Pente's two-stone capture. However, Gomoku in its _renju_
form has a bunch of new rules introduced after 1934, so one of the
ideas here is that players can select or make up their own rules as
part of the game play prior to starting. Cartesian Pente is quite
playable, however have a few aspirin or tylenol on standby.
From: Thiele Everett <m9...@abc.se>
> Pardon the self-followup, but the question of the value of the
> first move seems crucial to this game working. Since there is
> such a large set of winning 'strings' one could introduce komi
> by restricting black in a few ways (as is done in tournement
> renju). However, rather than saying black can't win from an open
> ended 3, one could, for instance, say that he may not win with a
> horizontal or vertical connected line:
Yes, we tried disallowing all "connected lines" as one variant.
Also there's a variation where the winner must construct three in
one direction and five in another direction (not on the same slope).
Since Gomoku, _renju_, and Pente variants are not obvious territory
consolidators the question of "first move value" seems difficult to
evaluate, unless you wanted to examine tournament win/loss probability
which pretty much savaged Pente's playability a few years ago without
introducing certain other provisos for second move, third move, etc.
From: Thiele Everett <m9...@abc.se>
> Diagonals would be okay. There being such a variety of winning shapes
> it might be possible to tailor a fine-tuned handicap/komi system. But
> how would one evaluate their relative values?
To my understanding the word _komi_ refers to territory. It's very
difficult to speak of "relative values" in a tic-tac-toe type game
without the _komi_ notion because lines tend to be either winning or
not, unless you were going to introduce the notion of "probability
of selecting the corrrect follow-up moves." Standard Gomoku offers a
game-duality of orthogonal lattice and knight's-move lattice, however
there are two knights's-move lattices available for the defender,
which in the game of Twixt become offensive rather than defensive
lattices.
From: Thiele Everett <m9...@abc.se>
> Also, the game appears so volatile that perhaps it would be better
> to set the winning condition and being the first to construct some
> number greater than one of lines of five.
Five has the advantage of corresponding to John Conway's assertion
that "holes" in a Penrose tiling should be decagonal (not quite sure
to what he refers exactly). Variations of Gomoku, Pente and _renju_
may or may not allow lines of six as a qualifier for five. There's
much more to be said about Penrose tilings for several reasons, since
Penrose tilings can be generated as fractal representations by means
of 2-D projection from slicing a 5-dimensional space irrationally,
yet each of the seven types of vertices from Penrose tilings do not
exceed five surrounding kites and/or darts.
( See: http://www2.spsu.edu/math/tiling/26.html
http://www2.spsu.edu/math/tiling/28.html
http://www2.spsu.edu/math/tiling/35.html
http://www2.spsu.edu/math/tiling/36.html )
That last link says innocently "...given a region of diameter d,
the distance from that region to an identical region is less than
d(g+1/2), where g is the golden ratio," but this seems to become a
rather profound result given considerable mathematical ink. Now
let's suppose that each of the seven types of vertices occur with
equal frequency (though I don't see why that should be so). In
that case there would be 18 kites for each 14 darts in ratio 9:7,
with a total of 32 (=2^5) objects surrounding seven vertices. Note
also that the Mandelbrot Set typically offers 32 filaments extending
from a basic two-lobed shape. The total number of external segments
around the seven vertices is equal to 64, or twice the number of its
objects, which is to be expected since both kites and darts consist
of quadrilaterals and share one edge whenever connecting. This means
that when forming cohesive planar structure the least common multiple
of all external segment counts (10,10,6,8,10,10,10) must be 120. In
fact, 120 would be general l.c.m. irregardless of vertex frequencies,
because one would simply add-or-delete an entry from the set of those
counts. We also recall 120 as 5! or 5^3-5. In the equal-frequency
case, the number of external segments must conserve, so as to provide
a vertex numerical-count set of (12,12,20,15,12,12,12) respectively,
over a larger region, obtained by dividing each of the elements of
the first set into 120. The sum of elements for this second set now
becomes 95=5*19 or 5^3-5^2, and so we may recognize the "19" factor.
Now there is also a symmetric 7*7 transition matrix linking vertices,
and also the permissible vertex-rings about each vertex type, which
form an introductory basis into the proof of the 4-color map theorem.
There is also an anti-symmetric 23*23 transition matrix linking the
vertices (anti-symmetric due to inversion of right-left orientation
when reversing the direction of transit along an edge of the graph)
and the fact that the dual-tiling is strictly four-connected, which
I would think could have proved the 4-color map theorem right there
since a three-coloration of the vertices on a Penrose dual is easily
obtained by exploding each of the dual-tiling vertices into a little
circular round as by:
| | |
--+-- <---> --O-- <---> __/ \__
| | \ /
|
and then labelling each of the eight segments appropriately, as seems
also to follow from the observation of simple-connectedness in the
Mandelbrot Set, which might suggest a value of R(5,5)=46 (Ramsey).
From: Thiele Everett <m9...@abc.se>
> One fun thing about the game is that the shapes it produces resemble
> the photos you see in physics textbooks from bubble-chambers when
> they split atoms. (based on my first feeble games against myself)
We hadn't considered the "curved forms" you illustrated, though it
would seem that by providing more ways to win the first player has an
even greater advantage over the already "greater than 50% advantage"
which had practically killed Pente as a tournament boardgame.
- regards
- jb
.
bill saltman
<jum...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2000040219...@x22.deja.com...
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Recently, I had all my accounts invalidated on IGS. When I asked
> > the admin (Tweedie) why, I was given no answer.
>
>
> First of all your account was "deregistered" and not invalidated.
*** How was I supposed to know? No one told me this!***
> You were provided with a login under your original handle with a
> status equivalent to "guest" only asking for reverification of your
> e-mail address through the simple and straightforward process called
> registration.
***Again, nothing but silence until now***
Second, `tweedie' was not the admin who had done the
> deregistration, and it took some time to research your question and
> provide a reply, after `tweedie' had been assiduously working through
> several hundred in-basket emails.
>
> ***Why was I de-registered at all? No answer was given!***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > For a while, I couldn't play on IGS and couldn't open up new
> > accounts.
>
>
> All you needed to do was re-register on your original handle.
> New accounts were temporarily suspended from your email address.
>
> ***Why? I asked-was given no concrete answer***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Then, again without explanation, I was given the ability to open
> > new accounts, but all my old ones remained useless.
>
>
> The explanation was in preparation but in the meantime temporary
> suspension of your email address was lifted.
>
> ***The entire process was done without benefit to me of explanation***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > I got "invalid password" when I tried to use them.
>
>
> You got the equivalent of "guest login" after "invalid password."
>
> ***Am I supposed to figure everything out in the dark?***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > I have tried several times to communicate with the Tweedie fellow,
> > who has never answerd my questions, and who has accused me of many
> > things, including "vague threats" against him, which I have never
> > made.
>
>
> Since you say these were "vague threats" rather than "obvious
> threats" then it would seem you are granting `tweedie' the lattitude
> to construe the degree to which they were "vague" (not "obvious").
>
> **NO THREATS EVER WERE MADE! Please don't commit the same error in logic
that tweet did! I do not believe in threats-just justice, so don't go making
idiotic illogical constructions where none are present***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > When I asked him to explain himself, he responded by completely
> > blocking my ability to use IGS by blocking the entire domain I log
> > in under.
>
>
> Though you could create new accounts, and activate the old accounts
> if only you would consent to "re-register" them, perhaps you had then
> confused `tweedie' by complaining/whining about inessentials. Your
> domain was thereby -temporarily- blocked, pending resolution of your
> status, as a probing maneuver to see what you might do next.
>
> ***Is my domain still blocked? Who are you anyways? WHat IGS status do YOU
have? Are you in possession of 1st hand info about all this, or are you
speculating?***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > This person has treated me very unfairly. He has acted like a little
> > dictator.
>
>
> Seems reasonable to allow people the right or privilege to act "like
> a little dictator" since we're mostly concerned about the problems of
> those who act like big dictators, not the little dictators.
>
> ***This statement shows what a deepm concerned and philosphical person you
must be. Thanks for your invaluable insite in this area***
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Many of my friends have had the experience of having their ability
> > to play, observe or speak summarily cut off by Tweedie ( apparently
> > whenever he dislikes anything that anyone says! )
>
>
> Well, what did they say exactly?
>
> **They said that they had their abilities to shout, tell and play
removed subsequent to saying something politically incorrect on IGS***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Too bad that even though we live in the wonderful age of the
> > internet, there are some who think that they can act like some lord
> > who is ordering peasants around.
>
>
> I wouldn't know who is doing that here.
****You should know, because I am informing you it is Tweet and others
at IGS***
>
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Many people have complained to me about these nasty tactics on IGS.
> > I want the go-world to know what an un-democratic and mean-spirited
> > person this man has been to me.
>
>
> It's no news that IGS is "un-democratic" since five years of flames
> on this newsgroup have more than adequately spelled out the discussion
> parameters. I think upon reflection that you can trace the alleged
> "mean-spirited" quality to a communications disconnect on your part.
>
> ***Ah- if it were only me, that would be fine. But I am just one in a
long series of individuals who complain about being harrassed by tweet and
others***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > I now use NNGS (nngs.cosmic.org 9696) and recommend that everyone do
> > the same! The people there are very nice, and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND
> > that everyone switch to NNGS - everything about their attitude is
> > superior as far as I am concerned.
>
>
> It is beyond dispute that NNGS offers superior attitudes,
> whereas IGS offers superior games of Go, so take your pick.
>
> ***Each can benefit from the strong points of the other-they should
cooperate-not compete-for the benefit of all***
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > If Tweedie had been forthright, just and courageous, and
> > answered my reasonable questions, he would be considered to be a
> > decent person by me. But my opinion is that this is far from the
> > case. I believe he considers IGS to be his kingdom, with him as
> > King, and everyone who uses it his subject -IS THAT THE KIND OF
> > WORLD WE WANT? NO WAY!
>
>
> All of your reasonable questions will be answered, but so far
> the only one you've posed here asks if IGS has anything to do
> with "THE KIND OF WORLD WE WANT" and so I can uncategorically
> state without equivocation that IGS has nothing to do with that
> "WORLD" much less any other term qualifiers, as per 1 John 2:15.
>
> ***SDpare me the religious fond-of-mentalism if you would}***
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Please go to NNGS and support the people who really care about
> > you as a human being! We live in a world of open, honest
> > communication. It seems IGS wants to take us back to the dark ages.
> > Don't let this happen.
>
>
> You have your choice of the soft pillow, or hard rocks.
>
> ***I can have both***
****What "practices" are you referring to? I know of none****
> (b) As preliminary measure, an IGS admin places Mr. Saltman's
> account into "deregistered" status, which means he can
> login under the old handle but needs to retype his email
> address in order to register, obtain a new password, and
> again be allowed to play games.
> ***No explanation-processs or reason ever given***
> (c) Mr. Saltman fails to comply with the needed "re-registration"
> process (utilized infrequently whenever IGS needs updates
> to user email addresses that might change).
> ***see above-I have been in the dark the whole time***
> (d) Mr. Saltman opens another account and can play games on IGS
> but doesn't have his old handle and win/loss record so it
> becomes a sore point, and meanwhile he's been holding his
> breath waiting for `tweedie' to plow through hundreds of
> emails in the administration mailbox, and locate the cause
> of Mr. Saltman's undocumented reason for "deregistration."
> ***obviously you (whoever u r) are in close touch with IGS; thus you know
about my last account. I was not holding my breath, nor do I care about
so-called 100's of emails***
> (e) Mr. Saltman's correspondence to `tweedie' becomes hostile
> and vituperative, perhaps indicative of poor breeding and
> firing-off danger signals of potential mental instability
> on a public access system where children may also connect.
> ***No hostility has been shown except by tweets unwarranted actions
against me***
> (f) While still pursuing research on the causes of Mr. Saltman's
> grievances, `tweedie' next disables new account registration
> from Mr. Saltman's email address, and after receiving even
> more of the same imflammatory and volatile "vague threats"
> from Mr. Saltman, then disables Mr. Saltman's ISP connect.
> ***What crap! NO threats, NO hostility were shown-just questioning of
motives***
> (g) Mr. Saltman increases the level of volatility by running to
> this newsgroup (which has no administrative connectivity
> to IGS), causing most of us to scratch our noggins.
*** If one cannot get an answer from the other party, one can attempt to
apply public pressure to achieve it***
>
> (h) Mr. Saltman becomes unofficially "banned" (as contrasted to
> Mr. VanRiper's official "ban") so as to become Number Two,
> which rhymes with .... ?
>
>
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > Hiding is the act of a coward! When someone does something that is
> > illegal or harmful to society, that person should be punished.
>
>
> Under a "rule of law" punishment would occur only -after- the
> conviction and sentencing phase, which implies the need for legal
> systems, courts, and trials, inclusive of "presumption of innocence"
> doctrine, due process, and equal protection. We're all primed to
> play "Judge Judy" or "Judge Wapner" so present your case!
>
> ***You KNOW the issues - punishment without being told of the crime!
Without being able to defend oneself! It is all very simple - Tweet (Mark
Okada) likes to do what HE wants to do WITHOUT acoounting to anyone!
***You avoid the real issues entirely here, in a cloud of nebulous
rhetoric***
>
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> > But do not be surprised if no answer is forthcoming soon. Or if an
> > answer does come, it may simply attack me personally and not
> > address the underlying issues of free speech and the right to have
> > disputes setteled in an open and honest way. A real answer would be
> > diplomatic and address the real issues - not just paranoid
> > perceptions by someone who will not give the world his real name.
>
>
> Nobody wants to argue that any kind of free speech should become
> preferred to professional speech. That's why lawyers provide a
> -better- means for client representation when brought before the
> law and courts, where we'd least expect to find rights trampled.
>
>
>
>
> - regards
> - jb
> ***Thank you for your input, flawed and biased as it is. I hope that you
NEVER have to live in a country run by a dictator, and it is because of
people like me that YOU are free to speak your mind. The larger issues
beyond your own, very limited self-interest have obviously eluded you, but
perhaps someday you will see the larger truth - that the spirit of ethics
and morality is far more important that the letter of the law***
jum...@my-deja.com
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Recently, I had all my accounts invalidated on IGS. When I asked
>>> the admin (Tweedie) why, I was given no answer.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> First of all your account was "deregistered" and not invalidated.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** How was I supposed to know? No one told me this! ***
You must be blind or not have read the prompt messages which
would have printed out the following:
"That command is currently not available. You
need to be registered. Please register your
account. To register, re-register, or to change
your registration address, enter: help register
Your IGS registration letter and password will be
sent to the address provided. Please read the
registration letter carefully; you will find
answers and information to the most common
questions asked by newly registered accounts, as
well as an important policy statement.
"If you are in the U. K. your address will be the
reverse of what you would normally expect. The
address format should be acc...@domain.uk ."
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> You were provided with a login under your original handle with a
>> status equivalent to "guest" only asking for reverification of your
>> e-mail address through the simple and straightforward process called
>> registration.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Again, nothing but silence until now ***
Contra-indicated by the analysis already provided above.
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Second, `tweedie' was not the admin who had done the
>> deregistration, and it took some time to research your question
>> and provide a reply, after `tweedie' had been assiduously working
>> through several hundred in-basket emails.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Why was I de-registered at all? No answer was given! ***
The more essential question concerns why you felt it necessary
to be so persistent in asking "why" at the cost of risking rude
discourtesies and corrosive vituperations. Why should you be
asking "why" when lurking in your subconscious were the answers?
`Tweedie' was in somewhat the same position w/r/t "why" since he
had to conduct detailed research with other admins, logfiles, and
game-records in order to reconstruct and verify certain allegations
your opponents had filed against you. It's quite understandable
that `tweedie' was also proceeding in the dark while pursuing what
basically was for him a detective investigation on scanty leads.
Meanwhile `tweedie' could not help noticing your "vague threats"
sent to him via email while he was so busily engaged in trying to
demonstrate your innocence to other admins and previous opponents.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> For a while, I couldn't play on IGS and couldn't open up new
>>> accounts.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> All you needed to do was re-register on your original handle.
>> New accounts were temporarily suspended from your email address.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Why? I asked-was given no concrete answer ***
This doesn't strike me as a big deal since you now prefer NNGS.
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Then, again without explanation, I was given the ability to open
>>> new accounts, but all my old ones remained useless.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> The explanation was in preparation but in the meantime temporary
>> suspension of your email address was lifted.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** The entire process was done without benefit to me of
> explanation ***
As Kurt Vonnegut once wisely said: "So it goes."
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> I got "invalid password" when I tried to use them.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> You got the equivalent of "guest login" after "invalid password."
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Am I supposed to figure everything out in the dark? ***
As previously mentioned, `tweedie' was actually more in the dark
than you, since at least IGS was providing you with an explanation
of what you needed to do next with your de-registered account each
time you tried to use a command that requires registration. You,
and your prior game opponents, and not `tweedie,' were privy to the
detailed circumstances which had led to reports of your misbehaviors.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> I have tried several times to communicate with the Tweedie fellow,
>>> who has never answerd my questions, and who has accused me of many
>>> things, including "vague threats" against him, which I have never
>>> made.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Since you say these were "vague threats" rather than "obvious
>> threats" then it would seem you are granting `tweedie' the lattitude
>> to construe the degree to which they were "vague" (not "obvious").
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> **NO THREATS EVER WERE MADE! Please don't commit the same error in
> logic that tweet did! I do not believe in threats-just justice, so
> don't go making idiotic illogical constructions where none are
> present***
Correction then: those were "`vague threats' that were never made."
Seems to substantiate my earlier point by being even -MORE- "vague."
> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> When I asked him to explain himself, he responded by completely
>>> blocking my ability to use IGS by blocking the entire domain I log
>>> in under.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Though you could create new accounts, and activate the old accounts
>> if only you would consent to "re-register" them, perhaps you had
>> then confused `tweedie' by complaining/whining about inessentials.
>> Your domain was thereby -temporarily- blocked, pending resolution of
>> your status, as a probing maneuver to see what you might do next.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Is my domain still blocked? Who are you anyways? WHat IGS status
> do YOU have? Are you in possession of 1st hand info about all this,
> or are you speculating? ***
I don't see why your domain should remain blocked because there
appears to be one or more other IGS users from "rcn.com" . As
for "who am I" I guess I find myself asking the same question every
morning. You tell me and we'll both know. My IGS status appears to
be identical to 30,000 other users worldwide. I am not an IGS admin,
nor am I in any way affiliated with PANDA. My info is inferential
yet also constructed from both first-hand and second-hand reports.
I would very much appreciate hearing your side of things, but you
haven't provided the newsgroup with your correspondence to `tweedie.'
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> This person has treated me very unfairly. He has acted like a
>>> little dictator.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Seems reasonable to allow people the right or privilege to act "like
>> a little dictator" since we're mostly concerned about the problems
>> of those who act like big dictators, not the little dictators.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** This statement shows what a deepm concerned and philosphical
> person you must be. Thanks for your invaluable insite in this area
Fortunately I don't need to make ostentation and pretense w/r/t
my "philosophical" qualifications. Had I promised you any insights?
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Many of my friends have had the experience of having their ability
>>> to play, observe or speak summarily cut off by Tweedie ( apparently
>>> whenever he dislikes anything that anyone says! )
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Well, what did they say exactly?
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> ** They said that they had their abilities to shout, tell and play
> removed subsequent to saying something politically incorrect on IGS
Let's try that question again (hoping for an unparaphrased answer):
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>
>> Well, what did they say exactly?
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Too bad that even though we live in the wonderful age of the
>>> internet, there are some who think that they can act like some
>>> lord who is ordering peasants around.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> I wouldn't know who is doing that here.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** You should know, because I am informing you it is Tweet and
> others at IGS ***
Now I've got it, and thanks for your clarification on the issue.
Since you believe in the "rule of law" you'll agree that was alleged?
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Many people have complained to me about these nasty tactics on IGS.
>>> I want the go-world to know what an un-democratic and mean-spirited
>>> person this man has been to me.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> It's no news that IGS is "un-democratic" since five years of flames
>> on this newsgroup have more than adequately spelled out discussion
>> parameters. I think upon reflection that you can trace the alleged
>> "mean-spirited" quality to a communications disconnect on your part.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Ah- if it were only me, that would be fine. But I am just one in
> a long series of individuals who complain about being harrassed by
> tweet and others ***
The most recent case I can recall here concerned an individual who
had a communication problem on -his- end that was later resolved by
his local ISP admins, then he published a profuse apology to `tweet.'
I can assure you, and others on this newsgroup will confirm it, that
I have been actively involved in the details of each case that you'd
wish to reference, over the past few years, and when all was said and
done -- when getting to the bottom of each matter -- the allegations
against `tweet' had evaporated. `Tweet' and I don't agree on every
issue, and `tim' and I have gone through disagreements, so I'm quite
familiar with the psychological conflicts you're about to introduce.
I view the source of conflicts in a tendency not to place stones on
the points exactly, but once each stone is correctly situated on the
point where it belongs then we can examine the position unambiguously
and reach a suitable estimation for purposes of mutually negotiated
settlement at the peace-conference bargaining table.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> I now use NNGS (nngs.cosmic.org 9696) and recommend that everyone
>>> do the same! The people there are very nice, and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND
>>> that everyone switch to NNGS - everything about their attitude is
>>> superior as far as I am concerned.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> It is beyond dispute that NNGS offers superior attitudes,
>> whereas IGS offers superior games of Go, so take your pick.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Each can benefit from the strong points of the other-they should
> cooperate-not compete-for the benefit of all ***
Electronics consists of two extremes: that of complete freedom and
that of total competition. Somewhere amid those two extremes may be
found the balance and harmony sought. Attitudes do not win games.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> If Tweedie had been forthright, just and courageous, and
>>> answered my reasonable questions, he would be considered to be a
>>> decent person by me. But my opinion is that this is far from the
>>> case. I believe he considers IGS to be his kingdom, with him as
>>> King, and everyone who uses it his subject -IS THAT THE KIND OF
>>> WORLD WE WANT? NO WAY!
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> All of your reasonable questions will be answered, but so far
>> the only one you've posed here asks if IGS has anything to do
>> with "THE KIND OF WORLD WE WANT" and so I can uncategorically
>> state without equivocation that IGS has nothing to do with that
>> "WORLD" much less any other term qualifiers, as per 1 John 2:15.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** SDpare me the religious fond-of-mentalism if you would} ***
Then cite your scriptural/philosophical authority/principles,
and we'll see if we can work forward from there, on your terms.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Please go to NNGS and support the people who really care about
>>> you as a human being! We live in a world of open, honest
>>> communication. It seems IGS wants to take us back to the dark ages.
>>> Don't let this happen.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> You have your choice of the soft pillow, or hard rocks.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** I can have both ***
She disagrees.
>> From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> I have now received many, many emails in only 24 hours since my
>>> last posting. Many have told me that they are responding to me
>>> privately because they, too, are afraid of reprisals against them
>>> by Tweet or other IGS admins for speaking the truth. When will the
>>> person "Tweet" (who chooses to remain hidden and annonymous behind
>>> his cyber-identity) have the courage to respond to the charge that
>>> he represses open, honest disagreements of opinion by disabling the
>>> ability of many who question him to accesss IGS??
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> This is your second question posed, emphasized by two "?" marks.
>> It seems that after the exchange of heated correspondence you have
>> entered into that twilight-zone domain called "banned" status, so
>> you are the only other individual who shares company with Mr. Erik
>> Van Riper himself! This is a momentous occasion indeed since there
>> are now TWO, and ONLY TWO, "banned" individuals from IGS (defined
>> by non-acceptance of any attempt at apology for IGS reinstatement).
>> You must have pushed the wrong buttons altogether in order to so
>> distinguish yourself in that manner. Should this be congratulatory
>> or shall we shed the required crocodile tears on your behalf? I
>> wish we could all review the correspondence you sent to `tweedie'
>> and since you're in favor of "open, honest disagreements" then I'm
>> fairly certain you shall find no reluctance at publishing to r.g.g.
>> Sequence of events, as we understand them presently:
>>
>> (a) Mr. Saltman engages in scurrilous practices while playing
>> games on IGS, reminiscent of disreputable tactics, which
>> inspire his opponents to complain to IGS admins.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> **** What "practices" are you referring to? I know of none ****
I haven't seen the game-record, but I understand there is one.
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (b) As preliminary measure, an IGS admin places Mr. Saltman's
>> account into "deregistered" status, which means he can
>> login under the old handle but needs to retype his email
>> address in order to register, obtain a new password, and
>> again be allowed to play games.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** No explanation-processs or reason ever given ***
You must be blind or not have read the prompt messages which
would have printed out the following:
"That command is currently not available. You
need to be registered. Please register your
account. To register, re-register, or to change
your registration address, enter: help register
Your IGS registration letter and password will be
sent to the address provided. Please read the
registration letter carefully; you will find
answers and information to the most common
questions asked by newly registered accounts, as
well as an important policy statement.
"If you are in the U. K. your address will be the
reverse of what you would normally expect. The
address format should be acc...@domain.uk ."
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (c) Mr. Saltman fails to comply with the needed "re-registration"
>> process (utilized infrequently whenever IGS needs updates
>> to user email addresses that might change).
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** see above-I have been in the dark the whole time ***
Doubtlessly related to your ignorance of religious scriptures.
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (d) Mr. Saltman opens another account and can play games on IGS
>> but doesn't have his old handle and win/loss record so it
>> becomes a sore point, and meanwhile he's been holding his
>> breath waiting for `tweedie' to plow through hundreds of
>> emails in the administration mailbox, and locate the cause
>> of Mr. Saltman's undocumented reason for "deregistration."
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> ***obviously you (whoever u r) are in close touch with IGS; thus you
> know about my last account. I was not holding my breath, nor do I
> care about so-called 100's of emails***
Simple search for "find -rcn.com" and look at registration date.
What goes around comes around. You say you don't "care" about the
100s of emails `tweedie' wades through, so how can you expect him
to "care" about you?
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (e) Mr. Saltman's correspondence to `tweedie' becomes hostile
>> and vituperative, perhaps indicative of poor breeding and
>> firing-off danger signals of potential mental instability
>> on a public access system where children may also connect.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** No hostility has been shown except by tweets unwarranted actions
> against me***
You offered that `tweedie' complained of "vague threats" so
where are the compiled emails you sent to him, in FULL TEXT ?
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (f) While still pursuing research on the causes of Mr. Saltman's
>> grievances, `tweedie' next disables new account registration
>> from Mr. Saltman's email address, and after receiving even
>> more of the same imflammatory and volatile "vague threats"
>> from Mr. Saltman, then disables Mr. Saltman's ISP connect.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** What crap! NO threats, NO hostility were shown-just questioning
> of motives ***
Post the FULL TEXT of your correspondence here, and we'll let
the court of public opinion decide that.
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> (g) Mr. Saltman increases the level of volatility by running to
>> this newsgroup (which has no administrative connectivity
>> to IGS), causing most of us to scratch our noggins.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** If one cannot get an answer from the other party, one can
> attempt to apply public pressure to achieve it***
Unfortunately, IGS isn't beholden to "public pressure" from r.g.g.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Hiding is the act of a coward! When someone does something that is
>>> illegal or harmful to society, that person should be punished.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Under a "rule of law" punishment would occur only -after- the
>> conviction and sentencing phase, which implies the need for legal
>> systems, courts, and trials, inclusive of "presumption of innocence"
>> doctrine, due process, and equal protection. We're all primed to
>> play "Judge Judy" or "Judge Wapner" so present your case!
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> ***You KNOW the issues - punishment without being told of the crime!
> Without being able to defend oneself!
And yet you -claim- nevertheless that there's some recourse to a
public defense and/or prosecution via this newsgroup. So present
all of your detailed correspondence in FULL TEXT and label it with
letters "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" and "Exhibit C" and so forth...
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> Again, I await the response of Tweet here, in an open forum where
>>> the world can read his "reasoning". I demand that a Bill of Rights
>>> for go server-users be proposed by IGS which should show it is
>>> ready to attone for its callous treatment of me and others by
>>> leading the way to a truly democrtatic and just processs for all
>>> users - whenever there is a dispute. That would show good faith on
>>> IGS part.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Good faith is not the same as "truly democratic" since faith
>> preceeded democracy in the scheme of things.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** You avoid the real issues entirely here, in a cloud of nebulous
> rhetoric ***
You, who speak of "good faith," have trashed religious scriptures.
>> From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> But do not be surprised if no answer is forthcoming soon. Or if an
>>> answer does come, it may simply attack me personally and not
>>> address the underlying issues of free speech and the right to have
>>> disputes setteled in an open and honest way. A real answer would
>>> be diplomatic and address the real issues - not just paranoid
>>> perceptions by someone who will not give the world his real name.
>
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Nobody wants to argue that any kind of free speech should become
>> preferred to professional speech. That's why lawyers provide a
>> -better- means for client representation when brought before the
>> law and courts, where we'd least expect to find rights trampled.
From: "bill saltman" <bsal...@rcn.com>
> *** Thank you for your input, flawed and biased as it is. I hope that
> you NEVER have to live in a country run by a dictator, and it is
> because of people like me that YOU are free to speak your mind. The
> larger issues beyond your own, very limited self-interest have
> obviously eluded you, but perhaps someday you will see the larger
> truth - that the spirit of ethics and morality is far more important
> that the letter of the law ***
I did once live in a country run by a dictator when residing for
three months with Sen Suzuki, 3p, during 1986 in Seattle's U.District.
Ethics and morality did not play much of a part. This was instead an
atmosphere more like old pre-WW-II Japan, with ritualism the key.
Eventually I was to discover a new sense of ethics and morality more
closely honed to the letter of the law than before.
_Bunbu_ichi_ = "sword and pen in accord."
- regards
- jb
.
-----------------------------------
> T Mark Hall <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> It should be pointed out that IGS is providing a service and allows
>> everyone on it, provided that they observe certain conditions, just
>> like going into a Go club in your home town. If you make comments in
>> a club which the owner of the club doesn't like, you may be asked to
>> tone them down (swearing or insults over the Go board) or you may be
>> asked to leave (continuation of the above or comments about the
>> service given etc).
From: Steve Coltrin <spco...@code.cs.unm.edu>
> If the owner of a Go club demanded nobody ever even mention other Go
> clubs while there, and evicted people merely for disclosing their
> ratings at other Go clubs...
>
> IGS' behavior is completely within their rights. It is also
> completely reprehensible.
It's not true that people are removed from IGS for 'just'
mentioning their rating on IGS from another server. This is a myth.
=================================================================
Review: The Skulls (2000)
Author: Chuck Schwartz <ch...@crankycritic.com>
Date: 2000/04/02
Forum: rec.arts.movies.reviews
The Skulls
Rated [R]
Starring Joshua Jackson, Paul Walker, Hill Harper, Leslie Bibb,
Craig T. Nelson, William Petersen
Screenplay by John Pogue
Directed by Rob Cohen
website: www.theskulls.net
IN SHORT: ludicrous nonsense
Sometime in the next week I'll get eMail from some outraged teen who
will call me an idiot and tell me that The Skulls was the best movie
ever made. To which I'll reply "Were you drunk when you saw it?"
(usually the answer is "yes" and I know this because the kidlets
inevitably spills the beans in the last line of the eMail) and "Did
you laugh at what you were seeing happen on the screen?" (which, if
there was even one person in that audience anything like the multitude
I sat with here in New York City, the answer is also "yes"). Net
response: look up the word "Ludicrous" in your Funk and Wagnall's and
you'll probably see, as definition 6: "as in a movie: ie. The Skulls"
If ever there was a movie that enabled its audience to feel inherently
superior to the alleged upper-classes seen in its scenario -- and that
smug sense of superiority is the key to laughing at, and thus
enjoying, this flick -- it is this one.
The idea of it all -- that a centuries old college secret society has
tendrils into the highest and lowest corridors of power in the country
-- is so fit for the conspirati madness that has gripped our country
ever since JFK got his head popped that I thought, "OK let's see where
it goes."
It went down pretty quickly. From the very first second of the flick,
after an ominous chord of music and a title card informing us of some
background material the audience I sat with was in stitches. We are
introduced to Luke McNamara (Joshua Jackson), a poor boy hoping that
he'll be tapped for The Skulls because he's heard that they'll cover
the ridiculous cost of the legal career he hopes to pursue. He's got a
hot, upperclass girl friend, Chloe Whitfeld (Leslie Bibb) and a
journalism major roommate, Will Beckford (Hill Harper), who is
secretly trying to do an expose on the secret societies that infest
the campus (which is Yale, though that word is never spoken in the
flick).
Luke gets tapped, of course. Thus begins an elaborate ritual of
introduction to the group, called the Revelation process. Luke is
attached to a "soul mate," Caleb Mandrake (Paul Walker), to whom all
secrets must be revealed, and swiftly gets sucked into the world of
The Skulls, who provide money, cars, clothing, connections and even
women for the candidate's bed.
Then, the roommate commits suicide. The police detective (Steve
Harris) says it wasn't. Luke finds secret Skulls material belonging to
"soul mate" Caleb among Will's effects. Is it possible that The Skulls
have orchestrated a murder coverup to protect their own? And what
would they do to one of their own, if he spills the beans? Add to the
mix a subplot of a battle for control of The Skulls involving Caleb's
father Judge Litten Mandrake (Craig T. Nelson) and U.S. Senator Ames
Levritt (William Petersen), with Luke and friends stuck in the middle.
The whole thing is so lightweight ridiculous, filled with manipulative
would be thrills, that it is to laugh. Which half the audience did. To
be fair, a good hunk cheered at parts of this nonsense, but not I.
There are flat out stinkers and then there are the flicks that are so
bad that they're deserving of the purchase of the super-extra-large
tub o' popcorn with extra golden flavored topping to go with that
bottle you snuck into the theater, which pretty much sums up The
Skulls. One day you'll be sitting through this thing at a midnight
show. The Skulls is so bad that someone will proclaim it to be good.
On average, a first run movie ticket will run you Eight Bucks. Were
Cranky able to set his own price to The Skulls, he would have paid...
$0.00
And God bless the audience member who walked out saying "It's Eyes
Wide Shut all over again. This was terrible," while another walked out
saying "This wasn't even worth renting." Cranky says maybe it'll be
fun if you get a friend to pay for the rental and get incredibly drunk
before you sit through the tape. That way you point at your pal
afterwards and yell SUCKER! and cackle some more.
Cranky Critic® is a Registered Trademark of, and Copyright © 2000 by,
Chuck Schwartz. All Rights Reserved. Cranky on the web at
www.crankycritic.com
===============================================================
Review: The Skulls (2000)
Author: Christopher Null <cn...@mindspring.com>
Date: 2000/04/02
Forum: rec.arts.movies.reviews
THE SKULLS
A film review by Christopher Null
Copyright 2000 filmcritic.com
filmcritic.com
A secret society so powerful it can get away with murder. A
secret society so exclusive it firebrands everyone who joins with
its mark. A secret society so secret... it has a big logo up on
top of the building!?
You know something is rotten with THE SKULLS right from the
get-go. I mean, what self-respecting prep school-Ivy League snob
would join an organization with a name as stupid as "The Skulls"?
Well, Luke (Joshua Jackson) would be, for one. Only he's no
preppie. He's a "townie" with no money, but even though he's of
the Lower Classes, since he's such a good rower (yes, "the
skulls," I get it), he's a shoo-in for the secret society. A
mysterious invitation arrives, and Luke is whisked into a world
of power and money, where men in red robes usher in beautiful
women for the taking at tuxedoed parties. Before you can utter
"Fidelio," Luke has become One of Them.
Luke is soon partnered with a "soul mate" (not making that up),
Caleb Mandrake (MEET THE DEEDLES' Paul Walker) with whom he is
supposed to keep no secrets. But uh-oh! when Luke's roommate
gets jealous and threatens to expose the entire society when he
steals Caleb's key to the secret chambers (remember, that big
skull on the roof points the way in).
A cover-up ensues and Luke romances "Popular" star Leslie Bibb,
and then come a grand series of plot twists so asinine you'll
want to join in with the laughter and mockery of the audience if
only doing so didn't make this movie even worse. Its desperate
earnestness makes it even more laughable (with none other than
Craig T. "Coach" Nelson lording over it all), and by the time 45
minutes are up, you'll probably be ready to leave. I know I was.
Unfortunately, teens don't read movie reviews, so this critique
will likely be lost on anyone who cares. Would that they would
put their collective foot down. The last thing we need is
another bad movie that simply serves as an excuse to sell a
soundtrack.
RATING: *1/2
|------------------------------|
\ ***** Perfection \
\ **** Good, memorable film \
\ *** Average, hits and misses \
\ ** Sub-par on many levels \
\ * Unquestionably awful \
|------------------------------|
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Rob Cohen
Producer: Neal H. Moritz, John Pogue
Writer: John Pogue
Starring: Joshua Jackson, Paul Walker, Leslie Bibb, Christopher
McDonald, Craig T. Nelson
---
Christopher Null - nu...@filmcritic.com - http://www.filmcritic.com
===============================================================
Movie: The Skulls -Geo. Bush Secret Society
Author: Independent History & Research <hof...@hoffman-info.com>
Date: 2000/03/31
Forum: alt.true-crime
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho 83816
Browse the fascinating revisionist books & tapes in our Bookstore
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'The Skulls': Raise a Toast to Dear Old Y, Where the Nosy Guys All Die
By Dave Kehr, NY Times, March 31, 2000
The title "The Skulls" suggests a William Castle horror film of the
late 1950's, filmed perhaps in his patented Percepto process, with
giant death's heads jumping out of the screen. But the only
supernatural element in this Rob Cohen film is the mysterious
vanishing university.
Though the story is clearly
>>set at Yale, home base of the secret society Skull and Bones,<<
that hallowed name is never mentioned. Instead, the students seem to
be attending a university called "Y" -- as the bright monograms on the
blue-and-white jerseys worn by the rowing team read -- which is said
to be somewhere in New England, though the Toronto skyline is
occasionally visible in the background.
As movies like "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The Ninth Gate" have been telling
us for months, it turns out that
>>the world is actually controlled by groups of elderly oligarchs<<
who like nothing more than donning monks' robes, gathering in gothic
mansions and patting the backsides of high-priced prostitutes. "The
Skulls," which was written by John Pogue ("U.S. Marshals"), returns
to this territory, suggesting that Ivy League secret societies are
unspeakably evil hotbeds of cigar smoking, Champagne and silly
initiation rituals involving coffins. In their spare time the members
promote one another for high elective office and cover up the
occasional murder.
Taking on this malevolent system is Luke McNamara (Joshua Jackson, one
of the reigning hunks of "Dawson's Creek"), a pre-law student at Y
with an audience-friendly working-class background. At first Luke is
thrilled to be recruited as a member of the Skulls because it will
mean free law school tuition, a plump bank account and a hot vintage
convertible. But after his roommate (Hill Harper) is killed while
researching a college newspaper article on the secret Skulls lair, he
starts to experience some moral qualms.
>>"The Skulls" makes a few feints at exploiting the rumored political
connections of the real-world Skull and Bones society, and there is a
father-son team that dimly suggests the Bushes.<<
Litten Mandrake (Craig T. Nelson) is a prominent judge who hopes to
use his Skull connections to gain the Supreme Court; his son, Caleb
(Paul Walker), is a handsome, spineless wastrel who is assigned to
Luke as his Skull "soul mate." Though Luke's blue-blood girlfriend,
Chloe (Leslie Bibb), smells him out immediately with her cute snub
nose, it takes Luke some time to realize that Caleb doesn't have his
best interests at heart.
Adding an extra touch is William Petersen, fitted out with a highly
Clintonesque head of curly silver hair and playing a honey-mouthed
Southern senator with dreams of reforming the Skulls into a socially
responsible organization.
Mr. Cohen does not provide an Al Gore figure, though it's easy to
imagine one visiting Y on a weekend trip from H.
In the end, though, "The Skulls" is less interested in politics than
in profitably flattering the suspicions and resentments of its
intended teenage audience. For "Ivy League Establishment," it is
enough simply to read "parents."
THE SKULLS Directed by Rob Cohen; produced by Neal H. Moritz and Mr.
Pogue; released by Universal Pictures. Running time: 100 minutes. This
film is rated PG-13. WITH: Joshua Jackson (Luke McNamara), Paul Walker
(Caleb Mandrake), Hill Harper (Will Beckford), Leslie Bibb (Chloe),
Christopher McDonald (Martin Lombard), Steve Harris (Detective
Sparrow), William Petersen (Ames Levritt) and Craig T. Nelson (Litten
Mandrake).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Hoffman II comments: Readers of my book "Secret Societies
and Psychological Warfare" understand that the Revelation of the Method
principle is at work here with the debut of this film, "The Skulls."
Moreover, former President George Bush and Texas Governor George W.
Bush are not "rumored" to be participants in Skull and Bones, they are
in fact enrolled and documented members of that evil secret society.
http://www.hoffman-info.com/occult.html
Michael A. Hoffman II's Campaign for Radical Truth in History
==========================================================
SKULL & BONES - George W. Bush and Secret Societies
Author: Craig Maxim <craig...@rabun.net>
Date: 2000/03/29
Forum: alt.religion.christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: You should go to the site itself, because there are many other
useful links to this subject there)
[Ed. People who are concerned over a one-world government should be
very concerned about the Bush family. Three generations of Bush's have
been members of Skull & Bones, a secretive organization promising
wealth and power to those in the "order". Recall Bush's speech about
a "New Order" in the world. Then look at your dollar bill an beneath
the "all seeing eye" under the pyramid, you will see "Novus Ordo
Seclorum" which is latin for "New World Order". Additionally, one will
note the Masonic symbols throughout the design of the dollar bill. The
numbers 3, 7, 9,11,13, and 39 are important to the illuminati of which
Masons are rooted. Interestingly, on the dollar bill, there are:
9 tail feathers on the eagle;
13 leaves in the olive branches;
13 bars and stripes;
13 arrows;
13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum;
13 stars in the green crest above;
13 stones in the pyramid;
13 letters in "Annuit Coeptis"
It may be this goal of a one world order that causes Bush to
cooeperate so much with Sun Myung Moon and the Moonies as well. A
group like the Moonies, has high level political contacts in literally
dozens of countries throughout the world, which would serve well, as a
medium of exchange for ideas, messages, money or any clandestine and
secretive activity. We don't want any more Bush's, nor any more Skull
& Bones, nor any more Sun Myung Moon, controlling our White House.
--------------------- QUOTE ----------------------
http://slate.msn.com/Code/chatterbox/chatterbox.asp?Show=3/28/00
&idMessage=4961
The Skulls Is No Brotherhood of the Bell
By: Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 3:53 p.m. PT
E-Mail This Article
Sign Up for Free E-Mail Auto-Delivery
Chatterbox last night saw The Skulls, the new movie thriller about a
thinly disguised Skull & Bones, the secret society at Yale. (To read
Chatterbox's earlier items about the movie and its antecedents, click
here and here and here.) The Skulls turns out to be a lousy movie--so
bad, in fact, that it provoked frequent bursts of laughter from the
college kids rounded up by a local radio station to watch it at the
sneak preview Chatterbox attended. Chatterbox thinks The Skulls has
little chance of becoming a cult favorite to the right-wing militia
crowd that has embraced The Brotherhood of the Bell, a far more
skillful Bones-inspired thriller made for TV in 1970. (The Brotherhood
of the Bell is not available on video, but it turns up on late-night
TV now and then, and various right-wing Web sites peddle what appear
to be bootleg copies.) Because The Skulls is so dreadful, Chatterbox,
plumbing it for socio-political significance, feels free to divulge
its plot in some detail; much of this information is already available
on the film's own Web site. (In the unlikely case you mind having the
story ruined for you, don't read any further.)
As the film begins, Yale junior Luke McNamara (Joshua Jackson) is
being watched by two mysterious young men while he captains the
varsity crew team. (The college in question is never identified, but
it's in the Ivy League, reference is made to a local eatery called
Mory's, and members of the crew team wear blue outfits with the letter
"Y" and answer to the name "Bulldogs." Although it was filmed
somewhere else, Chatterbox will go out on a limb here and guess the
setting is Yale.) Luke is a star pupil; when asked, during a classroom
discussion of C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite, whether America
distributes wealth based on merit or class, he observes correctly that
the winners in the school-based meritocratic footrace acquire class
privilege. It's especially important that Luke do well in this
footrace, because he's a motherless New Haven townie who slings hash
in the cafeteria to make ends meet. Luke plans to go to Harvard Law
School, but worries about the crushing debt that seven years of
student loans will incur. He tells his black roommate, Will Beckford
(Hill Harper), that the solution is to join the Skulls, the
super-elite college secret society that guarantees its members
stupendous wealth and power. Beckford, an idealist who writes for the
school paper and dreams of becoming Bob Woodward (Yale '65), urges
Luke not to join: "If it's secret and it's elite, it can't be good."
Luke and Will's upstairs dorm neighbor Chloe (Leslie Bibb), a pretty
blond graduate of Miss Porter's School who has an out-of-sight rich
daddy but is real folks just the same, doesn't want Luke to join the
Skulls, either. But the Skulls have already singled Luke out; that's
why the two mysterious young men were watching him row.
Luke is tapped to join the Skulls. A phone call directs him to a
classroom where a glass of clear liquid and an Alice in Wonderland-ish
"drink me" sign await him. He drinks it, falls to the ground
unconscious, and awakens, simultaneously with the other initiates, in
one of many coffins resting on round lily-pad-like platforms in a vast
and watery medieval chamber. Upperclassmen wearing spooky red hooded
robes ask the initiates, "Are you ready to be reborn?" They brand the
initiates with hot pokers on their wrists (click here to learn why
this is a dig at George W. Bush) and cover the markings with expensive
new watches. Each initiate also gets a convertible. When Luke goes to
his ATM machine, he discovers that $20,000 has been added to his bank
account.
The initiates are instructed to steal the mascot of a rival secret
society--a weathervane sculpted in the form of a snake atop a Gothic
tower surrounded by a moat. Luke scales the tower with Caleb Mandrake
(Paul Walker), a snooty and insecure WASP aristocrat who previously
dissed him on the cafeteria line. They bond, and are assigned together
as Skulls "soul mates." (Unlike The Brotherhood of the Bell, where the
homoerotic building block of the establishment is a relationship
between an initiate and an older "senior," The Skulls makes the male
pairings between two initiates of the same age.) Caleb is the son of
Litten Mandrake (Craig Nelson), chairman of the Skulls and on his way
to becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Will and Luke have a serious falling-out over Luke's hoity-toity new
friends. (Will and Chloe both dislike Caleb.) Will quietly starts work
on a journalism exposé of the Skulls. He breaks into Caleb's car and
steals Caleb's Skulls clubhouse key and Skulls rulebook. Caleb follows
Will to the Skulls clubhouse and demands that he return the key and
the rulebook. Will tosses him the key but says he doesn't have the
rulebook with him. Caleb then demands that Will turn over his notes
and the film in his camera. Will refuses. Later that night, Luke walks
into Caleb's room and finds him hanging by a rope, dead.
Although Will's death was an apparent suicide, Luke and the police
suspect foul play. Chloe tells Luke about Will's secret investigation
and asks Luke if Will's death had anything to do with the Skulls.
Luke, still bound by an oath of silence, refuses to answer. Chloe
tells him off. Luke confronts Caleb during a Skulls ritual in which
soul mates are supposed to reveal their innermost secrets; Caleb,
obviously lying, denies having anything to do with Will's death.
Later, in the presence of Luke and father Litten, Caleb confesses that
while he was trying to get Will's notes and his camera, Will fell down
and was killed. It was an accident! Litten hands Luke a sheaf of
papers and says, "This is your pre-acceptance to the law school of
your choice. ... It's all paid for."
But Luke can't be bought. He patches things up with Chloe by telling
her what he knows. Chloe tells Luke she loves him. They have
passionate sex. Luke then enlists Chloe and his townie friends (who
are thieves) to help him retrieve a tape of Will's death recorded by a
Skulls security camera. On viewing the tape, they see that events
unfolded as Caleb described, but that after Will's fall, Caleb used a
cell phone to call his father, who told him to leave the premises.
Later, the tape shows, Lombard (Chris McDonald), the Yale university
provost and chief Skulls henchman to Litten Mandrake, appeared on the
scene, observed that Will was still alive, and broke his neck. It
wasn't an accident!
Luke takes the tape to the police, but Detective Sparrow (Steve
Harris) switches it with a blank tape--he works for the Skulls
too!--and Luke is declared insane and shipped off to a
Skulls-controlled mental hospital, where he is rendered catatonic by
drugs. Chloe breaks Luke out of the hospital and the two are pursued
by Lombard, who drives them off the road and is about to shoot them
when he is shot by Sparrow. Sparrow actually works for one Skull in
particular--Ames Levritt (William Peterson), a Virginia senator who
secretly despises his Skulls soul mate, Litten Mandrake, and wants to
help Luke. Luke breaks into the Skulls clubhouse, where $100,000
checks are being prepared for each initiate, and challenges Caleb to a
duel; according to the rulebook, Caleb may not refuse. Pistols are
produced. Luke and Caleb stand back to back, take their paces, turn
around--then Luke drops his gun and begs Caleb to come clean. Caleb
points his gun at Luke but can't fire. Litten, outraged by his son's
lack of manly resolve, picks up a gun and aims it at Luke himself. But
just before he fires, Caleb shoots him! While Litten, wounded in the
shoulder, is tended to by other Skulls members, Caleb wanders off and
prepares to shoot himself--but at the last minute, Luke tackles him
and saves Caleb's life! "It's over, Caleb," he says.
Sen. Levitt succeeds Litten as chairman of the Skulls. He asks Luke to
stay in the organization. Luke politely declines: "Someone I loved
once said, 'If it's secret and elite, it can't be good.' " As Luke
walks out of the clubhouse, Sen. Levitt murmers to himself, "Well
done, son. Well done." Luke goes off to start a new life with Chloe.
A note on ethnicity: In both The Skulls and The Brotherhood of the
Bell, the striving protagonist who seeks to join the establishment
(Luke McNamara; Phillip Dunning) is of Irish descent, while the
defiant friend who fights and is ultimately killed by the
establishment (Will Beckford; Dr. Constantin Horvathy) belongs to a
more outsiderish ethnic group--Beckford is black, while Horvathy is
apparently Jewish. Is this because an assimilating hero shedding a
more pronounced ethnic identity like blackness or Jewishness would
appear from the outset to be selling out? The ethnicity of the Irish
is at this point so vestigial to anyone other than a superannuated
Hibernian that it doesn't pose this problem.
A note on hidden political meaning: Is it a coincidence that Luke's
last name of "McNamara" happens also to be the last name of a former
defense secretary done in by an ill-considered faith in the
establishment and its assurances that the United States would prevail
in the Vietnam War? Discuss.
A note on social class and how to acquire it: Doesn't it take Luke an
awfully long time to figure out that it's better to get rich by
marrying a beautiful and rich graduate of Miss Porter's School than it
is to get rich by hanging out in a medieval fortress with murderous
creeps? Duh!
Michael Alford
> As most of you are aware, I have posted that the IGS admins, when they
>have the time, come to channel and chat. Like most of us, they will
>sometimes 'talk shop'. That is how I first became aware of what are called
>SYN or 'denial of service' attacks.
I posted the above article on Mar 29. My intent was simply to make the Go
community aware of the level of attacks on IGS, a community resource. I had
no other motive or agenda. Several people have responded: we have an
attempt to make oneself look good, a bucket of crocodile tears, several
flames of old, favorite targets, several flames of targets of convenience, a
few flames of me, a couple flames of IGS in general, a couple on-topic
posts, and a couple posts that actually had real information and addressed
the problem of the attacks. For this last, thanks! :)
I want to say that I am annoyed that my original post has been construed as
an attack on NNGS. I am beginning to think that jumangi's assertion that
some people who participate in this group can't read may not be simply
voicing frustration, but may be the literal truth. I _DID NOT_, anywhere in
my post, mention NNGS. Did you miss "China, Hungary, and Romania"? There
are reading comprehension classes available for adults. You could probably
find one at a community college.
Nor did I accuse the 'telnet community' of anything. I made an assumption,
as has been pointed out here, that only a Go player would have any interest
in a Go server. Some of you have pointed out this is a little naive on my
part. Perhaps. Still, what I said was that the attackers probably play Go
on a telnet server (I didn't even call them IGS clones, or NNGS clones, or
in any other way drag that can of worms into my post), after all, that is
what is available :) I made no accusation of the 'telnet community' in
general.
OK, aside from being misconstrued and having words put in my mouth, this
has not been so bad. So, to the people like Rouli Ruohonen who posted
useful info, thanks! Keep it up! :) To the people like Bridges and Osman
who made on-topic and supportive posts, thanks! To those of you that
posted flames of me, others, and IGS, pfeh. That does not seem to be
contributing in any way to either the quality of the discussion or the
possibility of a solution. I don't want to see IGS sabotaged. Those of you
that wouldn't mind seeing this are suffering from a little nearsightedness -
if the attackers succeed with IGS, can NNGS and CWS be far behind? I say
that we, the Go playing community, have a problem, and I think we can all
benefit from discussion of said problem.
malf
Mike Vaughn
Alford) wrote:
[deletions to appease mailer]
> I posted the above article on Mar 29. My intent was simply to make the Go
> community aware of the level of attacks on IGS, a community resource. I had
> no other motive or agenda.
The facts could have been more simply stated without the flames.
Yes, DOS attacks are evil, but we _know_ that. It is also true that even
those of us who are at least semiprofessionally involved with commuting
and the Web are familiar with te problem, but also unable to do much
about it from a distance -- it is enough for us to keep up with our own
systems.
> Nor did I accuse the 'telnet community' of anything. I made an assumption,
> as has been pointed out here, that only a Go player would have any interest
> in a Go server. Some of you have pointed out this is a little naive on my
> part. Perhaps. Still, what I said was that the attackers probably play Go
> on a telnet server (I didn't even call them IGS clones, or NNGS clones, or
> in any other way drag that can of worms into my post), after all, that is
> what is available :) I made no accusation of the 'telnet community' in
> general.
It is naive if you suggest that 'the attackers probably play Go on a telnet
server' (but _not_ CWS). Such innuendos are common enough in what passes
for political debate in the USA, but ...
> I don't want to see IGS sabotaged. Those of you that wouldn't mind
> seeing this are suffering from a little nearsightedness -
> if the attackers succeed with IGS, can NNGS and CWS be far behind? I say
> that we, the Go playing community, have a problem, and I think we can all
> benefit from discussion of said problem.
There you go again. Who wants to see IGS sabotaged? Certainly not I, and
not anyone else that I know of (of course some people who are in my
killfile may be such -- I only know their posts from second hand quotes --
Bill Saltman has not been in this thread as far as I can tell).
On the other hand, we have seen many people who blast NNGS at every
chance.
I for one am glad that we have a go server available -- I am even gladder
that we have more than one.
bill saltman
passwords, Was informed that the names/passwords were unavailable. Thus the
new account. So the "instructions" you point out were available were USELESS
to restore my old accounts. Thus, the new account, and thus, the continuing
asking of what the problem was. In the meantime, my win/loss records etc
gone forever? & No direct answer from anyone.
Complete correspondence verbatim between me and tweet is irrelevant to the
main issue, which I now suspect has something to do with a "silly" game I
once played where I was making "silly"moves in a lost game which I fully
intended to resign (or actually did resign). If this is illegal, I didn't
know that. If this is a breach of go etiquette, I wasn't aware. All any
opponent ever has to do is ask me to resign if they are unhappy with
harmless goofing around. Was that the problem? If so, sorry I hurt any
opponents feelings-no harm intended there.And if I am so informed, it won't
be engaged in again.
I hope that some good comes out of all of this. I am not willing to engage
in endless back-and-forth banter about the pros and cons of the issues,
which I now believe center mostly on poor communication and the reactions to
it. If real or imagined individual rights are violated, or if individuals
perceive (falsely) that they are being threatened or insulted, a "mountain
out of a molehill" situation can arise. I feel this has happened here.
Throughout all of this, I have ONLY been trying to determine what was
wrong-nothing more or less. Any continued disclaimers from you-Jumangi-or
others regarding my motives will not change that, because IT IS the TRUTH.
Calling me "blind" or quoting the Scriptures, insulting my intelligence, etc
etc are NOT going to help resolve anything. Changes ARE needed and people DO
have rights. I am not the ONLY one who has ever complained about IGS
tactics, nor will I be the last.
As far as my own situation is concerned (still have domain shut off -or
access fully denied to IGS in some other way) I can only say that I am
completely innocent of any willful, malicious or destructive behavior that
warrants this kind of treatment. I feel I have stated my case as completely
as needed, and that continued debate is redundant. If anyone including IGS
admins feel (erroneously) that I have been attempting to insult them, this
is NOT true. Again, I have ONLY tried to get to the bottom of all of this
I continue to believe that a "Bill of Rights for Go Players on The
Internet" is a good idea, and will work to see it implemented. I hope that
IGS and NNGS can, someday, set aside their differences and work together to
come up with a manifesto of principles which support both the administrators
AND the players rights in an even-handed manner.
In the meantime, thanks to all for hearing me out, and apologies to anyone
who feels I have acted insultingly-this was NEVER my intention, but things
printed on an annonymous computer screen can look a lot worse than they
really are.
Bantari
> From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> > Well.. thanks for pointing this out. It, obviously, changes the
> > whole meaning of Tom's words. How could I have missed it. Duh!!
>
> Yes it does change the meaning, and since you couldn't discern
> the difference even after a hint was provided
Sigh... I can tell the difference - which is, however, just
semantics in this case. Tom stipulated that I knew more than I actually
did, trying to link my guess with some kind of "knowledge" about the
case, which I do not possess. Arguing about "inside" or "insider"
changes the fact not a little bit - it only illustrates your typically
annal attitude.
This, and maybe the fact that you missed the meaning of Tom's
words. Which does not surprise me. You guys should really exchange some
explanative emails amongst yourselves with every post to rgg to keep your
thingie together.
> you're about to get your thrashing right here.
Sigh.... whatever... have it your way... you are of course
right.... continue your good work.... we are all proud of you.... i am
sure your parents are too....
Sigh...
Why do I even bother?...
<rest of Jeff's usual on-topic post mercifully snipped>
Bantari
> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > First of all your account was "deregistered" and not invalidated.
>
> *** How was I supposed to know? No one told me this!***
Well... ask Jeff how does *he* know all this... it seems to me
that "tweedie" or whichever admin is responsible in this case took all
the time in the world explaining the details to dear Jeff, while at the
same time it was considered too much work to write *you* an email with
the explanation.
Bantari
> You must be blind or not have read the prompt messages which
> would have printed out the following:
>
>
> "That command is currently not available. You
> need to be registered. Please register your
> account. To register, re-register, or to change
> your registration address, enter: help register
> Your IGS registration letter and password will be
> sent to the address provided. Please read the
> registration letter carefully; you will find
> answers and information to the most common
> questions asked by newly registered accounts, as
> well as an important policy statement.
>
> "If you are in the U. K. your address will be the
> reverse of what you would normally expect. The
> address format should be acc...@domain.uk ."
Can you then explain to me, Jeff, how come that when I log on to
IGS as a guest all I see is
"That command is currently not available"
anod nothing more... no clue as to why it is not available, and certainly
not all the babble you post above? And when I try to register, I just
get a message that my address is invalid, while I know that it is
perfectly valid? I have written emails about this to 'tweedie" and did
not receive any explanation or hints as to what is going on.
It seems that my case is pretty simmilar to the one under
discussion, and so I am, of course, interested in what is going on. At
least I would like to have some closure to the issue, like an email
stating that I am banned from IGS for good, and that my whole domain is
disabled together with my all the other domains I might use.
Its not a biggie, but would be a professional thing to do, don't
you think? Unless, of course, such actions are not legally allowed to an
IGS admin... in which case they would be really reluctant to admit it.
Oh well... i just wait and see.
Bantari
> I continue to believe that a "Bill of Rights for Go Players on The
> Internet" is a good idea, and will work to see it implemented.
Yes, I hope that too.
> I hope that
> IGS and NNGS can, someday, set aside their differences and work together to
> come up with a manifesto of principles which support both the administrators
> AND the players rights in an even-handed manner.
Just to clarify things a little...
While I am not a spokesman for NNGS (and I do not even play there
much lately), the problems as I see it is entirely on the IGS side of
issues - it is IGS which "banns" people for their associations with NNGS
(and for other, difficult to discern things, as you can experience) - it
is IGS which puts silly (or not so silly) policies and rules, both
written and unwritten - and it is IGS which chooses to enforce these
rules with exceptional strictness in some cases while choosing to be mild
in other cases without rhyme or reason....
As far as I know NNGS has no problems with IGS - people are free
to discuss IGS while on NNGS, or disclose their IGS ranks, and all that
without any penalty - even tweet himself is not banned from NNGS, and I
am told he goes there on occasion... although this might be just a
rumour.
Bantari
> Well, it's a matter of public record that a go player cheated in a big
> money IGS tournament, lied about it, then admitted it, then other go
> players lied about it, but of course none of that has anything to do
> with what _you_ believe. Since you don't seem to read very carefully, I
> will tell you that I was answering a poster who, "couldn't imagine a go
> player who would stage an attack like this."
And I still cannot. Sorry. The cases you cite are all related
to, more or less, pesonal gain... one way or another. A pleayer lies or
cheats to further his own cause. An all-out attack on IGS by anonimous
people do not further personal cause - so I believe that the
possibilities are twofold:
1) Either these people are bound on destroying Go activities on
internet (not just IGS since it seems that NNGS, from what Eric said)
also suffers such attacks), or
2) It is a prank by a bunch of jerks who do not care (and maybe do
not even know) what they attack as long as they get their finger or *an*
address.
Case (1) involves a great deal of malice, which I have not
observed in such extent in any of the Go players I know... but we might
be moving in different circles, me and Tom, and where Tom comes from such
malice might be quite common, I dunno.
Also, case (1) seems to be like the case of "I will make my
parents angry, I will cut my hand, this will show them"... in other words
- self injury... since I see Go on internet in general, and IGS in
particular, to be a great thing for *every* go player...
> It's also on public record
> that there is a deep and abiding hatred of IGS in general and tweet in
> particular from some go players around the world.
First of all... I have not wittnessed that much hatred towards IGS
in general... and what concerns tweet in particular, the feelings seem
mixed... people are thankful to him for some things he does, and resent
and disrespect him for some other things he does. But for this, I'd say,
he should blam nobody but himself.
Another thing.
Well... maybe its a right thing to do to re-examine yourselves
from the IGS side of things and try to figure out why do you think such
hatred exists in the Go community. Certainly Go players are not a
particularily hateful bunch of people, and they are not set out to hate
things just for the sake of it.
After all - it is not people who bann tweet, it is tweet who banns
people. It is not NNGS who prosecutes IGS "followers", its the IGS who
does the all the prosecuting. It is not Yahoo or the Zone people keep
complaining about in this NG, it is IGS. Why?
Just looks at facts and actions, and you'll see where the hatred
is, if there is any.
> Anyone who follows
> this newsgroup has seen ample evidence of such creatures.
> >
> > In the absence of such evidence, it seems that the _simpler_ explanation
> > -- dat's Occam's razor fer ya -- is that IGS is the victim of the same
> > sorts of SYN attacks that _everyone_else_ on the Internet is.
> >
> > For you to suggest otherwise, Tom, in the absence of any evidence, is
> > disingenuous at best. You jerk.
> >
> I suggested that it was _possible_ that these attacks could have come
> from go players.
And all I have stated was thet I do not believe so. After which
you started making some dirty insinuations about "inside knowledge" i
might have. Yuck, Tom...
Everybody judges according to himself or herself. From the fact
that you allow the possibility of Go players to stage such attacks it
seems to me that the Go players around you, maybe even you yourself, are
not above such things, and the idea that they might do it is natural to
you.
Advice - just change your Go club and start associateing with
different people. You are obviously in with some bad crowd.
> You, and the self-proclaimed 'expert' that you quote
> so extensively elsewhere, seem to feel that because these things happen
> to others on the internet, go players couldn't possibly be involved in
> this particular case. It's too bad your deep study of philosophy didn't
> extend to simple logic or common sense. Of course go players _could_ be
> involved. Which is all I ever said.
Maybe they could, but this is not the first thing that should come
to mind, now is it? And yet this was the first thing malf mentioned...
not only this, but he pointed his finger at the NNGS crowd too. It is
also not the right thing to be insistent upon, is it?
To me, and I hope to most of us, the first thing should be "Its
some poor hacker thinking he is funny"... you hear stories like this all
the time, of different kinds of hacker attacks, and they usually are
pretty impersonal... so this would be my first guess. Actually - this
*was* my first guess. It would only have occured to me to suspect fellow
Go players if all other avenues and suspicions would be proven fruitless.
Yet you and malf immediately thought on Go players - no other
suspicions were even considered in malfs post, if I remember correctly.
And you butt in and starte defending this suspicions as the most natural
thing under the sun. Shame...
I ask you again - are Go players so malicious where you come from?
Bantari
> I want to say that I am annoyed that my original post has been construed as
> an attack on NNGS.
Sorry for this, malfie. It took me a little by surprise too, but
after re-reading your post - this is really how it sounded. As I have
stated already, I do not believe that this was your intent, and I really
believe it. Yet this is how it sounded, so things had to be straithened
out.
Just look at how many times I was attacked about a single word
here and there - and this even tho I am a foreigner and could be formally
excused for such bloopers (not that I complain) - the latest example is
jumangi's anal attitude about the "inside"/"insider" business - so its
only just that you get some of the same medicine.
Learn to live with it.
> I am beginning to think that jumangi's assertion that
> some people who participate in this group can't read may not be simply
> voicing frustration, but may be the literal truth. I _DID NOT_, anywhere in
> my post, mention NNGS. Did you miss "China, Hungary, and Romania"?
Now you are being illogical. I wonder if you do it on purpose.
Nobody said you accused NNGS server directly. You have clearly pointed
finger and NNGS (or clone) "users" - which can be anywehre in the world.
"China, Hungary, and Romania" included.
Or do you think NNGS is restricted to California?
What you said was " And it is a sad irony too, but I bet the
people making these attacks play Go. So I bet they use one of the telnet
servers." This is a verbatim quote from your post. Now... we have Go
players who use telnet servers... if not IGSers themselves - whom does
this leave?
Please tell me in what way does the above quote *not* point a
finger at NNGS or NNGS clone *users*??
It seems to me that being unable to read carefully other people
posts is bad. But what is much much worse, is being unable to read your
*own* posts... and having no clue what you writing yourself and how your
own words sound. I Admit - we are all guilty of this now and then, of
course, but when having it pointed out to us, the correct attitude is to
bite the bullet and retract.
Please.
> There
> are reading comprehension classes available for adults. You could probably
> find one at a community college.
You know the details - so enroll. It can only do you good.
> Nor did I accuse the 'telnet community' of anything.
Hmm... let me think... you assumed its a Go player who uses a
telnet server... how does that *not* point a finger at "telnet community"
in general and "telnet Go community" in particular???
> I made an assumption,
> as has been pointed out here, that only a Go player would have any interest
> in a Go server.
This might be so... but not necessarily. You assume that the
attacker(s) even know that this is a Go server... it assumes they know
what Go is... and you assume that they care about this... and yet the
news are full of mindless hacker attacks by people totally unrelated to
the targets... just for the fun of it. Yet, somehow, you do not assume
that this is one of the cases.
This either shows a paranoid attitude (common to some specific
crowd?) or maybe some "inside knowledge". Hmm....
> Some of you have pointed out this is a little naive on my
> part. Perhaps. Still, what I said was that the attackers probably play Go
> on a telnet server (I didn't even call them IGS clones, or NNGS clones, or
> in any other way drag that can of worms into my post), after all, that is
> what is available :) I made no accusation of the 'telnet community' in
> general.
The fact that you do not use words like NNGS or NNGS clone does
not mean that your words cannot be understood in such ways... this should
be very clear to you, since you yourself, on occasion, indulged in
"hidden meaning" attacks and "between the lines" reading - in cases which
were much less obvious than your insinuations.
I assure you that if I wrote something like "The admins of the
certain telnet Go servers which keep banning people left and right with
not much of a justifications are jerks and deserve to be banned from
internet".... i would get a big response from the some IGS howlers, even
tho I have not mentioned IGS specifically. See?
It really surprises me to have to explain such basic things to
you. No offense, but I thought you were smarter and less biased. :-)
You are on this NG long enough to know how it goes.
> OK, aside from being misconstrued and having words put in my mouth, this
> has not been so bad.
You have not have words put in your mouth. You have words which
you wrote seen in the way they sounded, even if not the way you meant
them. Happens to the best of us. What you should have done immediately
after seeing how people understand you, would be to post an explanations
saying something like "this is now what I meant, sorry". It is not too
hard, is it?
I assome that this is, functionally, what you are trying to do
with this post, even tho you do not really state it anywhere but keep
insisting that this is not what you said. Well - this *is* what you
said, and the proof is right there, on dejanews, with your sig on it.
Nevermind. Thanks for the explanations.
As I said - I never believed that you have consciously made any
accusations. This time, hehe...
jum...@my-deja.com
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> When asked to re-register, I did attempt this, using same name and
> passwords, Was informed that the names/passwords were unavailable.
> Thus the new account. So the "instructions" you point out were
> available were USELESS to restore my old accounts. Thus, the new
> account, and thus, the continuing asking of what the problem was.
> In the meantime, my win/loss records etc gone forever? & No direct
> answer from anyone.
Ok, so now you say you saw the request for re-registration and
tried to follow through on the procedure as documented by this
documentation from the online IGS "help register" file:
* 1) New accounts:
Usage: register <account name you want> <your email address>
* 2) Current accounts, and those needing to change their email address
Usage: register <your email address>
Note: Do not use the < > in your account name or email address.
The register command is used to register new accounts, or to change
the address of existing accounts. 'register' needs two things to
create a new account on IGS; 1) an account name and, 2) an email
address. You cannot register a new account from an existing account,
you must re-enter IGS.
[ ...remaining lines snipped... ]
A login was granted with your old handle and password which was
in a "de-registered" status because your email address field had
been deleted as per deliberative procedures after IGS admins OTHER
THAN `tweet' had received numerous complaints about your erratic
and aberrated misbehaviors on IGS, the details of which only you
should know better than anyone else. At the time of login on your
de-registered account, with old handle and password, you received
a request for registration message. Furthermore you would receive
a request for registration message when trying to utilize commands
available only to registered users. If you then tried to register
again using the "new account" procedure #1 (above), you would not
be following re-registration procedures described by procedure #2.
According to the documentation for registration ("help register")
you needed to follow procedure #2 by supplying only your electronic
mail address. If you then disconnected and/or followed a "guest"
login for registration under procecure #1, in a misguided effort at
re-registration, you would then receive a message informing you that
the old handle you wished to request again was already taken, and
thereby was unavailable. From the status of a "guest" account, the
procedure #2 is also unavailable, of course. So you created a new
account, having failed to follow procedure #2 under your old account
login, because in your haste to litigate you did not carefully read
the online IGS documentation for registration procedures.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Complete correspondence verbatim between me and tweet is irrelevant
> to the main issue, which I now suspect has something to do with a
> "silly" game I once played where I was making "silly" moves in a
> lost game which I fully intended to resign (or actually did
> resign). If this is illegal, I didn't know that. If this is a
> breach of go etiquette, I wasn't aware. All any opponent ever has
> to do is ask me to resign if they are unhappy with harmless goofing
> around. Was that the problem? If so, sorry I hurt any opponents
> feelings-no harm intended there. And if I am so informed, it won't
> be engaged in again.
More details are forthcoming: it seems you were playing a game
with an opponent who subscribes to the Internet by time pro-rated
basis, and may have been non-conversant in English, bewildered by
your silly tactics and/or too polite to request your resignation,
and/or unfamiliar with usage of the "say" command. If your game
is going to head into resignation under such circumstances then
the earlier you can offer resignation the better, it would seem.
All of this, in turn, was wrought by the IGS escaper's policy put
into effect some time ago (which I had disagreed with originally)
where games among contentious parties cannot be adjourned suitably
without one or the other party sustaining a loss after 30 days of
inactivity. Even so, it would still make sense to me that one could
sustain a few losses by deliberately escaping from deleterious gaming
circumstances (though risky to one's reputation on the server) without
much of an adverse effect on ratings, simply maintaining standby lists
of opponents one should be certain to avoid in the future. However,
once caught-up by "ratings frenzy" such options may not be immediately
recalled to mind, nor eminently attractive since players would need to
"shift mental gears" from concentrating upon their win into thorough
abandonment of their previous aims. If you plan the "harmless goofing
around" then NNGS is perhaps the better site for your connection since
NNGS services a (stateside) English-speaking and/or European community
for the most part, whereas IGS services much of Japan, Korea and China
with many of its players doubtful of ability in the English language.
One essential difficulty here is that your activities amounted to an
international incident considerably beyond "tweet's" control and/or
ability to remedy with immediate success, with all of those imagined
trappings of language/translation and cross-cultural difficulties.
De-registration of your account was from the start a rather minor
response on the part of an IGS admin, with the intent of presenting
to you merely a "reminder" of the tenuous connection status reserved
among all players, and of the need for acquiring certain courtesies
which ought to be the result of game-studies in the cognitive-skill
endeavor anyway, but for some reason strike some players as more than
a little bit inaccessible maybe due to past experiential disadvantages
in the humanist cultural scheme of things. I think that there's a
tendency on the part of IGS admins to provide more detailed replies
first to those who are paid subscribers on the Asian component of the
Internet, and then to work their way toward the English speakers who
obtain IGS access at no cost, and could correctly be expected to have
considerably more computer literacy with regards to Internet services,
on average. The numbers of accounts at IGS (30,000) have swelled the
number of IGS admins to 12, so you can begin to appreciate how much
correspondence is flying about simply to batten down the windows and
hatches against the informational hurricane that is public education.
Hacking skills have been on the increase as well, which present their
own unique and special problems in various ways.
Your correspondence with `tweet' -became- a subsidiary issue which
dwarfed the main issue, and then resulted in successively restrictive
measures (all of them temporary) against your IGS accessibility, which
`tweet' has found by past experience as an IGS admin to be effective
in getting across the point that IGS connection is a privilege and not
a right. In fact, the game-play of GO is mostly a privilege and not a
right when considering what players may do in the course of developing
their strategy/tactics. The only "rights" in Go stem from its rules
of play once two players have agreed to enter into a game, i.e. they
have a "right" to move next after an opponent has moved or passed, or
they have a "right" to pick-up captured prisoner stones from the board
that have been surrounded on all liberties. There is no rule that
says players have a "right" to play Go, nor must enter into games with
each other outside previously agreed-upon parameters of a tournament.
Once you began responding to those playful administrative activities
with what `tweet' construed as "`vague threats' that you never made"
then temporary measures hardened from wet to dry concrete and became
more permanent measures.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I hope that some good comes out of all of this. I am not willing to
> engage in endless back-and-forth banter about the pros and cons of
> the issues, which I now believe center mostly on poor communication
> and the reactions to it. If real or imagined individual rights are
> violated, or if individuals perceive (falsely) that they are being
> threatened or insulted, a "mountain out of a molehill" situation
> can arise. I feel this has happened here.
Any construction of "rights" would need to proceed from those
specifically identified under the United Nations Human Rights
Declaration, and not from the United States Bill of Rights. I
do not see "a right to connect to IGS" in the U.N. Declaration.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Throughout all of this, I have ONLY been trying to determine what
> was wrong-nothing more or less. Any continued disclaimers from
> you-Jumangi-or others regarding my motives will not change that,
> because IT IS the TRUTH. Calling me "blind" or quoting the
> Scriptures, insulting my intelligence, etc etc are NOT going to
> help resolve anything. Changes ARE needed and people DO have
> rights. I am not the ONLY one who has ever complained about IGS
> tactics, nor will I be the last.
You've been asked a few times to supply the evidence of your
correspondence with `tweet' which might substantially clear-up
any remaining/residual confusions, but have neglected to comply.
Instead it seems here to be *-YOU-* insulting our intelligence.
The fact of persecution launched against IGS merely confirms the
scriptural pronouncements concerning those of faith in the world
without faith.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> As far as my own situation is concerned (still have domain shut off
> -or access fully denied to IGS in some other way) I can only say
> that I am completely innocent of any willful, malicious or
> destructive behavior that warrants this kind of treatment. I feel I
> have stated my case as completely as needed, and that continued
> debate is redundant. If anyone including IGS admins feel
> (erroneously) that I have been attempting to insult them, this is
> NOT true. Again, I have ONLY tried to get to the bottom of all of
> this
Disingenuous in light of the context of unsupplied documents
for your correspondence with `tweet' identifying the subsidiary
issues annexed to the main reason which had transformed your
temporary boot into a more permanent form of ban, despite the
request for public perusal of the relevant materials.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> I continue to believe that a "Bill of Rights for Go Players on The
> Internet" is a good idea, and will work to see it implemented. I
> hope that IGS and NNGS can, someday, set aside their differences
> and work together to come up with a manifesto of principles which
> support both the administrators AND the players rights in an
> even-handed manner.
Since NNGS appears to offer that kind of "Bill of Rights" you
seek, it would seem you've arrived at the best solution all around.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> In the meantime, thanks to all for hearing me out, and apologies to
> anyone who feels I have acted insultingly-this was NEVER my
> intention, but things printed on an annonymous computer screen can
> look a lot worse than they really are.
They may "look a lot worse" only subjectively which is, at least,
something you're recently prepared to acknowledge.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Can you then explain to me, Jeff, how come that when I log on to
> IGS as a guest all I see is
>
> "That command is currently not available"
>
> and nothing more... no clue as to why it is not available, and
> certainly not all the babble you post above? And when I try to
> register, I just get a message that my address is invalid, while I
> know that it is perfectly valid?
No, and no.
>> <jum...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> First of all your account was "deregistered" and not invalidated.
>>
> bill saltman says...
>> *** How was I supposed to know? No one told me this!***
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Well... ask Jeff how does *he* know all this... it seems to me
> that "tweedie" or whichever admin is responsible in this case took
> all the time in the world explaining the details to dear Jeff, while
> at the same time it was considered too much work to write *you* an
> email with the explanation.
It took considerable time, even with an interactive conversation,
to disentangle the issues involved, and `tweet' is far too busy to
carry on extensive written correspondence with aberrated individuals.
- regards
- jb
.
===========================================================
Source: Skeptical Inquirer, Nov 1999 v23 i6 p24.
Title: The Universe and Carl Sagan.
(excerpt from 'Carl Sagan: A Life') (Excerpt)
Author: Keay Davidson
Abstract: An excerpt from the biography 'Carl Sagan: A Life' is
presented. Topics addressed include Sagan's struggle with
his search for extraterrestrial intelligence and his
scientific skepticism, his rejection of religion, the
course of his education, and his popularization of
astronomy and extraterrestrial life.
Subjects: Scientists - Biography
People: Sagan, Carl - Biography
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal
Few people ever extolled the wonders of science with more eloquence or
were as effective in defending reason and campaigning against
pseudoscience as Carl Sagan. A polymath prodigy and visionary
interdisciplinary scientist with lifelong passions for planetary
astronomy, the origins of life, and seeking extraterrestrial
intelligence, Sagan turned his early enthusiasms about UFOs to
rigorous but open-minded skepticism. An excerpt from a new biography,
Carl Sagan: A Life.
All his life, Carl Sagan was troubled by grand dichotomies - between
reason and irrationalism, between wonder and skepticism. The
dichotomies clashed within him. He yearned to believe in marvelous
things - in flying saucers, in Martians, in glistening civilizations
across the Milky Way. Yet reason usually brought him back to Earth.
Usually; not always. A visionary dreams of a better world than this
one. He refuses to think that modern society and its trappings -
money, marriage, children, a nine-to-five career, and seemingly blind
obedience to a waving flag and an inscrutable God - are all that there
is. Sagan was blinded, but not by these. He was blinded by the sheer
glory of the new cosmos unveiled by science during the first two
decades of his life. This cosmos was an ever-expanding, unbounded
wonderland of billions of galaxies. And across the light-years, Sagan
dreamed, random molecular jigglings had perhaps spawned creeping,
crawling, thinking creatures on alien landscapes bathed in the glow of
alien suns.
This vision blinded Sagan, sometimes, to the needs of the people
around him. These included friends who worshipped him, although he
hurt them; wives who were entranced by his passions, although enraged
by his absenteeism and oft illogical "logic"; sons who were enthralled
by his example, even as they struggled to escape his shadow; and
colleagues who envied and honored him, even while they scorned his
wilder notions and mocked his pomposities. Hardly anyone who knew
Sagan intimately has an unmixed opinion of him. In the final analysis,
he was the dichotomy: the prophet and the hardboiled skeptic, the
boyish fantasist and the ultra-rigorous analyst, the warm companion
and the brusque colleague, the oracle whose smooth exterior concealed
inner fissures.
To Sagan, the rationale for his broader interests was simple: He
refused to pigeonhole himself. He apparently sensed that the coming
space age would be radically interdisciplinary: astronomers would have
to talk to biologists and chemists and geologists and atmospheric
physicists and many other experts whom they normally ignored. Hence he
trained himself in subjects unrelated to astrophysics - in particular,
biology, which was the topic closest to his first love,
extraterrestrial life.
Rare is the scientist with world-class understanding of two broad
disciplines - say, astronomy and biology. Sagan was one of the rare
ones. The Hutchins program [at the University of Chicago] gave him the
confidence to straddle disciplines. He traced this confidence to a
biology course in which, he recalled, "there were only three topics.
The first was enzyme chemistry; the second was diabetes; and the third
was the physiological concomitants of the expression of emotions."
True, this selection of biological science "was unrepresentative - no
Darwin, no genetics!" Yet the class explored those three topics so
deeply - "we read diabetes papers published that very year" - that he
evidently concluded that he could understand any topic he wished, if
he worked hard enough. Millions of readers would later enjoy the
results: a hyperpolymath conversant with astrophysics, biology,
neuroscience, primate communication, atmospheric physics, geopolitics,
nuclear strategy. . . . Sagan was the multidisciplinary scholar par
excellence, the "Renaissance man" so uncommon in the age of
specialization, of industrialized academia, where the divisions of
labor are as real as in Henry Ford's factories.
Why did an established scientist like H.J. Muller spend time with this
impatient New Jersey teenager who had a short attention span for
tedious research and was obsessed with UFOs and aliens? Muller was a
generous man. For all the disappointments of his life betrayed by a
political ideology, revolted by Hitlerian perversion of the eugenic
ideal - Muller clung to his socialist ethics, which cherished
"ordinary" people, however unschooled and immature.
His kindness rubbed off on Sagan. Though later in life, after he had
become famous, Sagan struck many colleagues as arrogant, he almost
always displayed patience and good humor when addressing laypeople.
After Sagan's death, his friend Paul West published a novel, Life with
Swan (1999), that featured a blatantly Saganish character, one
Professor Raoul Bunsen, who, West wrote, was "as willing to answer
stupid elementary questions as to formulate, almost as masochistic
exercise, questions nobody could answer." A true science popularizer
must have a democratic soul; he cannot afford to feel contempt for his
audience. Otherwise, why bother popularizing? As Sagan's fame grew, he
became accustomed to standing at a podium and listening as an audience
member stood and asked him a question about UFOs or astrology or other
silliness. Then, typically, Sagan responded firmly but politely,
trying to make the questioner feel intelligent, not like an ignoramus.
Any other speaker might have snapped, "That's the dumbest thing I ever
heard." But Muller wouldn't have said that; nor did Sagan.
Carl Sagan rejected religion from an early age. In the early twentieth
century powerful forces of secularization were sweeping through
American Judaism (as through all Western culture). The Holocaust
caused some Jews to reject God altogether: what deity would have
permitted such a horror?
Sagan celebrated his bar mitzvah at age thirteen. "But in exactly that
period when I was sort of seriously reading the Bible," he recalled,
"I found all sorts of obvious contradictions with reality. [For
example], two different, contradictory accounts of the origin of the
world in Genesis. . . . That propelled me away" from religion.
Previously, he had soured on Edgar Rice Burroughs's Mars novels
because they contained logical inconsistencies. Now he started looking
for similar inconsistencies in the ancient texts that had given hope
to billions. Were they just old wives' tales? He learned the Bible
well. As an adult, debating preachers about religion, Sagan often
startled them with his ability to cite passages by chapter and verse.
Sagan's religious doubts upset his mother Rachel. Despite her flinty
skepticism about most matters, she trusted in the unseen world. Her
faith gave her a sense of stability. Now her only son - her future
genius! - was rejecting the faith of his fathers? Their religious
quarrels, Sagan later admitted, were "traumatic" because for Rachel
"there were a lot of emotional, traditional connections" at stake.
"There was a time," he recalled, "when my mother and I would have, I
guess, 'fights,' on this issue. It only lasted a year." Then Rachel
realized it was "hopeless" for her to try to change Sagan's mind, and
they stopped fighting.
Sagan's loss of faith intersected neatly with his growing fascination
with extraterrestrial life. He had rejected a supernatural explanation
of the origin of life (and everything else); therefore he needed to
find a scientific one. A great deal was at stake: If life emerged
easily by mechanistic means on Earth, then it might be very common in
the heavens; if it emerged with difficulty, then very rare. This
stirred his interest in the scientific study of the origin of life.
Until the early 1950s, such study was almost nonexistent; there had
been theoretical papers published here and there, and a book or two,
but not much else. While his teenage peers read Mickey Spillane and
J.D. Salinger, Sagan turned to physicist Erwin Schrodinger's What Is
Life? (1946) and chemist A.I. Oparin's Origin of Life (written in the
1920s and published in English in 1938).
In late 1951, when Sagan entered the University of Chicago, another
entrant was Stanley Miller, a twenty-one-year-old first-year graduate
student fresh from the University of California at Berkeley. That
autumn, Miller attended one of Harold Urey's lectures. The chemist
explained his theory that early Earth had a hydrogen atmosphere, in
which the chemical building blocks of life could have easily formed.
Perhaps (Urey noted) lightning bolts provided the energy that caused
the early hydrogen-rich molecules, methane and ammonia, to assemble
into organics. It'd be interesting, Urey added, if someone would
demonstrate this experimentally - that is, by simulating the
atmosphere of the primitive Earth in a flask. (Melvin Calvin of
Berkeley had tried to, but used the wrong atmosphere, one too rich in
carbon dioxide and water vapor.)
Miller was intrigued. He had been looking for a subject for his
doctoral thesis, and this one sounded exciting. He approached Urey and
asked for permission to do the experiment. Urey reacted cautiously,
warning Miller that this was a risky project for a dissertation. But
Miller persisted, and Urey finally went along - on one condition. If
Miller failed to obtain interesting results within a year, then he had
to find a different thesis topic. Miller agreed.
In Miller's experiment, carbon (C) was available from methane
([CH.sub.4]), nitrogen (N) from ammonia ([NH.sub.3]), oxygen (O) from
water ([H.sub.2]O), and hydrogen (H) from all three. An electrical
discharge would break the molecules apart, possibly causing them to
rearrange into organics.
About this time, H.J. Muller had written a letter to Urey, his fellow
Nobelist, and urged him to meet Sagan. They did meet, and during their
chat Urey mentioned Miller's experiment. Intrigued, Sagan visited
Miller in his dungeon-like basement lab. In the "dungeon," Miller
filled a flask with methane, ammonia and water. Miller then switched
on the "sparking" device and left for the night. The next morning
Miller examined the flask: The water within had turned "noticeably
pink." Inside were hydrocarbons - chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
He let the sparking device run for another two days. The result: a
scummy layer that, upon analysis, proved to contain an amino acid
called glycine. Finally Miller let the experiment spark for a week,
after which he found many more types of amino acids, including unknown
types. This was a startling result. Previously, skeptics had argued
that the building blocks of life could no more self-assemble into
complex organics than a windstorm could turn a forest into wooden
homes. Yet that is exactly what Miller appeared to have done, in an
experiment mimicking presumed conditions on the primordial Earth.
News media jumped on the story. The experiment delighted that tough
old Marxist, Haldane, who reportedly said he could "die happy now."
Some reporters interpreted the experiment as a latter-day version of
the creation of the Frankenstein monster. Of course, Miller hadn't
created life - only its molecular building blocks. Still, a 1953
Gallup Poll asked Americans if they thought scientists would
eventually create living creatures in the laboratory. Seventy-nine
percent replied "No."
Miller described his results in a seminar at the University of
Chicago, with Urey present. Sagan sat in the audience. During the
question period, Sagan later recalled, other professors didn't seem to
appreciate the importance of Miller's experiment, and his results were
"roundly condemned by nearly every faculty member that made a
comment." As he watched Urey try to defend Miller, and saw how nervous
Miller was and how heated the discussion got, Sagan realized for the
first time just how emotionally intense research could be.
Miller recalls the scene differently. Now in his late sixties,
bustling, bespectacled and ebullient, he remains active in
origin-of-life work at the University of California at San Diego.
"What Carl didn't realize" Miller says, "was, it wasn't that they
didn't understand the importance, it's just that they couldn't believe
the result!" All those amino acids! Thick coats of them! It seemed
almost too easy. Almost a century after Pasteur claimed to shut the
door for good on mechanistic explanations for life's origin, young
Stanley Miller had reopened it.
Sagan's persistent interest in life's origins was matched only by his
persistent interest in UFOs. At least as late as mid-1954, when he was
a college junior, he suspected they might be extraterrestrial
vehicles, and he tried to persuade Muller of this. The Nobelist
countered (perhaps tongue in cheek) by citing one "saucer" report that
suggested UFOs were Soviet-built. Sagan replied, in a letter dated
January 27, 1954, that there was no reason to believe that all UFOs
were of Soviet making. In defense of his position, he pointed out that
legitimate sightings had occurred much earlier than when the Soviets
came to power. He also argued that the Soviets would not take the risk
of flying their saucers over U.S. territory, where many sightings had
happened, because if one crashed or was shot down and its origin was
discovered, that might start a war. In addition, some of the saucers
had been observed making flying maneuvers that would require materials
much stronger than anything on Earth and which a human being would not
be able to survive.
That letter was Sagan's last known defense of UFOs. Thereafter, his
faith was shaken by two books - Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science (1952) by Martin Gardner (another University of Chicago
graduate, and later the mathematics editor of Scientific American) and
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841) by
Charles Mackay.
Fads and Fallacies was a founding tract of the modern "skeptics"
movement. Breezily and wittily, Gardner details the pseudoscientific
beliefs of anti-Einstein theorists, pyramidologists, medical quacks,
psychic researchers, "orgone" therapists, L. Ron Hubbard (founder of
Dianetics and its far more profitable descendant, Scientology), and
crank cosmologist Immanuel Velikovsky, among others. While enjoying
Gardner's account, Sagan was startled to find that it included a
devastating chapter on UFOs.
Mackay's book didn't deal with UFOs - it was written a century before
the saucer craze. Still, Sagan drew major lessons from Mackay's
accounts of the repeated instances in which humans have been gulled by
false notions, ranging from get-rich-quick schemes to fortune telling.
Gradually, Sagan began to recognize what flying saucers really are:
not a physical phenomenon, but a psychological and a sociological one.
"It was stunning," Sagan later reflected, "how many passionately
argued and defended claims to knowledge had amounted to nothing. It
slowly dawned on me that, human fallibility being what it is, there
might be other explanations for flying saucers."
In time, Sagan would become a devastatingly effective critic of the
UFO cult - indeed, of the flood of pseudoscience and superstition
engulfing America in the second half of the twentieth century.
At Harvard, Sagan would become a nationally known scientific figure -
not famous, exactly, but getting there. With James Pollack, he would
study the atmosphere and surface changes of Mars and propose a radical
new view of their nature. They would also elaborate and defend Sagan's
embattled theory of the Venusian greenhouse effect. In time, these two
men - with remarkably similar backgrounds, yet remarkably different
personalities - would be one of the great "duos" of modern space
science.
Also in the mid-1960s, the mass media began exploiting Sagan. He was
not a complete unknown to journalists; his name had appeared in
national newspapers and magazines at least as far back as 1956, late
in the first term of the Eisenhower Administration. He had even
appeared on a television broadcast about Venus, where he impressed
viewers with his dualistic lecturing style: darkly serious,
contagiously enthusiastic. But his real publicity breakthrough came in
1966, with the publication of his book Intelligent Life in the
Universe (coauthored with the Russian astronomer I.S. Shklovskii).
About this time, Sagan served briefly as an adviser on the film 2001.
Dining with the film's creators, he acquired his first taste of
Hollywood.
Simultaneously, he rediscovered an old love: UFOs. In 1965-66, a wave
of UFO sightings swept the nation. The resulting media hoopla sparked
congressional and scientific investigations. Reporters called Sagan
for the scoop on saucers. A Walter Cronkite television special on UFOs
included a clip of Sagan, a dulcet-toned oracle of scientific wisdom.
He offered journalists an amiably skeptical stance on UFOs - an
engaging alternative to the harrumphy finger-wagging of astronomer
Donald Menzel, the eras only other well-known saucer skeptic. (By that
time J. Allen Hynek had ceased to be very skeptical!)
When it came to extraterrestrial life, Sagan didn't follow a dogmatic
"party line." Sometimes he argued that it was possible (as when he
espoused lunar life, balloon animals in the skies of Venus and
Jupiter, and polar bear-sized creatures on Mars). Other times he shot
down arguments for exobiology (as when he showed that Venus is too hot
for life). An example of the latter is his explanation for the Martian
"wave of darkening." Until the mid-1960s, many astronomers regarded
the wave of darkening as evidence for Martian vegetation change. Yet
Sagan and Pollack discovered its true nature, which was nonbiological.
It's ironic: Sagan blew away the last indirect evidence for Martian
life even as he struggled to convince Americans to support Mars
missions. He was a complicated man.
The Sagan-Pollack theory of Mars surface changes should also interest
scholars who study how scientific ideas evolve. In recent decades,
many historians and philosophers of science have claimed that
scientific "objectivity" is a myth. They argue that scientists - like
most of us - follow their hearts, not their minds; their desires, not
the data. And this is certainly true, much of the time. Still, when it
came to the nature of Martian surface change, Sagan followed his mind,
not his heart.
During Sagan's first decade at Cornell, he would show up all the snobs
and green-eyed detractors at Harvard. He became the preeminent voice
of American space science, a national (later international) celebrity
visible enough to attract his first nonscientific critics. Meanwhile,
he continued doing science as he liked to do it: by flitting,
butterflylike, from flower to flower. Not for him was the life of the
pigeon-holed academic who becomes a world-class expert on T-Tauri
stars but knows nothing about the Big Bang. Nor for him was the stoic
seclusion of the scholar, who takes bitter pride in refusing to
popularize his life's toil on the reproductive strategies of carp.
Sagan liked talking to reporters. He had liked being on stage, in the
spotlight, ever since high school, when he delivered Thurber's bons
mots to an audience of proud parents.
True, Sagan worked too hard. He did too much. His scientific
accomplishments might have been less arguable had he restricted
himself to one or two main fields and diligently plowed them until it
was time to abandon all hope and become chair of the department. He
bit off more than he could chew - and thus enjoyed one wonderful
banquet after another, while his colleagues picked at their beets and
parsley. In the process, Sagan befriended many fascinating fellow
diners. His scientific lone-wolf days (for example, when he taught
himself greenhouse theory) were over. Increasingly, he relied on
collaborations, usually transient ones. The results were sometimes
scientifically significant, or at least headline-grabbing. They ranged
from his work with George Mullen on the role of ammonia in the early
atmosphere to his Astrophysical Journal article with E. E. Salpeter on
the hypothetical "balloon animals" of Jupiter. He maintained close
collaborations with a chosen few, particularly Jim Pollack and Bishun
Khare. With Pollack, Sagan would erect an impressive edifice of
research on the Venusian atmosphere. And with Khare, he would develop
an iconoclastic view of cosmic organic chemistry, one centered on
inexplicable brownish smears that he dubbed "tholins."
Also in the 1968-78 decade, Sagan cultivated his nonscientific side.
He had just married an artist; she helped him tap his inner feelings,
instincts, intuitions. Though he felt awkward in social situations at
Harvard, his social skills blossomed after he moved to Cornell.
Perhaps in this less stuffy setting, he felt free to let his
idiosyncratic conversational style out of the box. Eventually, he
would become a Noel Coward of science, a man for whom bold
articulation and quickness of wit were absolute virtues. His eyes
shone as he dominated a conversation, and deservedly so, for he
typically knew more about the topic at hand - and discussed it more
suavely - than anyone else present. At the same time, he listened as
well as he talked. During intense conversation, his dark eyes gazed at
you as if you were sorry state of your own research, he generously
offered tips and suggestions - often crazy ones, but occasionally
brilliant ones, too. History does not record how many intellectual
Gordian knots were cut by Sagan's razor-sharp tongue at wine and
cheese faculty gatherings; there were more than a few. And he
remembered what you said with almost photographic precision; months
later, he recalled your statements as accurately as if he had
tape-recorded them. When he entered a room, the conversational level
noticeably improved, as it must have in Oscar Wilde's day when he
sauntered into a salon. Through conferences jammed with colleagues
Sagan floated, beaming and chatting and joking; he was a six-foot-two
gravity well toward whom everyone naturally gravitated. He was fun.
"Hey, Carl is here!" It would be an overstatement to say that everyone
loved him, for his bluntness upset many and his talent many more; in
any case, he rarely failed to cause excitement.
Sagan flexed his new-found artistic muscles in his breakthrough
bestseller, The Cosmic Connection. He became a TV star, the upbeat
educator of sleepy-eyed millions viewing the Tonight Show. During the
Viking mission, he was the TV networks' favorite "talking head," whose
playful speculations about an inhabited Mars maddened his colleagues
but titillated viewers. And like a performance artist with a
NASA-sized budget, he engaged in grand forms of self-expression: he
sent "messages" to aliens aboard star-bound space probes, the Pioneers
10 and 11 and the Voyagers 1 and 2.
Sagan was a contradiction. To critics like Urey, the young astronomer
was a reckless speculator. But to laypeople absorbed by pseudosciences
and occultism, Sagan was the Dark Prince of skepticism - the party
pooper who coldly shot down their ideas about UFOs, psychic phenomena,
and other silliness.
By the 1960s, Sagan had long since rejected the thesis that UFOs are
extraterrestrial spaceships. Yet he could not quite put the subject
out of his mind. Like a disappointed lover, he continued to hang
around this subject. He discussed it with reporters, testified about
saucers before Congress, served on an Air Force UFO panel, personally
investigated lurid UFO reports, and starred in the first scientific
"debate" on the subject. Sentimental journeys, all.
( cont'd )
jum...@my-deja.com
Sagan served on an Air Force UFO advisory panel, the O'Brien
committee. The committee (named for its chief, scientist Brian
O'Brien) evaluated the Air Force's official saucer project, Blue Book.
Although depicted in a subsequent TV series as an expensive,
computerized outfit, Blue Book was in fact a backwater operation, with
a few staffers and filing cabinets crammed into an office at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Blue Book was primarily for show. The
Air Force had not taken UFOs seriously for years but felt it had to
keep up appearances to deal with inquiries from UFO-titillated members
of Congress and their constituents. If UFOs represented an unknown
physical phenomenon, Blue Book would never figure it out. So Sagan and
the rest of the O'Brien committee advised the Air Force to commission
an independent, full-scale scientific study. The result was the
controversial Condon Commission, chaired by noted physicist E.U.
Condon.
Meanwhile, Sagan conducted private investigations of the UFO mania. In
1966, the first UFO "abduction" was described in journalist John G.
Fuller's book The Interrupted Journey. Fuller (who also wrote about
"ghosts" seen on airplanes) said that one night in the early 1960s,
when Betty and Barney Hill were driving through New Hampshire, they
noticed a distant UFO. The next thing they knew, several hours had
passed and they couldn't recall what had happened. They consulted a
Boston psychiatrist, Dr. Benjamin Simon. He hypnotized them. Under
hypnosis, they claimed that UFOnauts had stopped their car and taken
them aboard a saucer, then subjected them to medical examinations.
Sagan spent a "fair amount of time" with the Hills and Simon. The
psychiatrist suspected that the Hills' story was an innocent dual
hallucination, perhaps related to the stresses of their marriage,
which was interracial - an extreme novelty at that time. (Decades
later, Sagan was baffled to watch as his Harvard friend Dr. John Mack,
a noted psychiatrist and author, became a leading defender of the
validity of UFO abduction claims.) In the mid-1960s, at least one
respectable American scientist, James McDonald, a professor of
atmospheric physics at the University of Arizona, claimed that UFOs
were alien spaceships. McDonald met with Sagan and his fellow member
of the Order of the Dolphin (a SETI group), MIT physicist Phil
Morrison. "I spent many hours with Jim McDonald," Sagan later wrote to
UFO investigator Walter N. Webb, adding that he saw no reason to
believe that there were any sightings that were credible evidence of
extraterrestrial visits.
McDonald's data was "pitiful," Morrison recalls. McDonald showed them
"pounds and pounds" of data, including news clippings and tape
recordings, about a UFO sighting on Long Island. The witness - a naval
architect - drew a sketch of the "saucer." One thing puzzled Sagan and
Morrison: the saucer had rivets on its side. "Are we really to believe
this?" they asked McDonald. "Look at the rivets that cross the plates
here. Do you suppose [aliens] use rivets? Don't you think [the
witness] is drawing on his long experience in the Navy yard?" In
retrospect, Morrison says of McDonald, "it was distressing that a
serious scientist, a good man, would get involved in such research."
Like Brian O'Leary, John Lilly, Timothy Leary, J. Allen Hynek and a
few other renegade scientists of the 1960s and 1970s, McDonald had
heard the siren call of the unknown and would pursue it to the end -
in his case, to suicide.
There are celebrities, and then there are Celebrities. Before the
Tonight Show, Sagan was slightly known to a small percentage of
Americans who had caught his sound bites on TV or read Intelligent
Life in the Universe. After the Tonight Show, he became America's
best-known scientist. Sitting in bed at 12:45 A.M., insomniacs watched
Sagan with growing excitement. This was no tweedy Mr. Science, filling
beakers with smelly chemicals on a black-and-white TV image from the
1950s. Rather, this was a Mr. Science for the hip, disillusioned early
1970s, a boy-man with a startling basso profundo voice, one who kept
his cool yet laughed merrily (sometimes at a startling high pitch).
Sagan was, simply speaking, sexy, in a sense that transcends mere
sexuality.
The young went on alert. Until that moment, the space program offered
no convincing heroes for disaffected, anti-establishment, long-haired,
pot-smoking college students. To them, astronauts were cornball
patriots in crewcuts, blood brothers of the militarists then napalming
Vietnam. But Sagan was different: he was youthful-looking (like the
class president, but in a fun way). Perhaps he was a secret would-be
hipster - the kind of guy who, if handed a joint, might look
surprised, then accept it with a laugh and politely try it, coughing
afterwards. (In fact, he was secretly an enthusiastic smoker of
marijuana.) In college dorms from coast to coast, students (like this
writer) didn't stay up until 1:00 A.M. to watch Dinah Shore plug her
golf tournament. They stayed up to see Carl Sagan.
On Sagan's first appearance - November 30, 1973 - he and Carson
discussed what we might want to say to an alien civilization if we
ever did contact one, and also the far-out pseudoscientific theories
of writer Erich Von Daniken, who had been on the show the previous
night. Carson and Sagan were perfect together: Carson bubbled with
enthusiastic questions, and Sagan had all the answers.
Over the next thirteen years, Sagan appeared on the Carson show
twenty-six times - an average of twice a year. He once explained why
he made every effort to fulfill an invitation to appear on the show -
because it gave him the biggest classroom in the country.
In Other Worlds, Sagan lit into pseudoscientists such as Erich Von
Daniken, whom he had criticized before, and Immanuel Velikovsky. Von
Daniken wanted to rewrite the history of humanity: He claimed that
aliens were responsible for the pyramids and other historic artifacts.
Velikovsky was even more ambitious: he wanted to rewrite the history
of the whole solar system.
In 1950, Velikovsky had published a sensational book, Worlds in
Collision. It argued that thousands of years ago, Venus was a comet.
This comet was somehow ejected from Jupiter, as a tennis ball is shot
from an ejector. After its ejection, Venus then barreled around the
inner solar system like the ball in a pinball machine. It careened
past Earth, triggering apocalyptic events and inspiring scary legends
of doom, disaster, locusts, and so forth. While Moses was leading his
people out of Egypt, Velikovsky asserted, the comet flew by and
exerted mysterious forces on Earth, with the result that the Red Sea
parted. Eventually - like teenage hoodlums in the B-movies of that era
- Venus calmed down and settled into its present middle-class,
predictable orbit.
Velikovsky based his hypothesis on ancient manuscripts and legends
that, he said, recorded these apocalyptic events. He claimed that very
old astronomical records did not mention the planet Venus - and
naturally not, because Jupiter hadn't ejected it yet! He also insisted
that his hypothesis predicted certain celestial phenomena, including
the great heat of Venus (a result of its violent ejection from
Jupiter), which had been observed by Mariner 2. Velikovsky's claims
led to his showdown with Sagan, who, of course, had his own ideas
about the Venusian hothouse.
Worlds in Collision blatantly violated the laws of physics. Although
Velikovsky had certain scholarly credentials (he was a Russian-born
psychoanalyst), he "had only the vaguest understanding of such basic
physical principles as conservation of angular momentum, gravity, and
entropy," wrote the physicist Lloyd Motz, who was on friendly terms
with him. Velikovsky described celestial objects behaving in ways that
they simply cannot behave - unless something is terribly wrong with
modem physics textbooks. For example, Motz noted, to expel Venus,
Jupiter would have had to "release or expend in a matter of seconds or
minutes as much energy as our Sun emits in more than a year." Such an
eruption would have expelled enough energy in those few seconds to
have vaporized most of the planets, including Earth.
When physicists cited these huge discrepancies between Velikovsky's
hypothesis and physics doctrine, he shrugged and replied that his
historical research showed that celestial objects behave in previously
unknown ways, and that therefore it was physics that would have to
change to accommodate his findings. Throughout history, of course,
scientists have proposed radical new theories that violated the
commonsense physics of their time, yet proved (on the whole, despite
some technical errors) to be correct. Copernicus's heliocentric
hypothesis is one example; another is Alfred Wegener's concept of
continental drift. In both cases, physics was modified to accommodate
the heretical idea.
Velikovsky's theories, however, do not even fall into the category of
science. Archaeologists and ancient historians have totally repudiated
his interpretations of ancient records. Even if the records backed
him, his predictions and calculations are not of the rigor that true
science requires.
How does one distinguish a bona fide scientific hypothesis from a
pseudoscientific one? The classic response is that of philosopher Karl
Popper, that no hypothesis can be considered "scientific" (which is
not necessarily the same thing as saying it is "true") unless it
generates predictions that are conceivably disprovable ("falsifiable,"
in Popper's term).
Velikovsky's work raises two key questions: Were his original
hypotheses conceivably falsifiable? And have they subsequently been
falsified or verified by astronomical observations? If falsifiable but
verified, then our knowledge of astrophysics must be seriously
incomplete. If not falsifiable, we can confidently toss his notions
into the historical wastebin along with dusty tracts on phrenology,
spiritualism, sea monsters and other flummery.
A hallmark of pseudoscientific hypotheses is their vagueness and
malleability: their proponents always manage to think up ad hoc ideas
to "explain away" discrepant data (for example, the "Mars face"
enthusiast who claims NASA hides photos of the "face," the
parapsychologist who blames negative results on "bad vibes" from
skeptical observers, and so forth). Occasionally ad hoc explanations
turn out to be correct, but the burden of proving them must rest on
their proponents. Orthodox scientists are simply too busy wrestling
with acknowledged mysteries to waste time chasing will-o'-the-wisps
(especially those proposed by scientific ignoramuses that brazenly
transgress well-established scientific principles). Yet Velikovsky -
despite his obvious ignorance of physics - angrily insisted that the
burden of proof lay on his critics. It was not his job to prove his
theory; it was their job to disprove him.
Velikovsky and his reverential fans presented Sagan with a challenge
that, in his newly emerging role as defender of the scientific faith,
he simply could not refuse. Sagan decided to combat Velikovsky in
something of a scientific duel - a public debate in which Velikovsky
could make his case, while a panel of scientists, Sagan included,
could critique them.
This was a radically different way to confront pseudoscience. True,
the UFO symposium at the AAAS symposium of 1969 had pitted UFO
advocates against detractors, but all were bona fide physical
scientists. Velikovsky, by contrast, had no significant training in
the physical sciences; his books implied that the "expertise" of his
critics was a sham, that his historical scholarship was just as valid
a source of knowledge about the natural world as their professional
training in physics and astronomy. In other words, the Sagan versus
Velikovsky debate promised to be a particularly extreme form of "turf
battle" - a fight over who deserves recognition as an "authority" in a
given subject. The history of science is full of such turf battles;
they often decide the fate of fundamental ideas.
The Velikovsky debate certainly differed from the usual old-fashioned
scientific responses to pseudoscience: ignore it or suppress it. Sagan
- a fierce devotee of free speech - believed that astronomer Harlow
Shapley's boycott of Velikovsky's initial publisher had been
unjustified. The AAAS public debate would constitute, in effect, an
apology to Velikovsky, giving him the opportunity to submit ideas to
direct scientific scrutiny. The debate's ultimate goal was not to
reassess Velikovsky's ideas (hardly any scientist took these
seriously) but, rather, to reassure the public of science's basic
fairmindedness, at a time when a growing number of leftists and
academics were depicting it as intellectual camouflage for ideological
and social prejudices.
Some AAAS members, of course, opposed holding the debate. "Certain
powers in the AAAS didn't want the symposium to happen," recalls
Sagan's friend Don Goldsmith, an astronomer who helped organize the
debate. "They felt, 'We've had enough bullshit from this guy
[Velikovsky]. AAAS is for science, this is non-science.'" However, the
AAAS president at the time, Margaret Mead, thought the symposium would
be worthwhile. She was an anthropologist famous for her affectionate
studies of non-Western culture, and she apparently viewed the
pseudosciences as many social scientists do - as generally harmless
alternative perceptions of reality, which should be tolerated (if not
accepted) as one might tolerate, say, Azande cosmology or Eskimo
marriage rituals. Besides, Mead was quietly interested in fringe
science. In 1969 she had pushed the AAAS to accept the
Parapsychological Association as an institutional member; late in
life, she served on the board of J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO
Studies. Says Goldsmith: "Whereas physical scientists thought, 'why
should we give this bullshit a hearing?', Margaret Mead was of the
anthropological bent. . . . She felt this might be interesting whether
it's true or not."
The symposium was held on February 25, 1974, in the Grand Ballroom of
San Francisco's St. Francis Hotel. There were seven speakers, two of
them pro-Velikovsky - Velikovsky himself and the Illinois scientist
Irving Michelson. (There were only these because no other
pro-Velikovsky scientists could be found.) The room was packed. As Don
Goldsmith recalled, "It is hard to outdo the spectacle of a
seventy-seven-year-old gentleman rising to confront the critics who
had rejected him for scores of years, with his supporters in the
audience cheering his wit and hissing at his opponents, while his
detractors sat applauding and protesting in opposite phase."
The astronomer Dale Cruikshank attended the debate to see what he
calls the "clash of the titans" - Sagan versus Velikovsky. And indeed
it was Sagan who dominated on the anti-Velikovsky side. "I'm not sure
who won on the arrogance side, but they were both in top form,"
Cruikshank recalls wryly. Velikovsky "was an elderly man, tall and
slender, big head of gray hair, and he sort of swept in with two or
three people in his entourage, each of them carrying a big bundle of
papers. And whenever he would snap his fingers somebody would run up
with another document to support the point he had just made." During
his address, Velikovsky presented the full set of his so-called
"predictions" and then declared defiantly that "Nobody can change a
single sentence in my books." His supporters in the audience stood and
applauded.
Sagan was coolly composed by comparison. In the view of many present,
his talk was a blend of intense analysis and amiable wit, with
imaginative arguments so compelling that they seemed unanswerable. One
of his key points was that Velikovsky's most heralded "prediction,"
that Venus was hot, was not a prediction in any meaningful sense of
the word. Velikovsky claimed that he had anticipated Venus's great
heat long before the Mariner 2 space probe flew by the planet in 1962
and gathered data to that effect. The trouble with this claim is
multifold. First, Sagan pointed out, Velikovsky never defined
precisely what he meant by "heat." To say Venus is "hot" is like
saying the Sun is "big." How hot? A specific temperature is not needed
- just a range will do: say, 600 to 800 degrees Kelvin? Yet Velikovsky
never provided this. Second, Sagan highlighted, Velikovsky never
provided a convincing explanation of why Venus would be hot. He
implied it was because of the heat experienced by Venus on being
ejected from Jupiter, although (as Motz previously explained) in fact
this would have vaporized it instead. Finally, such a prediction is of
questionable meaningfulness, Sagan argued. People before Velikovsky
had known that Venus is hot, partly based on its closeness to the Sun
and partly on its atmosphere (Rupert Wildt's 1940 suggestion of a
greenhouse-driven high surface temperature). So Velikovsky's
"prediction" was not a true prediction - not even a lucky guess. His
overall theory was so maddeningly vague, Sagan concluded, that it was
impossible to use it to make any meaningful predictions at all. Hence
Velikovsky's theory was classic pseudoscience.
Opinions of Sagan's performance vary. Staff writer Robert Gillette of
Science magazine later described Sagan as "Velikovsky's bete noire . .
. An articulate
man with a switchblade wit . . . ." A reporter from Science News,
however, observed: "Sagan's 56 pages of criticism would ordinarily be
sufficient to lay to rest for all time such a picked-apart theory, but
Velikovsky's supporters are not easily dissuaded, and the controversy
is sure to continue." In fact, Sagan's speech trounced Velikovsky.
Nowadays, the pseudoscientific psychoanalyst is largely forgotten,
save by a handful of devotees who haunt the World Wide Web. Sagan
remains their leading bete noire.
Was Sagan's campaign against the forces of pseudoscience really worth
his time? After all, Von Daniken and Velikovsky were just the latest
variations on old themes. Pseudoscientific and occult ideas are as old
as the hills. Yet in the 1970s, their growing popularity - coincident
with the rise of various cults (from the silly "pyramid power" to the
scary Scientology) and the decline of student interest in science -
alarmed many. In response, philosophy professor Paul Kurtz, a
controversial figure within the American Humanist Association, formed
the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (CSICOP, pronounced "sigh-cop"), with the goal of
challenging the intellectual merits of pseudoscientific and occult
notions.
Sagan was a founding member of CSICOP. Certainly he was attracted to
the skeptics movement by his scorn for pseudoscience, and by his
desire to educate the public about real science. He might also,
however, have joined the skeptics movement partly to reassure his
colleagues - the Donald Menzel types who suspected his loyalty to
orthodox science - that he really was a loyal (if highly speculative)
member of the epistemological mainstream, and not a budding Lilly or
Hynek about to saunter off to fairyland.
At the same time, Sagan would always feel ambivalence about certain
elements of the skeptics movement. Some of its members were too
fanatical, too lacking in "compassion" (as Sagan complained) for those
deluded by foolish ideas. He refused to sign astronomer Bart Bok's
anti-astrology petition because, in Sagan's view, its tone was too
authoritarian; in an age when the public increasingly distrusted
"experts," astrology buffs would not be converted to reason by an
elitist-sounding petition signed by a band of astronomers. More subtle
means were required to combat pseudoscience. One must not talk to the
people as if they are children babbling about Santa Claus; they must
be educated, patiently and respectfully so. And for that educational
mission, Carl Sagan was ideally suited.
The Cosmos television series is the achievement that finally fixed
Carl Sagan's place in the celebrity firmament. With assistance from
Ann Druyan and a team of others, Sagan told the saga of our universe -
"all that is, ever has been and ever will be." The thirteen-part
series was eventually seen by more than four hundred million people
and became a spectacularly successful book (still in print today). It
inspired countless teenagers to consider science careers. Most
significantly for Sagan, Cosmos gave him the celebrity status that
later allowed him to challenge the revival of cold war militarism,
which he and many others believed threatened terrestrial life. The
series was the climax of his ascent into fame, even into iconic status
in American culture. From the broadcast of the series on, his face was
immediately recognizable to the generations of Americans who huddled
in their living rooms raptly glued to their TV sets for each episode.
With Sagan's striking, strangely halting and melodic voice and his
emphatic gestures, he was the perfect scientific sage on screen, the
entrancing visionary who could reveal the marvels of the universe,
from the smallest grain of sand to the most distant stars. One
journalist who wrote about the series described his unusual appeal by
commenting that Sagan's "face combines hauteur, sensuality, and a
winning boyishness - a pleasing amalgam of Rudolph Nureyev and George
Plimpton."
The bad news started coming in batches. NASA's SETI project did not
long survive the Cold War; its sudden death - only months after its
birth - unhappily vindicated one of Carl's oldest worries: that the
public's inability to distinguish between UFO claptrap and SETI
science would doom the latter.
In early 1993, Senator Richard Bryan, a Republican from Nevada, stood
on the floor of the Senate and asked his colleagues to kill SETI.
Showing no ability to distinguish between SETI and UFO-chasing, he
referred to SETI as a "great Martian hunt." The Senate went along; all
SETI funding was ended.
After it all ended, SETI scientist Jill Tarter flew home, crushed. "I
literally asked my husband to stay around over the weekend and not go
into his office and not leave me alone with any sharp objects," she
recalls with a laugh. "It was pretty grim. How could we have screwed
up so badly? How could we have let this happen?" Fortunately, the SETI
program was privatized and has since survived with support from
Silicon Valley industrialists and other sugar daddies. Based at the
SETI Institute in a tree-shaded office park in Mountain View,
California, the search is conducted under the name Project Phoenix -
after the mythical bird that ascended from its own ashes.
It was the same scenario that Carl had envisioned in his book Contact,
where Ellie Arroway, abandoned by a federal scientific agency, seeks
support for her SETI project from a private donor. The whole episode
illustrated one of Carl's oldest fears - that poor science education
would create a society unable to distinguish between scientific
exploration and pseudoscientific flummery.
What is a visionary? Carl Sagan measured time in eons and space in
light-years; he maintained an interplanetary perspective. To such a
person, the petty bigotries and tyrannies of terrestrial life are
provincialism in the extreme, utterly absurd. That was the core theme
of another book, Pale Blue Dot: Ours is one planet in a vast cosmos -
who are we to subdivide it into the privileged and the oppressed? "He
took science so seriously, so deeply to heart," Ann Druyan says, "he
understood the human species to be precisely what it is - part of the
fabric of nature, obviously related to the non-human primates in ways
that were very striking. So to him racism was completely appalling.
And sexism, too. Since there was no scientific basis for any kind of
inferiority for women or non-white people, he couldn't bear it . . . .
"That was true in our relationship, personally, in terms of arguments
we would have," says Druyan. "[There were] no arguments 'from
authority,' no 'Because I say so' or 'Because I want it this way.' He
was really concerned about the truth. So you had a sense that not only
would every problem ultimately be solved - because it was a process of
getting at the truth - but that this guy wanted to keep on growing for
the rest of his life! He didn't want to settle for the boring rituals
and repetitions that most people are happy with. For him what mattered
was what was true, not what would affirm his cherished belief. That's
what the real dream of science is: not the universe is as I want it to
be, to make myself less afraid of the vastness, but the universe as it
really is."
Keay Davidson is a science reporter for the San Francisco Examiner. He
is also a recipient of CSICOP's Responsibility in Journalism Award.
This article is excerpted from Carl Sagan: A Life. Copyright [C]1999
by Keay Davidson. Excerpted with permission of the publisher John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. This book is available at all bookstores, online
booksellers, and from the Wiley Web site at www.wiley, com, or call
1-800-225-5945.
===========================================================
Source: Booklist, Sept 1, 1999 v96 i1 p5.
Title: Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos.(Review)
Author: Donna Seaman
Subjects: Books - Reviews
People: Poundstone, William
Locations: United States
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 American Library Association
* Poundstone, William. Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos. Oct. 1999.
454p. index. Holt, $30 (0-8050-5766-8). DDC: 520
[Graphic omitted]When Sagan died in 1996, the cosmos lost one of its
most fervent and eloquent admirers. A precocious Brooklyn boy, Sagan
became enamored of science fiction, Greek and Roman mythology, and the
stars and announced early on that he wanted to be an astronomer.
"Early" is the operative word here: Sagan was always two steps ahead.
He skipped several grades but lost out on being valedictorian in 1950
because of a controversial essay, the first of many instances,
Poundstone observes, in which Sagan's "penchant for speculation"
offended the powers that be. Tall, gangly, and ambitious, Sagan
entered the University of Chicago at age 16 and quickly found the
mentors who would be instrumental in his attaining his invaluable
interdisciplinary education. Physics, genetics, chemistry, and geology
all engaged Sagan as much as astronomy and supported his daring search
for extraterrestrial life. As Poundstone, author of a biography of the
mathematician John von Neumann (Prisoner's Dilemma, 1992), presents
his impressively detailed yet always lucid chronicle of Sagan's life
and prodigious achievements, he cites examples of Sagan's "originality
of thought," "mischievous sense of humor," "prescient insights" (Sagan
was the first to write about the greenhouse effect and global
warming), "lyricism," and "genuine charisma," which inspired him to
further offend the conservative science world by becoming a
popularizer and media darling. Lest Sagan sound too perfect,
Poundstone, who is as fluent in the personal as he is in the
scientific and political, reveals Sagan's incessant need for attention
and failings as a father and husband. But as the author of hundreds of
scientific articles and many best-selling books, the creator and star
of Cosmos, a driving force in NASA's Viking and Voyager missions, and
a key figure in bringing the nuclear arms race to a halt, Sagan will
be remembered best as a model of what terrestrial life can attain.
==============================================================
Source: Library Journal, Sept 1, 1999 v124 i14 p229.
Title: Carl Sagan: A Life.(Review)_(book reviews)
Author: Gregg Sapp
Subjects: Books - Reviews
People: Davidson, Keay
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 Cahners Publishing Company
Davidson, Keay. Carl Sagan: A Life. Wiley. Oct. 1999. c.512p, photogs,
bibliog. index. ISBN 0-471-25286-7. $30.
Both of these books portray astronomer Carl Sagan as a man of immense
paradoxes. A charismatic public persona, he could be arrogant and
demanding in his personal life. Fiercely ambitious, he still had a
powerful sense of civic duty. An outspoken defender of scientific
methods, he was also a UFO enthusiast and obsessed with the
possibility of extraterrestrial life. In some ways, each of these
books represents a different side of the man. First, the similarities.
Both authors are respected science popularizers. Both books are quite
substantial, relying to a large degree on interviews with those who
knew Sagan. Thus, there is considerable overlap between them--perhaps
as much as 80 percent. Of the remaining, about 15 percent of
Poundstone is totally unique material. His is the more exhaustive and
detailed account, especially when discussing Sagan's original
scientific work and influences. What Davidson may lack comparatively
in content is more than made up for in style, though. While Poundstone
plods in places, Davidson is lively, literary, and sometimes
refreshingly speculative. Poundstone's version comes closer to being
definitive and will probably have a longer shelf life, but Davidson's
is more fun to read. Overall, Davidson's version seems truer to its
subject, for with Sagan science and showmanship were inseparable.
Let's split the difference and suggest that Poundstone's version is
more appropriate for academic libraries, while Davidson's may find a
larger audience in public libraries.--Gregg Sapp, Univ. of Miami Lib.,
Coral Gables
===========================================================
Source: Library Journal, Sept 1, 1999 v124 i14 p229.
Title: Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos.(Review)_(book reviews)
Author: Gregg Sapp
Subjects: Books - Reviews
People: Poundstone, William
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 Cahners Publishing Company
Poundstone, William. Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos. Holt. Oct.
1999. c.449p, permanent paper. bibliog. index. LC 99-14615. ISBN
0-8050-5766-8. $30. SCI
Both of these books portray astronomer Carl Sagan as a man of immense
paradoxes. A charismatic public persona, he could be arrogant and
demanding in his personal life. Fiercely ambitious, he still had a
powerful sense of civic duty. An outspoken defender of scientific
methods, he was also a UFO enthusiast and obsessed with the
possibility of extraterrestrial life. In some ways, each of these
books represents a different side of the man. First, the similarities.
Both authors are respected science popularizers. Both books are quite
substantial, relying to a large degree on interviews with those who
knew Sagan. Thus, there is considerable overlap between them--perhaps
as much as 80 percent. Of the remaining, about 15 percent of
Poundstone is totally unique material. His is the more exhaustive and
detailed account, especially when discussing Sagan's original
scientific work and influences. What Davidson may lack comparatively
in content is more than made up for in style, though. While Poundstone
plods in places, Davidson is lively, literary, and sometimes
refreshingly speculative. Poundstone's version comes closer to being
definitive and will probably have a longer shelf life, but Davidson's
is more fun to read. Overall, Davidson's version seems truer to its
subject, for with Sagan science and showmanship were inseparable.
Let's split the difference and suggest that Poundstone's version is
more appropriate for academic libraries, while Davidson's may find a
larger audience in public libraries.--Gregg Sapp, Univ. of Miami Lib.,
Coral Gables
===========================================================
Source: Publishers Weekly, August 30, 1999 v246 i35 p62.
Title: CARL SAGAN: A Life in the Cosmos.(Review)
Subjects: Books - Reviews
People: Poundstone, William
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 Cahners Publishing Company
William Poundstone. Holt, $30 ISBN 0-8050-5766-8
It is impossible to be neutral about Carl Sagan (1934-1996). Though
supporters and detractors agree that he was one of the most brilliant
and influential scientists of the 20th century, they argue about the
ways he handled his gifts, fame and prominence. Poundstone (Prisoner's
Dilemma; Big Secrets) does nothing to reconcile these disparities.
Instead, he lays out the details of Sagan's life and work, revealing
why some people idolized him and others disdained him. Sagan's
overwhelming need for love and attention destroyed his first marriage
to Lynn Margulis, Poundstone explains. Decades later, Margulis remains
ambivalent, admiring Sagan the public figure but not the man. Second
wife Linda Salzman could neither forgive Sagan nor understand his
betrayal when he and their friend Ann Druyan announced that they were
profoundly in love and planned to marry. Salzman is conspicuously
missing from Poundstone's list of acknowledgments, just as Sagan's
alienated best friend, Lester Grinspoon, was conspicuously absent--s o
reports Poundstone--from Sagan's deathbed. Sagan's scientific and
public life is best known for its central quest and mission: searching
for extraterrestrial life and sharing his love of science with the
world. The so-far fruitless quest for ET continues, but Sagan's
mission succeeded beyond all expectations. Because his greatest
allegiance was to truth, Sagan would probably like this book. It tells
readers why he chose to warn the world about "nuclear winter" despite
weaknesses in the theory, and it includes the influence of marijuana
highs on his work. Poundstone does not draw conclusions, but presents
the evidence of Sagan's life and allows readers to develop their own
theories of what that life might mean to their own. 16 b&w photos.
Agent, John Brockman. (Oct.)
===========================================================
Source: Publishers Weekly, August 30, 1999 v246 i35 p62.
Title: CARL SAGAN: A life.(Review)
Subjects: Books - Reviews
People: Davidson, Keay
Full Text COPYRIGHT 1999 Cahners Publishing Company
Keay Davidson. Wiley, $30 (576p) ISBN 0-471-25286-7
In a superbly researched biography of one of the 20the century's most
influential yet controversial scientists, Davidson (coauthor, Wrinkles
in Time) leaves no doubt about where he feels his subject stands.
"What is a visionary?" he asks in the closing chapter. "Carl Sagan
measured time in eons and space in light years; he maintained an
interplanetary perspective." Though many of Davidson's anecdotes echo
those in William Poundstone's Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos
(reviewed above), he actively guides readers to conclusions, where
Poundstone merely lays out the facts. Though not avoiding Sagan's many
failings as a person, Davidson never allows his readers to lose sight
of the grand visions, brilliant insights and brash speculations that
inspired and educated Sagan's audiences. The book is at its strongest
when it shows the inner Sagan through his most influential works: the
Pulitzer Prize-winning Dragons of Eden; the Emmy and Peabody
Award-winning television series Cosmos; his SF novel Contact; and his
scientific publications about the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus,
the windblown dust responsible for "waves of darkening" on Mars and
the threat of "nuclear winter" after a limited nuclear war on earth.
The volume is weakest when, instead of holding Sagan responsible for
his sometimes arrogant behavior, it offers excuses from pop
psychology. Though nonscientific readers may find Davidson's biography
sufficient, naturally skeptical scientific readers may find its
conclusions too firm for comfort. They should read Pound stone first,
then turn to Davidson to complete the picture. (Sept.)
jum...@my-deja.com
> Tom Hoeber <will...@chatlink.com> writes:
>> It says nothing about the private sector and none of it applies
>> to the private sector.
From: Bill Taylor <mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Please tell us again, how this is essentially different from an
> alleged right of a private shop owner to refuse to admit or serve
> certain people he doesn't like? Last time I asked this question,
> there was no relevant reply, just howls of rage.
>
> Every one says IGS has the legal and moral right to forbid entrance
> to whoever they feel like; so why don't shops, clubs and the like?
I think Tom was speaking of the First Amendment to the Bill of
Rights, regarding limits placed upon powers of Congress in the
United States. If you were speaking of latent racism w/r/t the
rights of proprietors, then it's true that the USA exhibited such
pathological syndromes in certain regions as late as the 1960s,
which were overturned by the 1964 Civil Rights Act stemming from
a long struggle as early as the 13th/14th/15th Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution and from nativist abolition movements with roots
even prior to the adoption of the US Constitution (where Section 9
referred to the possibility of ending slave importation in 1808).
The point here is that legislation and litigation had already done
its work more than thirty years ago in context to the point you've
raised, for the geographical locales of the USA, and subsequent to
1964 US citizens were witness to forms of judicial activism which
rendered civil rights objectives pragmatically attainable. Still
health regulations can allow restaurants to enforce a "No shirt,
No shoes, No service" policy, and governments by statute can also
enforce "No smoking" policies in public buildings and upon transit
vehicles of various types, where second-hand risks in the confined
spaces present well-researched, documented, and acknowledged hazards.
These observations and arguments were previously made in the prior
presentations within context to this five-year flame war, though it
seems evident your memory is going down the tubes in short-circuits.
As with many of the arguments you make, relevancy is obviously
in much jeopardy, since no racial profiling is possible through a
means of cyberspace login, and no questions are asked w/r/t racial
composition in the registration process. However a statement of IGS
policy occurs at login, in email accompanying registration password,
and in periodic postings to this newsgroup since July of 1995, though
from your remarks it may seem to be inferred that you've been on a
vacation the whole time.
> Tom Hoeber <will...@chatlink.com> writes:
>> If people don't like IGS they'll go to another server. Big deal.
From: Bill Taylor <mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz>
> "If n*****s want to buy some of this, they can go to another store.."
At least it's encouraging to find that you are now the champion
of civil rights and devote yourself to opposition of racial bias.
- regards
- jb
.
================================================================
check out: http://www.mrob.com/numbers.html
--------------------------------
===============================================================
http://www.mrob.com/muency/feigenbaumconstant.html
--------------------------------------------------
Feigenbaum Constant, Mu-Ency at MROB
Robert P. Munafo, 1999 Oct 3.
A universal constant in mathematics (like Pi=3.1415926... and
e=2.7182818...) that applies to nearly any parametrized iteration
function, such as that used for the Mandelbrot Set. It gives the limit
of the ratio between the parameter values at successive period
doubling bifurcations in a parameter space. It is most easily seen as
the ratio between the diameters of successive mu-atoms in the sequence
R2.1/2, R2.1/2.1/2, R2.1/2.1/2.1/2, ..., R2{.1/2}xN, ... . The same
ratio occurs in all sequences of .1/2.1/2.1/2 mu-atoms that you find
in the Mandelbrot Set.
Keith Briggs has computed the value of the constant to 570 decimal
places :
4.66920 16091 02990 67185 32038 20466 20161 72581 85577 47576 86327
45651 34300 41343 30211 31473 71386 89744 02394 80138 17165 98485
51898 15134 40862 71420 27932 52231 24429 88890 89085 99449 35463
23671 34115 32481 71421 99474 55644 36582 37932 02009 56105 83305
75458 61765 22220 70385 41064 67494 94284 98145 33917 26200 56875
56659 52339 87560 38256 37225 64800 40951 07128 38906 11844 70277
58542 85419 80110 76414 45781 49381 48950 23816 54189 15546 71335
13540 82185 41377 83293 54100 83895 53620 85982 10881 81697 61261
58194 91276 11714 24466 18360 53736 37082 23597 51007 37795 42073
78392 51831 91887 37256 87768 76971 08561 29747 40650 80198 49313
69407 12188 54242 06435
It can be computed to rather high precision by a method that does not
depend on actually iterating the Mandelbrot function and determining
the size of mu-atoms.
The second Feigenbaum constant is:
2.50290 78750 95892 82228 39028 73218 21578 63812 71376 72714 ...
... 99773 36192 056
It is possible that the first Feigenbaum constant can be used to
directly compute the position of the Mandelbrot Set's center of
gravity.
See also chaos theory, iteration, Feigenbaum point.
Acknowledgments
Value of constant: Keith Briggs, Department of Applied Mathematics,
University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005
From the Mandelbrot Set Glossary and Encyclopedia.
© 1987-2000 Robert P. Munafo.
================================================================
http://marbletower.freehosting.net/html/dynas.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Dynasty of Constantine
----------------------
Constantine I the Great 324-33
Constantine II, Constantius, and Constans 337-340
Constantius 340-361
Julian 361-363
Jovian 363-364
Valentian I and Valens 364-375
Valens, Gratian and Valentian II 375-378
Dynasty of Theodosius
Theodosius I the Great 378-395
Arcadius 395-408
Theodosius II 408-450
Marcian 450-474
Dynasty of Leo
Leo I 457-474
Leo II 474
Zeno 474-491
Anastasius 491-518
Dynasty of Justinian
Justin 518-527
Justinian I 527-565
Justin II 565-578
Tiberius II 578-582
Maurice 582-602
Phocas 602-610
Dynasty of Heraclius
Heraclius 610-641
Constans II 641-668
Constantine IV 668-685
Justinian II (banished) 685-695
Leontius 695-698
Tiberius III 698-705
Justinian II (restored) 705-711
No Dynasty
Bardanes 711-713
Anastasius II 713-716
Theodosius III 716-717
Isaurian Dynasty
Leo III 717-741
Constantien V Copronymus 741-775
Leo IV 775-780
Constantine VI 780-797
Irene 797-802
No Dynasty
Nicephorus I 802-811
Strauracius 811
Michael I 811-813
Leo V 813-820
Phrygian Dynasty
Michael II 820-829
Theophilus 829-842
Michael III 842-867
Macedonian Dynasty
Basil I 867-886
Leo VI and Alexander 886-912
Alexander 913
Constantine VII Porphygenitus 913-959
Romanus I Lecapenus 919-944
Constantine (VIII) 924
Romanus II 959-963
Nicephorus II Phocas 963-969
John Tzimiskes 969-976
Basil II Bulgaroctonus 976-1025
Constantine VIII 1025-1028
Romanus III Argyrus 1028-1034
Michael IV the Paphlagonian 1034-1041
Michael V Calaphates 1041-1042
Zoe and Theodora 1042
Constantine IX Monomachus 1042-1055
Theodora 1055-1056
Michael VI Stratioticus 1056-1057
Prelude to Comnenian Dynasty
Isaac I Comnenos 1057-1059
Constantine X Ducas 1059-1067
Romanus IV Diogenes 1067-1071
Michale VII Ducas 1071-1078
Nicephorus III Botaniates 1078-1081
Dynasty of the Comneni
Alexius I Comnenos 1081-1118
John II Comnenos 1118-1143
Manuel I Comnenos 1143-1180
Alexius II Comnenos 1180-1183
Andronicus I Comnenos 1183-1185
Dynasty of the Angeli
Isaac II 1185-1195
Alexius III 1195-1203
Isaac II (restored) with Alexius IV 1203-1204
Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus 1204 (Loss of Constantinople 1204
Lascarid Dynasty in Nicea
Theodore I Lascaris 1204-1222
John III Ducas Vatatzes 1222-1254
Theodore II Lascaris 1254-1258
John IV Lascaris 1258-1261
Dynasty of the Palaeologi
Michael VIII Paleologus 1259-1282 (Recapture of Constantinople 1261)
Andronicus II 1282-1343
Michael IX 1293-1320
Andronicus III 1341-1376
John V 1341-1376
John VI Cantancuzenus 1341-1354
Andronicus IV 1376-1379
John V (restored) 1379-1391
John VII 1390
Manuel II 1391-1425
John VIII 1425-1448
Constantine XI Dragases 1449-1453 (Loss of Constantinople 1453)
Michael Alford
>
> Maybe they could, but this is not the first thing that should come
>to mind, now is it? And yet this was the first thing malf mentioned...
>not only this, but he pointed his finger at the NNGS crowd too. It is
>also not the right thing to be insistent upon, is it?
I protest. I DID NOT accuse any NNGS people of anything. The speculation
that a Go player is involved in these attacks came at the end of my post,
not at first. Have you not read either of my posts? Seems not...
malf
Bantari
> >to mind, now is it? And yet this was the first thing malf mentioned...
> >not only this, but he pointed his finger at the NNGS crowd too. It is
> >also not the right thing to be insistent upon, is it?
>
> that a Go player is involved in these attacks came at the end of my post,
> not at first. Have you not read either of my posts? Seems not...
I did read it, malfie, calm down. As I have said already two
times, I do not believe you consciously wanted to accuse anybody. So
there!
And I do not care where you posted the offending lines - at the
beginning or at the end. What does this matter? They *can* be easily
understood as an attack on NNGS or clones, and they *are* the only
stipulation as to the culprits you give.
So somebody *did* understand you in such way.
Just could just say: "Ok, I see that it could have been understood
in such way, I am sorry, this is not what I mean." Instead you try to
defend some imaginary position. :-)
>
> malf
Michael Alford
> As I said - I never believed that you have consciously made any
>accusations. This time, hehe...
>
Then why did you post all the tortuous gibberish that occured above this?
jum...@my-deja.com
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Much discussion, no resolution. To this date: (1) I have NOT been
> specifically informed of what I did wrong
You've certainly been informed of what you did wrong, so please
characterize what you mean by the term "specifically."
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> (2) No time-limit has been given to my punishment of being banned
> from IGS
AFAIK, you've been -PERMANENTLY- banned from IGS, unofficially.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> (3) IGS has yet to address me itself-instead, self-appointed types
> like jumangi seem to have all the answers.
I've been asked to run interference until you can clean yourself
up (wiping away that shit, piss and vomit) so you'll be presentable.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> (4) Until a Bill of Rights for Go Players on the Internet is
> established, ALL OF YOU will be subjetc to the capricious and often
> unfair and inconsistent whims of any administrator on any server.
It's not enough that you want to go tilting at one windmill:
here it seems you want to tilt at all of them! Not feasible.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Until it happens to YOU, you can be complacent and even glib.
> BUT-many here will be the first to howl "unfair" if it is THEIR
> accounts that are meddled with. I am more interested in the welfare
> of the go community as a whole than for myself; yet, this
> persistent silence by IGS administrators about the issues involved
> is troublesome. Here is a forum wherte IGS administrators
> THEMSELVES can speak - why are they reluctant to do so?
No, it's *-YOU-* who are reluctant to make your correspondence
with `tweet' public, with the "`vague threats' that you never made."
So *-YOU-* are delaying that step-by-step process toward truth.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> If what they do to me and others is fair and just, let them explain
> why. How are punishments decided? By whom? One person-a committee?
In this case it was by careful deliberation among a committee.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Is there a debate about the "proper" punishment for given
> "crimes"?
I don't know. No "crime" was committed until you (quite stupidly)
began to make the "`vague threats' that you did not make."
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> Is there a "parole" process? Or is this solitary
> confinement where the offender is "kept in the dark"?
If anyone is in the dark it is the r.g.g. readers, and not you.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> How about some civility here?
True: how about it?
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> We are not talking about what the legal
> obligations are, as much as the human sense of fairness and
> morality. I will continue to be a voice for fairness and reason,
> and will always point out injustices when and wherever they occur.
> Yes-there are many here in this forum who are legal-minded, and who
> only see the letter of the law. They should remember that laws are
> written AFTER many issues of fairness and cooperation have been
> first dealt with emotionally. Even though "the law" now may allow
> server admins to do as they please, public opinion can change that
> law. And I have every confidence that it eventually will.
Public opinion such as yours might just as easily turn IGS into
a paid subscriber service for anybody they choose, particularly
upon those who are members of the AGA (American Go Association).
You said you wanted a molehill instead of a mountain. I'd tend to
agree: apparently whatever you would wish to call a mountain seems
to be merely another irrelevant molehill of your own making.
- regards
- jb
.
===============================================================
http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
------------------------------------------------
http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/walkaway.htm
---------------------------------------------------
The Courage to Walk Away: How to Escape From Cults
The Problem
A great many people are dragged into their religion by their parents
and they are brought up believing in a great many absurdities they
later find impossible to accept. By the time they're able to start
thinking about discarding what they know full well to be a lie, they
have expended a great deal of emotional and financial investments and
are unwilling to admit to themselves that they have made a costly
mistake. Such is human nature.
Another common reason for individuals to fall into the religion trap
is to adopt a religion as a solution to a temporary or fatal crisis.
The death of a loved one, the contemplation of one's own death, the
failing health of self or others -- all often lead the hopeless toward
adopting a deity belief in the futile attempt to cure the problems one
is experiencing -- or at least attempt to explain the why of one's
problems if they are incapable of solution. Here at The Skeptic Tank
we get a great deal of e-mail and paper mail from individuals who are
trying to work up enough courage to ask for assistance in just walking
away. It's a difficult thing to do when an individual has invested his
or her whole life, emotions, and a great deal of money to nothing more
than wishful thinking. It's very difficult to do when one is
frightened of one's own eventual and unavoidable death.
Asking outright for help is also contrary to the indoctrination all
religions engage in to keep members from not only seeking honest,
scientific answers to life's questions, but from asking any such
questions. Asking for help is forbidden under the Authoritarian
fascism of the religion's priesthood -- across all brand names.
Because of this fact of human nature, a lot of the hate-filled,
resentful, very strange mail we get here come from people who are
trying to work up to the point of walking away without asking outright
for help. By making themselves look angry, hurt, and resentful, they
can convince themselves they're being pious. The mere fact that
they're expressing their mock piety in E-Mail indicates a desire for
help.
The Solution
A way is needed for individuals trying to leave their religions to
find the courage they need and the resources which can help them
without having to ask for help or even letting it be known that
they're looking for help. Youths who are dragged to churches by their
parents need logical arguments and scientific facts to explain to
their parents the absurdity of deity beliefs so that they don't get
passed-off as simply "In rebellion."
The Skeptic Tank hopes to provide a Walk Away Package which people can
download when they feel it's time to walk away. No one needs to know.
Individuals may review the materials within and contact the references
and resources provided anonymously and get the help they're looking
for.
How Will This Work?
At the bottom of this document there will be a link to a file called
WALKAWAY.ZIP which, when clicked upon, will send the Walk Away
Package. Since the package will be constantly updated with up-to-date
materials, references, and contact information, the bottom of this
page will indicate the revision number of the Walk Away Package and
the date it was last updated. Comments by people who find the Walk
Away Package helpful are desired (as are comments by atheists) so that
the materials can be updated to best assist those who are still
searching for the courage to Walk Away.
Walk Away Package. Version 2.0. Last Updated: 08/November/1996
WalkAway.TXT Contains many helpful testimonials from people who have
successfully walked away from religions. The hypocrisy,
racism, hatred, and bigotry one starts to see when one starts
to walk away is only part of the healing process. The fact
that many religion's mythologies can't be true is another
primary source of courage one can draw upon to finally walk
away. There are helpful resources for books and organizations
which can help people walk away as well.
Answers.TXT One of the more difficult problems people trying to
escape religions faces is their masters' dictates that all
of the stories in the contemporary versions of their
mythologies are historically accurate. Though all followers
know that their mythologies are fraught with contradiction and
scientific error, their admittance of fraud is placated by the
apologeticists who contrive elaborate and complex falsehoods to
try to convince the must-believer. One such liar is Josh
McDowell -- an uncredentialed apologeticist who has made
himself famous for his ability to lie convincingly to those
who want to believe no matter the cost to their ethics.
This short text provides a sample debunking employing real
bible scholarship and exhibits the difference between honesty
and lying for ones' gods.
GodsWord.ZIP A highly useful and detailed document which covers
the scientific errors and many contradictions in the classical
Christian mythologies. This exhaustive work would be quite
helpful for anyone who wants archeological and anthropological
evidence which negates entirely the accuracy of the Christian
bible.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank
=============================================================
"Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About The Christian Faith"
By Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
[NOTE: The following review appeared in the July/August
1982 issue of The American Rationalist.
I am puzzled by this book. Is it a sincere work, faulted by the fact
that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, with McDowell showing
only a little knowledge? The other possibility is that the work is a
knowingly devious, lying production, of the "anything for the greater
glory of God" variety. In either case, anyone with more than a
rudimentary knowledge of logic, reasoning, history, science, and the
Bible can make mincemeat of this book. It is full of half-truths,
faulty and incomplete research, logical non-sequitors, faulty reasoning
and outright misinterpretation of history and science.
I suppose that some examples are needed. The very first answer betrays
the shallow thinking of the authors. The question is "What makes the
Bible so special?" In other words, why treat it with any special
respect? The answer is that 1) the Bible claims to be God's word, 2)
We have proof of this because, first the Bible says its God's word,
and, second, because there is a unity to the Bible which could not
occur among its 40 authors and 1,000 year period of composition unless
God were supervising it.
In reply, we can point out, first, the _fact_ that something claims to
be something is absolutely nothing in the way of proof of that claim.
Secondly, the Bible is not a unity. There are many places which
contradict each other. Thirdly, any appearance of unity comes from the
fact that _men_ selected which books should be included in the canon of
the Old Testament, and New Testament. They left out as "uninspired" all
of those books which contradicted the majority of other books. In other
words, the Bible was edited by men to make it _appear_ to have a unity.
Why doesn't McDowell read some of the books which were left out of the
Old and New Testament, to see if _they_ also appear to give unity.
Those left-out books appear in the Apocrypha and Pseudo-epigrapha of
the Bible. They are available in any large library.
There are errors in almost every question's answer. The date of Luke's
composition is erroneously stated to be before Acts, and it is placed
at about 50-60 A.D. This is a good forty years too early, and it was
not written before Acts. The statement is made in the same answer that
"The life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses or people who recorded
firsthand testimony."
The first of these statements is absolutely false.
1) There is not one single part of the N.T. which was
written about Jesus by an eyewitness.
2) The earliest part of the N.T. is the Epistles of
Paul, written about 60 A.D. Paul never saw Jesus
while he was alive.
3) We have no idea who Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
were, except that they were _not_ disciples of Jesus'.
4) No one can prove that there is any firsthand testimony
either. Testimony which is told to one person by
another becomes _secondhand_ testimony by definition.
The false statement is made that Matthew was an
eyewitness (p 10), although not a scrap of evidence
is offered to back up this statement.
This book is also a giant step backwards in biblical scholarship.
Most of the knowledge gained during the past 100 years is dismissed as
erroneous. The existence of the "Q" document, the idea that Moses could
not have written the Pentateuch, the dates of the N.T., the passage in
Josephus (now almost unanimously agreed to be a forgery about Jesus),
etc. are all dismissed as errors, or held to be genuine, _whichever is
the direct opposite of scholarly opinion_.
The answer to the question about whether Jesus was an historical person
zor not is a masterpiece of lies, half-truths and outright errors. I
don't think I have ever seen so much deception packed into two pages.
The Josephus forgery is accepted as genuine, with the nonsensical
statement that even if it isn't genuine, it still refers to Jesus as
historical. Damn it, if the passage is a forgery, then _anything_ it
says about Jesus is worthless!
I guess that fundamentalists have _no_ brains at all. The skimpy
(probably forged) references in three other non-biblical writings (which
are usually used as evidence that Jesus was _not_ historical) are
presented as ample evidence that he _was_ historical. What a travesty
of scholarship! The only sources that McDowell quotes at the end of
his chapters are mostly worthless fundamentalist works, including his
own Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
I could go on and on, but the task is both boring and unprofitable.
There is only one chapter in the book which is at all reasonable.
That is the one on the Shroud of Turin. Although a weak case is
presented _against_ the authenticity of the Shroud (a much stronger
one could be presented if McDowell were familiar with the literature
on the subject), at least he seems to be on the _same_ side as the
evidence this time. When Christians have to stoop to lying, deception
and outright ignorance of the sources to present their case, they are
only fooling the fools.
The more intelligent among the readers are only driven further away
from this "pack of lies" that calls itself a religion.
Gordon Stein, Ph.D.
Copyright> © 1995 Internet Infidels
Electronic Reproduction Permission.
http://freethought.tamu.edu/criticism/mcdowell/answers.html
Answers to Tough Questions
=============================================================
http://www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/04/04/wallace/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Foster Wallace: Ain't McCain grand?
A postmodern literary lion slobbers all over the former candidate in
Rolling Stone.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Bill Wyman
April 4, 2000 | The writer 1 in the magazine 2 said the candidate 3
was a hero 4.
I don't really know. I was wasn't there and someone of my age, 39,
grew up precisely at that time 5 when we began to actually question
the motives, the actions, the deeds and the (in sum) point of the
oh-so-sacred activities -- the songs, the protests, the sit-ins, the
riots, man -- of the 1960s; and I even went to Berkeley where you were
indoctrinated into the utter righteousness of the guys who were on the
very real front lines of a battle with cops and sometimes worse
(National Guard troops!) with shields and bayonets and tear gas and
actual guns 6; but I seem to remember that amid all the protest over,
the clamor about, the hatred for the war one thing that a lot of
people felt strongly about (beyond the dislike of Nixon, or Johnson,
the debate of whether or not there were dominos dropping in Southeast
Asia, whether the protests at home might be the catalyst for something
bigger, something new, politically, that might change everything and
really, for the first time, put power into the hand of the people) was
the feeling, again I would think felt by just about everyone against
the war, that amid their comforts, their stability, the opportunities
open to them to do whatever they wanted, be what they wanted, in the
most luxurious place in the most luxurious country in the most
luxurious time in the history of the world, that there was something
somehow off in the fact there was concurrently going on the
expenditure of extraordinary sums, vast sums, lots of money, on steel,
on rubber, on circuitry, on computers, on radar, fuel dials, switches,
rotors, cams, pistons, stabilizers, all sorts of complicated stuff
like that, all in the service of "delivery" -- as the word of the time
went, as some Pentagon apparatchik might have put it -- of bombs up
the asses of Vietnamese civilians.
You could oppose the Vietnam War for a lot of reasons, in other words,
but it's hard to imagine that anyone didn't feel a little bit sorry
for the sons of bitches on the ground up whose asses this grand old
American armament was going -- the city folk and the villagers, the
farmers and shop workers, the old and the young, the married and the
unmarried, it didn't matter -- those who, think of the worst, those
most fucked-over by American society and then multiply it
one-hundred-fold in this backward place, maybe, at the worse, were
living in filth, raising their kids in filth, a subsistence existence
in a Third World country, caught (from our perspective at least) by
the grip of social and geopolitical forces they probably had no
inkling of, much less considered with any thoroughness.
And if like me you basically believe that people everywhere always are
and have been the same, that the human psyche, crafted and evolved
over millions of years, just isn't going to change much over a few
millennia -- that you can get an insight into the behavior in Rome,
into the Han Dynasty, the Golden Horde, the Jews, the Muslims, the
Germans -- if you basically think of them as Americans: dumb
Southerners, arrogant Northeasterners, vacuous Angelenos, whatever,
most of them selfish, greedy, solipsistic by nature despite occasional
internal urges and less frequent external and acted-upon ones toward
fairness or equality or unselfishness; if, in other words, you figure
that your typical Vietnamese crowd could be just as ugly in its
xenophobia, nationalistic urges and its ability to be led into less
than honorable behavior by demagogues as any American -- you can turn
it around and put yourself in their shoes and you really, in the end,
can't really blame the individual participants in a crowd in that
country and at that time for feeling, against whatever best instincts
they might have been possessed of, nothing really magnanimous toward
(you wouldn't, that is, have expected them to roll out the red carpet
or have a testimonial dinner for, invite into their house or introduce
to their daughters, say) the guy who'd just been trying to stick a
bomb up the asses of them and their kids, even if the guy in question
had a devil-may-care grin, was known for being something of a hellion
and quite a ladies man to boot, indeed, to the point of being not
really straight arrow enough to have followed in the footsteps of his
dad and grandpop and made anything close to admiral but kinda likeable
just the same, not to mention the fact that he'd taken the effort and
the time and the consideration of sailing and flying the 12,000 miles
or so necessary across the Pacific Ocean to do so, even if, in the
event, he'd been hit by anti-aircraft fire, been ejected from his
plane, breaking a few limbs in the process, and fallen into a lake and
been captured.
So when the writer talks up how the candidate was, how he followed a
"Code" and didn't accept an early release from his five years as a POW
because of adherence to this "Code," and thereby should be supported
by "Young People" for president, you don't think, Wow, what a great
and principled writer, standing up for heroism and "The Code," you
don't think that at all, you think, instead, it seems weird, this many
years on, to sort of morally erase the situation of the Vietnamese
from the theory, and to sort of forget what remains one of the few
generally conceded ideas of the war, that just about everyone got a
bit fucked in the pursuit of it, as befitting something with such
suspicious origins; twisted, surreal operations; leavings that still
catch one or another of us in moral flypaper to this day; and the
ability still to put into sharp relief the odd concept, like, if I may
cite just one example, "The Code" the writer talks about, which seems
something puny in this context; aren't those odd little fillips of
military procedure designed mostly to occupy the mind of the poor saps
out there doing the shooting, giving them odd, quirky abstract
concepts to bite into in their unholy position? Because, for instance,
given the future candidate's injuries -- three broken limbs and a
knife wound in the groin, all untreated medically -- it's hard to
believe that "The Code" actually applied to him; I mean, is that how
it worked, really, that if there are five POWs together, then the
earliest captured has to be released first, even if one is injured,
with three medically untreated broken limbs and a knife wound in the
groin? And also, how do you refuse to let someone release you from POW
camp? What if they just toss you out the door? Do you come back in?
It's not so much that the writer has to agree with any of this -- he's
a famous writer and he can write anything he wants, whatever he
believes whatever he feels as an artist he needs to say -- but what he
actually does say raises all these questions and he never seems to
notice or care or ponder them himself. I don't know why he doesn't. It
could be that he hasn't thought about it. It could be that it was
inconvenient for his argument and he wanted to avoid it. It could be
that he'd thought about it but had a ready rhetorical response,
something that would simply demolish everything a cynic might say, but
just didn't want to muddy the issue, didn't want to go through a long
and ornate and possibly cruel refutation of the feelings of anyone who
would think that, so why bother? It could have been any of those
things but I think it was something else. 7 But first a step back. The
writer isn't alone -- everyone thinks the candidate's a hero, no one
talks about the Vietnamese up whose asses the candidate was trying to
shove a bomb that night -- but the writer was writing in a special
place, The Magazine, which has an interesting history, having been at
one point a striking repository for interesting journalism, a lot of
interesting political journalism. With a couple of other outlets,
notably the New York Herald Tribune Sunday Magazine, which became New
York, which is kind of a shell now but used to be a central repository
for what came to be called "The New Journalism," the magazine did a
lot of writing like this, nothing more radical and controversial, at
that time, than publishing the work of Hunter S. Thompson, the
political reporter. Hunter S. Thomson -- fuck-up, hellion,
honest-to-god agent provocateur, imp and menace (he was also a liar
and really not liked by many people) -- did two things: Dogged Nixon
through the 1972 elections and Watergate, and then latched on to Jimmy
Carter four years later. His sympathetic coverage in 1976 of someone
who to the then-still-potent grail of the youth vote (this was still
just the third presidential election after 18-year-olds got the vote)
might otherwise had seem a genteel Southern cracker at best may have
played a role both in Carter's capturing the Democratic nomination and
then, a few months later, by a very narrow margin 8, the presidency.
In an issue dated June 3, 1976, the magazine published a cover story:
"Jimmy Carter & the Great Leap of Faith: An Endorsement, with Fear and
Loathing, by Dr. Hunter S. Thompson." The riotous,
25,000-plus-word-long piece, amusing to this day, amid page after page
of Thompson's fencing with Secret Servicemen, with political aides,
with Ted Kennedy, amid casual libels still potent today 9, presents a
powerful portrait of Carter, based, as the author says in a rare burst
both of self-disclosure and seeming honesty 10 on some two years of
personal and professional experience watching the candidate. Thompson
knew delegate counts, electoral history and campaign strategies; he
was a reporter, doing the actual behind-the-scenes work of the beat
man, talking to players, hearing what was up. As a by-product of all
of this, in early 1974, he got wind of the campaign of a Southern
Democratic governor not very well known to the rest of the country,
and followed him for the next two years, culminating in the classic of
political journalism that was called "Jimmy Carter & the Great Leap of
Faith" and had a drawing of Carter with a Confederate flag wrapped
over his shoulder on the cover and was called inside "Third-Rate
Romance, Low-Rent Rendezvous" and was illustrated with a line drawing
of Carter as a Cheshire cat, by all of which I mean to indicate --
this would go without saying to those who grew up reading Thompson,
but would not to those who didn't -- that Thompson in typical fashion
spent a great deal more of the article detailing Carter's faults than
he does, at the end of a very long article, offering up, grudgingly,
the almost careless opinion that he thought Carter might not be a bad
president.
Compared to this, the writer's article is two-day-old beer. (C'mon,
you think, we've read this all before, the haggard, sleep-deprived
journos, the monotony of life on the campaign trail, the hierarchy of
the big-name reporters above the little-known ones, the jovial
camaraderie that nonetheless develops ...) And sometimes the writer
comes off as a bit incredulous, as in one priceless, very long section
in which the writer tells us that the networks news technicians -- the
sound and audio guys -- know more about the campaign, and have a more
sophisticated analysis of the campaign, than the news people 11, this
variation on the old dependable of the common-sense-dispensing cabbie
or barber having gone out with the fedora but in the writer's hands
and in the writer's breathless, long-sentenced style continuing on
here for a couple of columns, all in the service of detailing a
purportedly sophisticated analysis of what the candidate should have
done in South Carolina once his opponent 12 went negative on him,
which "extraordinarily nuanced and sophisticated" assessment on the
part of the tech guys' being: If the candidate goes negative on his
opponent in return, he'll look bad. I'm not a famous author like the
magazine writer but I think a lot of what the news tech guys were
saying they'd heard from the political reporters they follow around
all day.
But basically the writer was writing for dumb people -- yeah, the tech
guys really know what's up, not like those TV people, stupid
journalists! -- and trying to get them to agree with him about how
honest and sincere the candidate is, and how, perhaps, America's Young
People, understandably detached from the current political scene,
might want to give him a chance, and how things have gotten so bad --
yeah, Christ, time was when heroes could just be heroes! -- that you
can't even tell whether to accept the seeming heroism of the candidate
at face value, because he's running for president and in varying
degrees has to use sleazy techniques to forcefully represent himself
as a non-sleazy politician, all to the end of trying to get the Young
People he writes about to vote for the candidate, even speculating
darkly that there are evil forces at work mitigating against just this
eventuality and at one point he even asks a very important, very
portentously phrased question 13, the real answer to which being
something entirely different from the one he envisioned, to wit, that
it's possible that Young People don't vote, don't care about the
process, feel apathetic (if indeed they do, because among many other
journalistic failings of the article there's actually no hard evidence
in it that this is the case), not because evil people don't want them
to vote for the candidate but because they can sense in the mad
homogenization of the media; in the pompousness of famous writers; in
the contempt for their intelligence virtually palpable in an article
that barely mentions the candidate's positions on things like abortion
and gun control among about 5,000 questionable Republican positions on
things affecting the magazine's readers; and in the intellectual
vapidity that deems these issues (which are the things that matter,
right, what the candidate stands for) less important that the image on
which he based his campaign; that they can, in sum, sense in all of
these issues what role in an arguably important event -- a
presidential election -- has been taken by both the magazine and the
writer 14. And one other thing as well 15.
Notes:
1) David Foster Wallace, author of "The Broom of the System,"
"Infinite Jest" and, more recently, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never
Do Again," a collection of journalism, acclaimed ("one of the big
talents of his generation, a writer of virtuosic talents who can
seemingly do anything," as Michiko Kakutani put it in the NYT) and
impossibly scruffy and hip, now the class author of choice for upscale
general-interest magazines, known, perhaps most superficially, for his
involuted, amusing style, with lots of long, breathless sentences,
twisting and turning up hill and down dale where his whirling mind (as
we're supposed to understand) takes him; oddities like funny
grammatical constructions, which constructions are illustrated here in
this phrase; and the turning of conventional reporting on its head by
the use of many devices, most famous among them many lengthy and
discursive footnotes. This article is a parody of that technique, just
as this sentence, with its deflating, post-modernist
self-referentiality, is.
2) Rolling Stone, founded 1967, owned then as now by Jann Wenner,
talent, impresario, genius but now, increasingly, vulgarian,
star-fucking, too-rich pratt, circulation 1.2 million and change, a
signal magazine, perhaps the signal American magazine of the mid part
of the second half of the 20th century, having hitched its cart to pop
culture's wild ride during this time, and producing, along the way,
arguably the era's most riotous, honest, scintillating and irreverent
melange of journalism in its widest sense -- profiles, reporting,
criticism, nonsense, most notoriously and justifiably, perhaps, for
the writings of one Hunter S. Thompson, on whom more in a bit.
3) John McCain, born Aug. 29, 1936, Panama Canal Zone, son and
grandson of admirals, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, 1958, member of
U.S. Navy 1958-81, a prisoner of war from 1967-1973, recipient of
Silver Star and Bronze Star among other things, a beer distributor
from 1981 to 1982, married to Cindy McCain, no less than seven kids,
now a senator from Arizona, and recently a candidate, as noted above,
for the Republican presidential nomination and as such the subject of
the magazine article at hand.
4) As the article notes, the then Navy pilot was shot down over Hanoi,
ejected himself from his plane, breaking three limbs in the process,
fell into a lake in a park in the middle of the city, was dragged out
by bystanders and beaten up on top of the injuries he already had,
including being bayoneted in the groin; was imprisoned without medical
care, then offered release (because he was an admiral's son), which
was refused, Wallace writes, because of "The Code" -- something about
prisoners having to be released in the order they were captured.
Because he did this voluntarily, Wallace writes, McCain has "the moral
authority to utter lines about causes beyond self-interest and to
expect us ... to believe he means them. It feels like we know, for a
proven fact, that he's capable of devotion to something other, more,
than his own self interest."
5) The punk era, 1976, say, to 1979 or 80, call it the disco age if
you want but historically punk's attitudinal dyspepsia really did mark
the moment, such that Rolling Stone at the time had a great deal of
trouble, didn't really know how to deal -- were the Ramones a joke?
Nazis? Racists? -- and didn't they -- didn't someone say -- that Rod
Stewart, Peter Townsend, heck even Mick, were just old and in the way
and hey, that's just a little out of line, man, Mick was king of the
world when you were a twinkle in your momma's eye.
6) "James Rector was shot right up there, on the roof on the corner of
Telegraph and Dwight, the helicopters came from that direction,
dropping the gas low over Sproul, it even hit the student hospital!"
7) I will explain what that something else is in a minute. But first,
a step back.
8) 40,828,929 for Carter to 39,148,940 for Ford. The Electoral College
vote was close, too -- 297-240. A switch of a few thousand votes in
just a couple of states would have given the election to Ford.
9) Humphrey -- "Here was this monster, this shameful electrified
corpse -- giggling and raving and flapping his hands at the camera
like he's just been elected president. He looked like three iguanas in
a feeding frenzy." Nixon: "Criminally insane and also president of the
United States for five years."
10) "I have known Carter for more than two years and I have probably
spent more private, human time with him than any other journalist on
the '76 campaign trail."
11) "Leaving aside their coolness and esprit de corps, be advised that
Rolling Stone's [as Wallace calls himself in the article]
single-luckiest journalistic accident this week was his bumbling into
hanging around with these camera and sound guys. This is because
network news techs [I elide here one of those Wallaceian
interpolations, parodied often in this very article] turn out to be
way more acute and sensible political analysts than anybody you'll
read or see on TV."
12) George W. Bush.
13) "These for the most part are not lines of thinking that the
culture we've grown up in has encouraged Young Voters to pursue. Why
do you think that is?"
14) That of a tool.
15) That maybe postmodern writing has come to this, an obsession with
surfaces and a disregard for history to an extent that the past with
its uncomfortable complexities and harrying nature doesn't matter;
that political positions don't matter; and that the historical context
for one's actions doesn't matter either, and since contrarily what
does resonate in a culture so defined is the surface the image the
appearance, perhaps the role of the writer is merely to reflect, even
encourage, even take advantage of, this state of affairs.
salon.com | April 4, 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Bill Wyman is the editor of Salon Arts & Entertainment.
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.
Morgan J
>From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
>> (3) IGS has yet to address me itself-instead, self-appointed types
>> like jumangi seem to have all the answers.
>
>
> I've been asked to run interference until you can clean yourself
> up (wiping away that shit, piss and vomit) so you'll be presentable.
So you're here in an official capacity? Why didn't you say so earlier?
Gotta say, this whole debate is making Bill, IGS and Go look bad, in
that order.
IGS has a lot to learn about firefighting... and covert agents running
interference is not the way...
Morgan
Henric Bergsåker
>
> AFAIK, you've been -PERMANENTLY- banned from IGS, unofficially.
>
Sorry, I´m not following the banning debate on any regular basis,
but last time I was reading it one of the issues seemed to be whether
in fact anybody at all had been permanently banned. The position
of the alleged IGS defenders and maybe even of tweet himself
(my recollection may be wrong) was more or less that only one
person had been banned.
Can you fill me in a little on recent developments? Is it now regarded
as an accepted fact that permanent banning is a normal practice?
Or has the number of bans merely increased from one to two?
best regards,
Henric
jum...@my-deja.com
>> From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> (3) IGS has yet to address me itself-instead, self-appointed types
>>> like jumangi seem to have all the answers.
>
> jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I've been asked to run interference until you can clean yourself
>> up (wiping away that shit, piss and vomit) so you'll be presentable.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
>...you're here in an official capacity? Why didn't you say so earlier?
If by "official capacity" you mean decision-making then no. If you
regard janitors or nurses who juggle bedpans as "officials" then yes.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> Gotta say, this whole debate is making Bill, IGS and Go look bad, in
> that order.
You neglect a mention of Mr. Saltman's exalted position with the AGA.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> IGS has a lot to learn about firefighting... and covert agents
> running interference is not the way...
An interesting analogy -- "firefighting" -- since Mr. Bill Saltman
has chiefly been complaining about getting no attention whatsoever.
Hardly "covert," as several years of documentation on the newsgroup
and - in this case - my own announcement at the earliest appropriate
opportunity, have indicated. Rather than "firefighting" I think a
more accurate characterization here would be sludge waste management.
Mr. Bill Saltman's tale of sorrow-&-woe has been developing over all
of the past few days; it was earlier yesterday when I also stated:
( April 4, 2000 ):
>> From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
>>> Well... ask Jeff how does *he* know all this...
>>> it seems to me that "tweedie" or whichever admin
>>> is responsible in this case took all the time in
>>> the world explaining the details to dear Jeff,
>>> while at the same time it was considered too much
>>> work to write *you* an email with the explanation.
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> It took considerable time, even with an interactive
>> conversation, to disentangle the issues involved,
>> and `tweet' is far too busy to carry on extensive
>> written correspondence with aberrated individuals.
> (responding to blitherings from `Bantari') jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Having difficulty stifling some laughter, since immediately after
>> your phrase "with respect to IGS" you say Tom Hoeber is a "clown."
>> This appears as a crux of the problem regarding what is apparently
>> your mental instablity, as documented by your prolific years of tiny
>> postings to this newsgroup.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> I take it by 'tiny postings' you mean 'postings without 700 lines of
> entirely superfluous garbage tacked on to the end'.
>
> Goddamn thats irritating.
Yes, I find lots of repetitious subject headers rather irritating,
and also 70,000 lines of C-code are even more irritating. I don't
even know why Go-players would prefer to read the newsgroup instead
of playing games of Go.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> But thats not really my point. My point is that I haven't been here
> long. I've lurked on and off for about six months, but I've only
> just stopped. And therefore I have something of an outsiders view.
> I'd like to state something that should be obvious.
>
> Between you, you're dragging the name of Go through the dirt.
Interesting, because Jesus writes only in dirt (John 8:7-8).
Last I checked most of Earth's land-mass consisted of dirt.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> That applies especially to Jumangi and Bantari, for thier train of
> insults ...
And yet you associated my handle with his in the same phrase,
which really hurts.
From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
> ... Grow up. Stop the insults. Play Go.
They're trying to, but must first agree on rules and _komi_.
> -- (regarding the case of Mr. Bill Saltman) -- jumangi writes:
>> AFAIK, you've been -PERMANENTLY- banned from IGS, unofficially.
From: Henric Bergsåker <ekj...@tninet.se>
> Sorry, I´m not following the banning debate on any regular basis,
> but last time I was reading it one of the issues seemed to be
> whether in fact anybody at all had been permanently banned. The
> position of the alleged IGS defenders and maybe even of tweet
> himself (my recollection may be wrong) was more or less that only
> one person had been banned.
>
> Can you fill me in a little on recent developments? Is it now
> regarded as an accepted fact that permanent banning is a normal
> practice? Or has the number of bans merely increased from one to two?
Yes, I had two days ago announced the "momentous occasion" news
of a second ban (!!) awarded to Mr. Bill Saltman --
> ( April 3, 2000) -- to Mr. Bill Saltman jumangi writes:
>> ...
>> It seems that after the exchange of heated
>> correspondence you have entered into that
>> twilight-zone domain called "banned" status,
>> so you are the only other individual who shares
>> company with Mr. Erik Van Riper himself! This
>> is a momentous occasion indeed since there
>> are now TWO, and ONLY TWO, "banned" individuals
>> from IGS (defined by non-acceptance of any attempt
>> at apology for IGS reinstatement). You must have
>> pushed the wrong buttons altogether in order to so
>> distinguish yourself in that manner. Should this
>> be congratulatory or shall we shed the required
>> crocodile tears on your behalf? I wish we could
>> all review the correspondence you sent to `tweedie'
>> and since you're in favor of "open, honest
>> disagreements" then I'm fairly certain you shall
>> find no reluctance at publishing to r.g.g. ...
I may have been mistaken about that last "fairly certain" phrase,
since Mr. Saltman appears to be demonstrating "reluctance" at making
his `tweet' correspondence public knowledge, by posting them for our
benefit and edification on this newsgroup, which consists of those
"`vague threats' that were never made" and apparently comprise the
celebrated cause-of-action which led to Mr. Saltman's sputterings.
- regards
- jb
.
=============================================================
http://www.concentric.net/~Jgberg/Research/doc/archenv.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
OpenGo: Architecture of a Go Programming Environment
Jeffrey Greenberg
Last Revision: February 20, 1998
Abstract
The requirements for and the architecture of a programming environment
that facilitates the research and development of a strong Go playing
program are described. The environment has been successfully developed
and is in use.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements *
2. Highest Level Classes *
2.1. Referees and Players *
2.2. User Interfaces and GUIs *
3. The Referee and Players *
3.1. Referee Class *
3.2. Supported Player Classes *
4. Portability Classes *
4.1. Operating System (OS) Portability *
4.2. GUI Portability *
5. Conclusions *
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Top Level Classes *
Figure 2 : Board, Piece, String, and Related Classes *
Figure 3 - Portability Classes *
Table of Authorities
Architecture of a Go Programming Environment
This paper describes the software organization, class hierarchies, of
an environment that facilitates the development of and research in a
program capable of playing the game of Go.
Requirements
The program must be able to communicate with both programs and
people, located locally and remotely.
The program must be able to play a game of go with a person at
superior strength.
The program is to be used as a vehicle for experimenting with
techniques to play go well. Such techniques as machine learning,
genetic programming and other techniques are to be easily
facilitated. This work should not interfere with the rest of the
program, and much effort should be spent to make available
components of one part of the program to another: such things as
game display code, scoring code, go game format code, etc.
It should be capable of running completely automated against other
programs or remote users. This will be done through support of the
Go-Modem protocol, the Internet Go Server protocol (IGS), and the No
Name Go Server protocol (NNGS). The code should be portable to UNIX
AIX, UNIX Solaris, Windows NT and Windows 95.
The code should be extensible to any operating system that supports
threads. The code should be capable of using different user
interfaces or GUIs with little or no work.
Highest Level Classes
To meet these requirements, the program is put together in a way
that operating system dependencies are encapsulated in a set of
generic service classes, such as a Thread class. These operating
system primitives are combined with a set of sized types (signed 8
bit = S8BIT, unsigned 16 bit = U16BIT), instead of the C++ sizeless
native types (short, long, char, int, etc) that help give
portability over the compiler and hardware. Together these provide a
high level of portability.
From these building blocks is built the following high level
abstraction that address the different kinds of player support that
are required:
Figure 1 - Top Level Classes
Referees and Players
The environment is composed of a single Referee object. A Referee
can create players that play each other. The players can be people
playing on the same computer, or players that are remote --
playing via the Internet or via a modem connection. Players can be
a person or a program. To accomplish all these different kinds of
connections, the Referee creates two PlayerProxy classes, each of
which mediates the connections between the actual players,
wherever and whatever they may be. The Referee then monitors the
game and can interrupt it and record it as necessary.
It would be possible to have multiple Referees each with a pair of
Players. For some kinds of experimentation, such as Genetic
Programming, it is beneficial to support multiple, simultaneous
games especially on computers with multiple CPUs as a way to more
efficiently evolve populations. The point being that this
architecture could be easily elaborated to support this.
Both PlayerProxys and the Referee are (subclassed from)
AsyncMsgHandlers, meaning that they can rapidly be posted a
message containing a command or a response, and then, sometime
later, they will run and process that message. This allows for
each player to operate seemingly at the same time. The
AsyncMsgHandler class uses portable thread and semaphore classes
in its implementation.
This design allows adding different kinds of clients as they come
along ... For example, a Player that interfaced with a Java or
Netscape browser plug-in could be added simply. Or a database
client that could look up moves in databases could be added.
User Interfaces and GUIs
The Referee provides a console or GUI interface, depending on the
platform that the program is running on. (Currently only a console
interface is implemented.) The Referee user interface controls which
kind of competitor will play against each other. Each type of
competitor then provides its own interface. Note that Players
are interface specific: there is a console type interface and a GUI
type of interface.
It would be best to de-couple the interface from the Referee as it
is from the Player. This is not yet done.
The Referee and Players
Referee Class
Provides a uniform interface to:
PlayerProxy - Each of these front-ends a player. Any two can play
each other.
GameDisplay - The view of the game from the referee's
perspective.
DataBoard - The state of the game and board.
The referee has a display for the state of the connection between the
two players, while the game board itself and the move history is
displayed separately by the GameDisplay class.
The Referee class creates and uses PlayerProxy classes, and
encapsulates the DataBoard and GameDisplay classes. There are only two
PlayerProxys at any one time, one for each opponent. For the
convenience of the Players, a read-only instance of the DataBoard,
which contains the rules and state of the game, is made available to
them. Each may make a copy of the DataBoard for their particular
purpose. In this way, a formal division is made between the rules and
procedure of the game, and the strategic and tactical knowledge
developed in the computer opponent to win.
PlayerProxy Class
This class is the base-class of all players. Each player is
assumed to be operating asynchronously from each other; this is
the general case. A player on the Internet playing someone
linked via a modem. Each player is operating independent of the
other. The actions of each player are transmitted via the common
functions of the PlayerProxy class to the Referee class. In this
way, different kinds of players can be implemented and can all
play against each other as a measure of each opponent's
progress. This class provides a uniform interface between the
Referee and a particular player.
GameDisplay
This is an abstract representation of a displayable board that
represents the referees view of the game including the history
of moves and current status.
DataBoard
The DataBoard provides enough basic information to play and
track the state of the game. The referee uses it to do
its job. All the information necessary to obey the rules
of the game including setting the board size, detecting and
preventing Ko, allowing or preventing suicide, removing killed
stones, scoring a game, and determining when the score is final
(game over) are stored in the DataBoard and in the classes it
uses. The DataBoard provides the means to add, examine, remove
and takeback pieces from the board.
Super Ko checking is provided via a hashing scheme.
Fully Enclosed areas are detected. Ponuki's are detected
and used to estimate controlled space. No influence function is
provided. The DataBoard can detect if the game is over by
determining that all the board space is occupied or contained by
ponuki. This means that the game must be played out to the very
end, if such automatic game scoring is to be used. Humans will
not stand for it, but for some computer go algorithms, this is
sufficient.
A copy of the board is available to players as a way for them to
work the game.
Figure 2 : Board, Piece, String, and Related Classes
The board and the related important classes are noted below.
BoardCell
A board is composed of an array of BoardCells. The non-empty
ones point to the GoStrings which contain them. A BoardCell
also contains a Piece, which contains the color of the cell
and its location. Thus the Piece can locate the BoardCell
it is in and vica-versa.
GoStrings
Are a collection of contiguous BoardCells. The GoString can
report the number of stones in it, the number of liberties
around those stones. GoStrings can be used to store lists of
liberties as well. GoStrings suport invisible marks on the
board to faciliate liberty counting and other operations.
GoStrings can be added to GoStrings as is the case when they
are joined.
GoStringCollections
There are collections of white and black GoStrings. GoStrings
can be added or removed from a GoStringCollection. These
collections can be used to store related GoStrings, such as
armies or blocks. They can report the number of strings in
them and the total liberties of the collection. GoStrings can
remove dead GoStrings in it..
HistoryElement
Each move and pieces killed by the move are stored here. This
is used by the DataBoard to support taking back a move.
History
A collection of HistoryElements comprising the moves of the
game in order. This is used by the DataBoard to support
recording the entire game and in taking back moves. In
addition, this can be used to support pushing and popping
moves when searching.
Enclosure
A contiguous chain of empty BoardCells. Includes information
about the enclosing GoStrings. In other words liberties and
potential eyes.
Enclosures
Each Enclosure is stored here.
Supported Player Classes
Each of these is a (subclass of) PlayerProxy class. The
PlayerProxy class provides a uniform, asynchronous, message based,
callback interface between a player and the referee.
Players are specialized versions (subclasses) of a PlayerProxy.
Each player implements a different kind of Go opponent. Some are
merely interfaces to the human player at the computer, others
might interface to people playing over the Internet or by modem,
and others might interface to a local or remote computer opponent.
Computer Go Prototype: Circlet.
This encapsulates the computer Go program that is the heart of
the project. The results of this class are detailed in
[Greenberg 97].
Human: Console Interface
This is a command-line style interface. It is completely
scrolling, lacking even a UNIX "curses" style interface. A
"curses" style interface could be implemented in a similar
class.
Modem: Go Modem Protocol
This protocol is commonly implemented by Go programs and is used
in Go program competitions. The standard is publicly available.
[Ref].
Wally Public Domain Go Program
This is an interface to the public domain Go playing program,
Wally. Wally plays very poorly but better than randomly. [Ref]
Human: Windows Interface(*)
This is a Microsoft Foundation Class (MFC) based Windows
interface for playing Go. ((This is planned - not implemented
yet))
Random
Plays randomly. The Referee rejects all illegal moves. Thus if
Random makes a bad move, it is rejected by the Referee and then
solicited to make another move. After a fixed consecutive number
of failed attempts, it passes.
IGS/Internet Go Server and the No Name Go Server (*)
These are two related interfaces for playing Go on the Internet.
Both humans and programs can play here with players world-wide,
their scores maintained, and rankings made available. ((This is
planned - not implemented yet))
Go Database(*)
This player compares incoming moves with and takes responses from a
database of games. The following game formats are supported:
ISHI
Smart Go Format (SGF) [Muller]
(etc.)
Portability Classes
There are classes providing portability across various operating
systems. The system is currently runs on Sun Solaris, UNIX AIX, and
Windows NT. Classes have not yet been provided to abstract the GUI,
yet.
Figure 3 - Portability Classes
Operating System (OS) Portability
These are classes that provide an abstract OS capability. For a
given operating system, there is a particular implementation of
these classes that provide the concrete capability. For example,
there is an abstract Modem class that applications can use, and
for Windows NT an NT_Modem class that implements the interface.
The abstract classes are described below.
The build environment and makefiles control the operating system
target, compiling the concrete classes that are specific to a
given operating system.
This approach assumes that the number of such targets, and thus
class implementation, is small.
AsyncMsgHandler Pattern
This operating system pattern provides a kind of messaging
interface. The application can post a command to another thread
of execution and continue on its way. Meanwhile, a separate
thread will receive the command via a callback and handle it.
This operation is portably provided across operating systems.
The pattern is built on other abstract classes that follow.
Sized, Base Types
These are set of sized types that provide hardware level
characterization of memory in terms of sized types: signed 8
bit, unsigned 16 bit, etc.
Standard Template (STL) and Standard C Library
These are a standard ANSI set of container classes, algorithms,
iterators, file access capabilities, math functions and other
primitives.
Abstract Thread and Synchronization Classes
An OS independent thread class is provided. Synchronization of
the threads and control over sharing of resources is provided
through abstract Semapahore, Mutex, and Trigger classes
(OSThread, OSSemaphore, OSMutex, OSTrigger).
Abstract Modem, Abstract Go Modem Protocol
These classes provide a standardized modem interface and Go Modem
Protocol that runs over a modem. The Go Modem Protocol allows go
programs and go players to compete over phone lines.
GUI Portability
GUI portability will be provided by these means:
Assume simple dialog functions can be called to present and set
related data. These interfaces look procedural, while a given
dialog box is event driven.
Some Display Classes will be re-written for a given GUI and
controlled as part of the build environment.
Consolidation of different kinds of IO into different IOSTREAMS.
In a windowing implementation, these streams can be associated
with a particular window.
Further abstractions of windows or specific controls has not been done
in this implementation.
Much work remains to be done here, or a 3rd party solution adopted.
The current implementation is not windows based.
Conclusions
This architecture was implemented and runs on AIX 4.1, Solaris 2.x,
Window NT. It successfully provides an environment for Go programming
development and exploration primarily through the ability to quickly
add different sorts of opponents to serve as a baseline for measuring
progress.
It successfully encapsulates interfaces to all the current Go game
playing interfaces, local or remote, human or program, GUI or not.
Bantari
> >accusations. This time, hehe...
> >
>
>
never meant to hurt your feelings, malfie. I was just pointing
out the fact that your words really sounded like you would make an
accusation. Sort-of like giving you a hint. But then you went off
denying that you could possibly be understood such ways, and we got into
each others' hair.
Plus - most of my "tortuous (?) gibberish" was directed at others,
not at you, even if you were the subject. :-)
bill saltman
jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> >>> (3) IGS has yet to address me itself-instead, self-appointed types
> >>> like jumangi seem to have all the answers.
> >
> > jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> I've been asked to run interference until you can clean yourself
> >> up (wiping away that shit, piss and vomit) so you'll be presentable.
>
+++The diplomacy in this last remark shows the true intention of the
writer; i.e., to insult and belittle the other side, while avoiding the
true issues. Other writers have complained of this too, Jeff, and I will no
longer participate in a dialogue with you under these conditions. BTW, I
have now emailed you twice the complete transcripts of all correspondence
between tweet and me that led up to this mess, and you can feel free to
post them on RGG if you wish. But do not say that I have NOT made them
available-they were sent to you at your request. Under seperate cover, I
have again asked tweet for ways to resolve this mountain out of a molehill
fiasco, and await his-not your-reply.+++
jum...@my-deja.com
>> From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
>>> (3) IGS has yet to address me itself-instead, self-appointed
>>> types like jumangi seem to have all the answers.
>
> jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I've been asked to run interference until you can clean yourself
>> up (wiping away that shit, piss and vomit) so you'll be presentable.
From: bill saltman <bsal...@rcn.com>
> +++ The diplomacy in this last remark shows the true intention of
> the writer; i.e., to insult and belittle the other side, while
> avoiding the true issues. Other writers have complained of this
> too, Jeff, and I will no longer participate in a dialogue with you
> under these conditions. BTW, I have now emailed you twice the
> complete transcripts of all correspondence between tweet and me
> that led up to this mess, and you can feel free to post them on RGG
> if you wish. But do not say that I have NOT made them
> available-they were sent to you at your request. Under seperate
> cover, I have again asked tweet for ways to resolve this mountain
> out of a molehill fiasco, and await his-not your-reply. +++
I'm quite well aware of the "true issues" because I make a practice
of careful review from what everyone presents to the newsgroup when
these sorts of threads start heating up. I don't always agree with
`tweet' and I'm uncertain of the reasons "why" you became summarily
banned, nor have I registered an opinion on the matter of whether the
action banning you was just or unjust. I can say, however, than when
you preface remarks with phrases such as "self-appointed types like.."
then diplomacy has already broken down from your end, and predisposes
me unfavorably to your situation. Nevertheless, even in such extreme
cases, I do not allow my predispositions to affect objectivity in the
matter. If I discover that `tweet' has acted unfairly then I will be
your advocate in asking for re-instatement, yet owing to a difficulty
at collecting the relevant evidentiary materials for review, your case
has already run the risk of becoming somewhat tiresome, and not merely
for me but also for those having any patience to be following progress
of your travails on this newsgroup thread. A fact that "other writers"
may find it difficult to stretch their boundaries of perception beyond
their solipsistic modalities registers very little weight with me, and
instead strikes me as some twisting of their paradoxical arguments to
be asking for "free speech" on that privately-owned corporate server
while not respecting it on this newsgroup. I would not be alone here
in concluding that if your choice is not to participate in any further
dialogue, that by itself could further predispose your case even more
unfavorably than it already is, and would render negative assessment
upon your future opportunity to make atonement. Withdrawal from the
interactive public forum of discourse is thereby inadvisable for you.
Since I have a "spam-blocker" at jum...@my-deja.com, your email did
not arrive, but I have now added you to my address-book. If you wish
to try again, please forward all of the correspondence with `tweet' if
not posting it here to the newsgroup. This time all should arrive ok.
Bear in mind also that it may typically be the pattern on the Internet
to prefer one mountain over many molehills since the mountain provides
an allegory to your long-sought coherence, cohesion, and consistency.
I would hazard that a source for those difficulties may stem from your
significant inability at diplomatic skills and diplomacy itself, so do
not regard your present characterization of "diplomacy" very accurate.
-------------------------
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> No, IGS gives people the privalege of using the service as long
>> as those people follow the rules. They state the rules in a simple
>> form. If you cannot parse those rules then you are just stupid. I
>> read the rules and they were perfectly clear to me. No cussing,
>> no escaping and no lying.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Ok. These are the rules, clear. So please tell me - why are
> people banned for what they post on RGG? Why are people banned
> for making silly moves in their games? Why are people banned for
> disclosing their off-IGS ranks?
Nobody has been banned for posts on r.g.g., nor for making silly
moves in games, nor for disclosing off-IGS ranks. Though several
may have been temporarily -booted- for SUBSEQUENT discourtesies that
might have stemmed from misbehavior on IGS, they were allowed back
onto IGS once agreeing to its terms of access. Only two individuals
are in "banned" status, and of those two only one (Mr. Erik VanRiper)
has received significant discussion and documentation. I have been
attempting to collect information with regards to the second banned
individual (Mr. Bill Saltman), though such attempts may have seemed
to become as difficult as pulling teeth. It seems that Mr. Saltman
does not yet realize that if he really has the case to present then
this forum can serve a jury-function in helping him present a case.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Why are people banned for working on other servers? And please do
> not tell me its the "promoting" clause. Bah.
They aren't "banned" for working on other (clone) servers, but while
they choose to work on other (clone) servers, they are in violation of
those clauses of the July 1995 stipulation posted to r.g.g. which are
prohibiting -access- to IGS for those individuals who work on other
(clone) servers. By their own free will they may choose self-absention
from an IGS community, and so we have quite a number of high integrity
individuals with the honesty to abide by terms of that understanding.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> And also tell me - why are people banned without explanation? Is
> this what you would do if you were IGS admin? If not - what does
> it tell you about the admins?
Nobody has been "banned without explanation." In fact my activity
here has been an effort to obtain the explanations from that holder of
copyright over those relevant literary materials still under scrutiny.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> What I would want is for it to be a mechanism there that would force
> the Go servers to have clear rules and to abide by them. As I have
> already said - IGS' rules are nothing close to clear. Or, maybe,
> more precisely - the rules are clear, but their application by the
> IGS administration is often fuzzy. Why?
In previous discussions over the intricacies of robotic etiquette
it has simply boiled down to the fact that there is still no machine
program available that could arbitrate "best moves" in a Game of Go.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> If he was a real man he'd build his own
>> server and do it the way he thinks is best.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> This is exactly what Eric did, and he was declared "enemy #1" for
> this on IGS. By the same token you could say - if tweet was a real
> man, he would not feel so thretened by a mere mentioning of another
> server.
Erik was not "banned" for building another server, but (or so we
think) for libellous remarks against INET (Korean Corporation) who
was the predecessor to the present PANDA owners of IGS. The details
of Mr. Erik Van Riper's "ban" are contained in that private letter
from INET to Erik, which Erik promised he would publish to r.g.g. as
soon as feasible in the spring of 1995, yet never did so even though
several had reminded him, even requested, that he publish its terms.
In that sense, we have a similar situation w/r/t Mr. Erik Van Riper,
who lurks under that cloud of obscurity while the rest of us struggle
within interminable darkness. To my recollection, manhood was never
at issue with regards to any of the parties, or issues, concerned.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> The fact that he won't post his email to Tweet still makes me
>> think he is hiding something.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> This is an easy way out - you are starting to take cheap shots here.
> It is usually a clear sign that you run out of arguments - as you
> should, seening that you are arguing nonsenese.
>
> What does his email to tweet have to do with anything? Why don't
> you ask tweet to post it... if it can help explain tweet's attitude.
Mr. Saltman had suggested that open dialogue would help his cause.
If Mr. Saltman's letters are unflattering to himself, then `tweet'
would not publish them out of respect and courtesy to Mr. Saltman, not
to mention other obvious problems stemming from a holder's copyright.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Unfortunately, every time the issue of IGS' shortcommings is
> mentioned (and you would be a fool to assume that IGS has no
> shortcommings), there are people who refuse to discuss it and start
> "flaming". In the eyes of many of the readers I might be seen as
> one of them, at the same level as Hoeber, jumangi, and others.
> It shames me, but I guess this cannot be helped. The alternative
> is to do nothing and watch the problems grow.
Having squandered your opportunity to identify the specific
problems you claim exist, instead you basically engaged with a
non-productive activity, which is what this "flame" is all about.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Unfortunately, my temper runs high sometimes. This cannot be helped
> either, I guess, with people like jumangi around. I can see that
> even *you* are close to losing your temper over what he says.
Unlike you I do not regard "temper" as an excuse for misbehavior.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Unfortunately, as I have said in another post, every time IGS
> problems are mentioned, out jupm people like Hoeber and Jeff, and
> off we go to a merry dance of obscuring the issue.
> As it is happening now.
Nobody compelled you to post unproductively without offering any
mention of the specific problems you say repeatedly seem to exist.
- regards
- jb
.
=============================================================
EXCUSE ME, IS THAT A MONITOR ON YOUR HEAD?
Xybernaut and Microvision plan a wearable PC with see-through
virtual display. http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/pcwtoday?ID=15972
There's a UK website offering free internet tanning, from the monitor!
check out http://www.bodybronzing.co.uk for details.
============================================================
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35424,00.html?tw=wn20000405
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley to Bill Joy: 'Zzzzzzz'
by Lakshmi Chaudhry
3:00 a.m. Apr. 5, 2000 PDT
The bells are tolling for the cyberchurch, but the parishioners
remain unfazed.
Sun Microsystems' co-founder Bill Joy warns our exaltation of
technology reveals a fundamental "bug in scientific thinking" that
prioritizes progress even at the risk of extinction. The problem, he
says, is not with technology but our attitude toward it.
Silicon Valley is not impressed.
The information revolution of the 90s brought with it a giddy
exuberance about technology, dispelling gloomy fears about nuclear
extinction. But when Dolly the sheep burst onto the scene, old
anxieties about technology began to resurface.
From genetically modified foods to human cloning, there have been
intense public debates over the dangers of scientific progress in
recent years. But the resistance mostly surfaced outside the
technology industry. Then came Joy's now-famous epistle in Wired
magazine warning of the possibility of technological doom.
While the article written by Sun's chief scientist created an
instant media buzz, the reaction from Silicon Valley has remained
skeptical.
"There has not been a broad outpouring of concern within the
industry," Joy said this week. "Ordinary people seem more able to
get the point."
Wired magazine writer Erik Davis says people working within the
Silicon Valley beltway have a deeper stake in the value of
technology.
"The basic tenor is this highly intense emotional relationship that
expresses itself in giddy exuberance," he said. "It's very Star
Trek."
But he says the public at large is becoming increasingly anxious
about technological change.
"There is a sense at a very visceral level that things are getting
rapidly out of control," Davis said. "And now someone's been able to
articulate that sense of unease."
Scientific advances seem to be occurring at a dizzying rate, making
yesterday's science fiction look like tomorrow's reality. While this
is cause for celebration amongst the scientific community, it's also
provoking a social backlash.
"People are afraid precisely because there are no hurdles anymore,"
Davis said. "When you broaden the horizon far enough, there comes a
point when what we know and what we can control drops away. This is
very much about losing control."
Joy, however, is more worried about what he perceives as a refusal
to take control of technology. He says scientists are taking a
passive attitude toward technology, abdicating their moral
responsibility to make responsible choices.
"There is this fatalism," he said. "Like it's all going to happen
anyway, and we can't do anything about it."
Robotics guru Hans Moravec, who foresees the gradual transformation
of human beings into robotic lifeforms, says Joy's call to
relinquish certain technologies is futile.
"We will turn into robots. It's both inevitable and desirable," he
said.
Moravec views this transformation as a natural part of the
evolutionary process.
"It's bigger than we are. We are merely components within it."
Joy says it's dangerous to treat technology as a power outside of
our control.
"We don't have to make our moral choices subject to Darwinism.
That's what makes us human," he said.
Many members of the scientific community view his call to stop
scientific research as unrealistic and irresponsible.
"Relinquishment is not possible and foolish, if you consider the
possibility of other countries developing the technology,"
nanotechnology expert Ralph Merkle said.
But Joy argues the scientific pursuit of truth must be tempered by
considerations about the human cost of progress.
"Truth cannot be an ethical goal in itself," he said. "It's like
Ethics 101 never happened. We want to pursue truth at any cost."
Joy says we seem to have regressed in the name of scientific
progress.
"It's like we're going backwards," he said. "We've substituted
science as God."
His peers point out that many of Joy's fears have been articulated
by other scientists before.
"All these issues about (artificial intelligence) and genetic
engineering were discussed in the early 90s," said genetic
programming professor John Koza. "When the (Human) Genome Project
started, scientists were very concerned about the dangers of
cloning."
Theologian Jennifer Cobb says while the academic community does
weigh broader ethical considerations, Silicon Valley has a more
narrow point of view.
"It's much more about building a company that can go IPO as fast as
possible," she said, noting a Gold Rush mentality that produces a
very short-term view of the world.
And for the first time, cutting-edge research is taking place within
corporations rather than research labs. Many of the technological
advances are therefore being driven by the potential for profit
rather than lofty issues like ethics, Cobb said.
Critics point out that the marketplace has yet to drive humanity to
extinction.
"The existing market structure has worked pretty well so far, and
hasn't led to any major concerns," Merkle said. "It seems premature
to walk away from it."
Whatever the scientific merits of Joy's arguments, it seems unlikely
that the reception from Silicon Valley will warm up.
"I've worked in this industry for 20 years and am probably too
cynical," Cobb said. "But he is a real exception in the industry."
Joy himself is pessimistic about the chances for a radical change in
attitude.
"Only thing in our favor is that this is in the future," he said.
"But then we're not very good about reacting to something that
hasn't happened yet."
Copyright © 2000 Wired Digital Inc., a Lycos Network site.
All rights reserved.
==========================================================
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35404,00.html?tw=wn20000405
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Research, Meet Napster
by Kristen Philipkoski
3:00 a.m. Apr. 5, 2000 PDT
A researcher working on the Human Genome Project is using Napster
technology, and he's not looking for T3 connections to download
Moby.
Dr. Lincoln Stein, an associate professor of bioinformatics at the
Cold Spring Harbor Lab in New York, is investigating ways to use
Napster-type technology to allow scientists to share their
discoveries of the genome.
"I was very interested when I saw Napster," Stein said. "It has a
similar architecture (to what we use now), but it allows for
'peer-to-peer' data exchange and it dawned on me that it would be
marvelous for our annotation system."
Peer-to-peer data exchange allows users to link directly to each
other's computers to share files using a centralized server system.
The technology has become extremely popular among college students
and other music lovers as an easy way to find and download MP3 files
on the Internet.
But it's extremely controversial. The Recording Industry Association
of America has filed a lawsuit against Napster saying its music
transfer violates copyright laws.
Stein, who was looking for better ways to manage the information
coming out of the HGP, heard about Napster while listening to
National Public Radio one evening. Despite his enthusiasm for the
technology's potential, he's a bit apprehensive about running his
idea by his genomics colleagues.
"I haven't dared to yet. It's so associated with piracy at the
moment I want to wait for the noise to die down," he said.
Napster likes the idea, and said it's also exploring ways to use the
filesharing technology in a wider range of applications, according
to Liz Brooks, a spokeswoman for Napster.
"We love the idea of this technology being used to share essential
scientific discoveries," Brooks said.
Gnutella, a spinoff of Napster, would be an even better match for
exchanging genomics research, Stein said. The Gnutella project,
however, was shut down almost as soon as it was launched last week.
That software was designed to create self-perpetuating networks that
grow independent of the company's server. Users could connect to
other "servant" computers, creating a chain of participating users
–- an architecture that would allow for one-to-one or many-to-many
connections.
"Gnutella works out over multiple servers which replicate the
information -- that's a very exciting technology because what we
have to deal with in the HGP is data that keeps growing," Stein
said. "We now have about 5 terabytes of information and we're only
done with two-thirds of the sequencing. It will grow an order of
magnitude more."
Sequencing the genome is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes
to genomics research. On its own, the human genome map is a jumble
of Cs, As, Gs, and Ts -- letters that represent the sequence of
human genes but don't explain how they function. The map is the
starting point for mining genetic information, but genomics
researchers must work from there to discover drugs and diagnostics
for disease.
The more information researchers can share, the faster these
discoveries will come.
"The larger genome centers have the wherewithal to put up servers to
publish their data electronically," Stein said. "Smaller,
independent biology labs are clients of that and they download the
information."
The smaller labs, however, don't have a mechanism to publish their
own findings electronically. That's where the Napster/Gnutella
technology would come in handy.
But Stein hopes the technology will be used by more than just human
genome researchers.
"My hope is that it would be used by all biologists. I would hope
that even bright high school students would be able to contribute,"
he said.
Companies such as Incyte and Celera charge from thousands to
millions of dollars for their databases containing genomics
information. Whether a Napster-like technology could infringe on
revenue from the sale of such database subscriptions remains to be
seen.
"It comes down to how the companies with genomic information make
money. For companies like Incyte, or partly [for] Celera I think the
answer is yes," said Cyrus Harmon, president of Neomorphic, a
genomics company in Berkeley, California.
Companies looking to patent genes and gene function to generate
profits would probably not be affected, he added.
"I think this is somewhat inevitable -- the information is going to
be out there," Harmon said.
Celera and Incyte declined to comment.
Stein said he'll have to write his own code based on the
Napster/Gnutella basic protocols to enable searches specific to
genomics data.
He said he's negotiating with some companies about developing the
technology but wouldn't mention any names.
Copyright © 2000 Wired Digital Inc., a Lycos Network site.
All rights reserved.
===========================================================
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35409,00.html?tw=wn20000405
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptos Try to Solve Enigma Crime
by Lynn Burke
3:00 a.m. Apr. 5, 2000 PDT
Whoever stole the rare, World War II secret decoder known as the
Abwehr Enigma is going to have a tough time selling it on the online
black market.
That’s what cryptology enthusiasts are saying after the famous
decoding machine used during the war to protect German secret
messages was taken from its home in a glass display case at
Bletchley Park Trust in London on April 1.
"We hope that if the Internet community gets behind it, it will be
impossible to sell the machine on the public market," said Christine
Large, the trust's director.
Because the machine was stolen on April Fool's day, trust officials
say its theft may have been a prank.
"If it was just an April Fool, we hope our Abwehr Enigma turns up
soon," Large said.
But as long as the decoder remains at large, active cryptologists
who revere the analog antique are getting the word of its
disappearance out over the Web, hoping to catch a thief who might
try and sell the item online. Leading the effort is the Crypto
Simulation Group, a small group of cryptologists who specialize in
the Enigma machines.
"In addition to our normal activities in cryptologic research, we
have set up Web pages ... to broadcast to as large a base as
possible the features of this rather unique piece of historical
cipher equipment in the hope that the thieves will be caught in the
act of attempting to dispose of it," said David Hamer, one of the
group's members.
Hamer, a retired historian living in New Jersey and one of the
world's foremost Enigma experts, said it's important to rescue the
machine because it is one of only two of its kind known to still
exist. The other one is housed in the National Cryptologic Museum at
Fort Meade, Maryland.
According to a spokesman at the museum, 200 "G" Enigmas were issued
to the German army high command during World War II for an unknown
"special purpose." But no one seems to know where most of those have
ended up, making the stolen machine all the more valuable.
"This Abwehr Enigma is a close to unique variant," and it's likely
to be worth quite a sum of cash, Hamer said. "Even standard service
Enigmas are rare enough to command prices in the tens of thousands
of dollars," he said.
Since the announcement of the theft, several sites dedicated to
cryptology have added a link to this urgent message about the
machine's theft. Message boards have been frenetic with hundreds of
postings about the machine's theft.
The decoder, which looks like little more than an old-fashioned
typewriter with a counter above the keyboard that resembles a car
odometer, was given to the museum in 1998 by Britain's intelligence
agency, the Government Communications Headquarters.
According to the U.S. National Security Agency, cryptology was key
to the success of the Allies in World War II.
"Information from decrypted Enigma messages (not necessarily the
Abwehr) was used time after time to outmaneuver German forces," said
NSA spokeswoman Judi Emmel.
"Losing this Enigma is a significant loss to the historic record of
World War II cryptology."
Copyright © 2000 Wired Digital Inc., a Lycos Network site.
All rights reserved.
=========================================================
From: Howard Olson <holso...@aol.com>
Subject: New free 1024 bit encryption at Echelon site!
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 10:18 AM
Check it out!
New Kubby Trial May 1st,2000
http://maxpages.com/kubbytrial
The King Assassination Conspiracy
http://maxpages.com/kingconspiracy
New Echelon site with link to FREE 1,024 bit encryption!
http://maxpages.com/echelon
jum...@my-deja.com
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Also, my understanding is that Eric took a lot of the IGS protocol
>> when starting the other server. That would be an offense worth
>> banning someone over. If I am mistaken please enlighten me.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Tweet says he did, Eric says he did not, other people say it does
> not matter since network protocols are public domain by definition
> and so cannot be "stolen".
Erik long ago had already published his admission that he had
utilized the IGS protocols, and temporarily in question was whether
he had directly copied an IGS header file of protocol specifications.
Very soon after that Erik substited his own re-written header files.
As I had said previously, at that time in 1995 the status of protocol
copyrightability remained an open legal question, and as Mr. Dahlgren
and/or others have suggested perhaps there is still the distinction
between network protocols and client/server protocols. I don't know.
> jum...@my-deja.com says...
>> Having difficulty stifling some laughter, since immediately after
>> your phrase "with respect to IGS" you say Tom Hoeber is a "clown."
>> This appears as a crux of the problem regarding what is apparently
>> your mental instablity ...
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> And what does Tom Hoeber have to do with IGS? Why do I have to
> respect one when I respect the other? To me, IGS is a totally
> distinct entity from Tom, as is tweet, and as are you.
Mr. Hoeber currently has a dual status w/r/t IGS, that of being
a player like anyone else and also that of being an advocate for
sanity on this newsgroup whenever conducting balanced inquiries.
The matter of "respect" for IGS deserves elaboration. If hacker
cyberattacks could be more easily traced to their perpetrators then
perhaps that, too, would become another cause for "banning" yet to
date the cases for "banning" have all been traced to human problems
concerning disrespect heaped upon individuals participating in IGS.
So IGS is not simply the software, the network and/or protocols, or
the corporate owners, but a community of players connecting to IGS.
Disrespect for players in that community is thereby disrespect to
that Internet Club also termed the IGS community of players. If
someone were to be disrespectful to the players of most any Go Club,
they too would soon be awarded that coveted "banned" status there.
It's an event which probably occurs quite frequently in worldwide
Go Clubs yet merely does not receive as much officious and obsessive
Internet publicity that an IGS Server Ban seems to receive here.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> What is it - the Trinity? "You offend one, you offend us all"
> kind of attitude?
I haven't always agreed with Tom or Joe (and who's the other guy?)
however my disagreements with a few others on this newsgroup have
dwarfed any opportunity for voicing general disagreements elsewhere.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> For the record - yes, I do respect IGS and I think it is a great
> server, by far the best that I know of.
>
> For the record - no, I do feel the urge to respect Tom Hoeber, nor
> you, nor tweet. You want respect - you earn it.
I think you may have omitted an intented "not" so as to render
sense to your construction which later uses "nor" twice. You have
much to learn about "respect" since there are several kinds, and
many layers involved, some "earned" while others "intrinsic." The
forms of "intrinsic" respect, you'll likely benefit by reviewing.
> jum...@my-deja.com says...
>> you from access to IGS, but rather a number of subsidiary symptoms
>> which may more directly disqualify you -- such as failure, or lack
>> of desire, to abide by the simple terms of that July 1995 IGS access
>> agreement ...
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Ok, jumangi - I bite! Can you tell me, in your "official" capacity
> as tweet's "obfuscator" - which exact part of the agreement did I
> failed to abide by? Or, more specifically, for what have I been
> banned from IGS?
Here's what I had said with regards to the question of
"official capacity." I did -NOT- use the word "obfuscator."
>> From: Morgan J <mor...@netizen.com.au>
>>>...you're here in an official capacity?
>>> Why didn't you say so earlier?
>
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> If by "official capacity" you mean
>> decision-making then no. If you regard
>> janitors or nurses who juggle bedpans
>> as "officials" then yes.
I'll answer your first question if you can rephrase it correctly.
AFAIK, you are not a member of that set of two individuals who
are designated as "banned" but have chosen to stay away from IGS
because you do not wish to comply to its access agreements, as my
earlier remarks (see above) had clearly identified for you already.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> You assume that he was banned for annoying Tweet *without*
>> seeing the mail that was sent. I already covered that point.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Sigh... you just refuse to understand. The problem here is not that
> of "Did tweet have the right o bann him"... The problem is not even
> "Did tweet have good reasons to bann him"... The problem is "How
> can we know what not to do if details like this remain hidden?"
Use common sense. If you don't know what that is then I guess
your mental aberrations render you excessively meshuggah. Sorry.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> And disclosure of the facts should be on tweet, not Bill. Bill
> might well be rightly banned, I dunno... This is not the point
> though. Why do you refuse to understand this point?
As I've mentioned, `tweet' probably doesn't wish to embarass
Bill, but can't prevent Bill from embarassing himself.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> ...
> (I have snipped the rest of your post on purpose here to try to
> make it easier for you to respond to the above specific questions,
> which are the core of my doubt. The specific case of Bill is, in
> this particular respect, immaterial)
You seem to be the only one here claiming that Bill is immaterial.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> There is such thing as action and reaction. The initial
> action/reaction "couple" looks like this, I think:
>
> #1. Bill plays silly moves
> #2. Tweet disables Bill's account, no explanations
No. You're not paying attention! The sequence of events stems
from admins OTHER THAN `tweet' de-registering Bill's account, NOT
disabling it, after THEY had received numerous complaints of Bill's
silly behavior in games with foreign opponents without fluency in
English, many of whom pay for connect-time on pro-rated basis at
their local ISPs. Bill then becomes confused about re-registration
because he neglects to type a "help register" and then follow the
simple procedure #2. Bill disconnects, then creates a new account
from guest access, but decides to get nasty about it and complains
to `tweet' who, in turn, must plough through 100s of emails before
ever reading Bill's letter(s), then in the meantime Bill sends more
email letters, and once `tweet' finally reaches one of Bill's email
letters from his in-basket, `tweet' must then conduct some research
with OTHER admins in regards to undocumented reasons for why Bill
may have been de-registered. In the meantime Bill gets impatient
again and subsequently descends into further vituperation and sends
the "`vague threats' that were never made." Then `tweet' disables
Bill's access and stops further account creation to Bill's address,
and Bill sends a few more "`vague threats' that were never made."
Then `tweet' totally disables connect from Bill's ISP which also
disallows the possibility of any further "guest" access for Bill.
Bill sends more "`vague threats' that were never made" via email.
At the level of `tweet' we are speaking of a "space invaders" and/or
"galaxian" scenario simply with barely enough time to fight off the
intruding hoardes of proliferating hacker attacks upon IGS, without
much time for more than a few hundred email replies any given day.
Once in awhile somebody is going to "fall through the cracks" and
in this case it was Mr. Bill Saltman. Good thing, though, that he
was able to find out something about Mr. Saltman's "true colors."
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> ...
> Tell me - how many IGS users *know* what is the penalty for making
> silly moves in lost positions?
Mr. Bill Saltman, lofty AGA executive, may have been one of the
very *-FIRST-* individuals to have been caught at that practice.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Second, if Bill played his silly moves with the intent of making
>> the other person resign *knowing* that the other person was paying
>> a per minute charge then it is a good reason for disabling his
>> account.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Not knowing if he *knwe* or not, nobody can make such judgement.
> Unless Bill is confronted and asked first, don't you agree? This
> is part of the problems - IGS admins seem to have the tendency to
> choose the strictest possible punishments and make the worst
> possible assumptions.
>
> What if during the game, Bill was called off to the phone in an
> urgent matter or something, and his 3-years old son started
> "playing"? Would this also be a reason for disabling his account?
> Can such decision be made without confronting him first?
Apparently, IGS admins OTHER THAN `tweet' received numerous
complaints OVER A PERIOD OF TIME from Mr. Bill Saltman's opponents
and conducted a DELIBERATIVE INQUIRY into what sort of action they
ought to take, AS A COMMITTEE DECISION, but did not inform `tweet.'
So Bill must have allowed his "3-years old son" to play quite a few
of his games without suspecting in the slightest what had transpired.
Another way of viewing this situation is that Mr. Bill Saltman was
making indirect cries for "help" concerning his bizarre psychological
circumstances, and so he is presently receiving the help he requires.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Should such decision be made without confronting the offender?
In Buddhism, even the "permanent" phenomena are impermanent.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Third, I don't have the game record and I doubt you do either but
>> if he was filling in his teritory with every move and had a,
>> say 5K, rank then it is pretty obvious that he was up to something.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> See above. There is always room for doubt. This is why people
> should not make such judgement lightly. It seems to me that IGS
> admins make such decisions very lightly. Too lightly.
Fortunately they do make their decisions lightly -- too lightly
-- which is why IGS admins are such incomparable _sabaki_ players.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Forth, the admins might have found a series of the same behavour
>> and concluded that he needed to go.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Sure, they could have. But I am sure that tweet reads this thread.
> In the past, each time he could say something in his defense, he
> was quick to say it. Why not now?
>
> Do not get me wrong. Not knowing the specifics of the problem, I
> do not judge tweet's *right* to disable accounts. Not even his
> *reasons* for such actions. All I am judging is his unwillingness
> to provide the IGS users with information which *could* lead to
> avoiding lots of problems in the future.
>
> Is that too much to ask?
A life without risk would be rather boring and uneventful.
>> From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
>>> You are dancing around, but you are careful not to adress
>>> these questions. Why?
>
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> If a 20K plays silly moves it is understood as a weakness. If a
>> 9D starts playing silly move after silly move it is a sign of
>> something else going on.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Ahh... but here you have to define what is a "silly" move? But I
> agree with you - it *is* suspicious, and it *is* irritating. But
> you do not usually take drastic actions on *suspicions*, do you?
It's much easier to identify a "silly" move than a subtle move.
>> From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
>>> So? His reasons are his own. I dunno. It might be that these
>>> emails were exceedingly hostile, or rude. I cannot say. This
>>> does not change the fact that IGS admins could at least tell him
>>> what's going on. And they could tell us all - so we will be able
>>> to avoid the mistakes Bill made and not be banned like he is.
>
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Ahh, thanks for making my point. If the mails, to quote you,
>> "were exceedingly hostile, or rude." it is a fine reason for
>> banning someone.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Ok. But how do *you* know this? How do *I* know this? How does
> *anybody* know this? Was this made public? How am I to know that,
> if I get peeved at something and decided to write a few harsh words
> to tweet, I will be banned from IGS forever, with no recourse??
Why don't you try that and find out? :-)
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> I might think that tweet is ok with vulgarities, since he himself
> was seen shouting them in public chanels on IGS, without any regard
> of possible children watching.
Jujo asked `tweet' to replay remarks from one or more OTHER users
at IGS that had been beamed at Jujo. It seemed the viability of
retaining professional players on IGS depended upon saving face in
this manner, and `tweet' was most reluctant to compromise with that.
Later the perpetrators were nabbed and received their just deserts.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Anyways - I grant you that, tempers run high, tweet is just a human.
> Bill got upset and reacted too strongly. Tweet in turn got upset
> and reacted equally strongly. Now, that both have flexed their
> muscles, shouldn't there be some way to make them "kiss and make up"?
No, `tweet' pretty much has a "don't care" attitude and so one task
is instead to keep him interested in what seems to be the extremely
unlikely event possibility of Mr. Bill Saltman's reinstatement to IGS.
Also, all 12 IGS admins are now involved in that consensus decision
one way or another, i.e. to retain the ban or to keep it in effect.
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Tweet may be just an admin but he deserves the same respect
>> as any other player on IGS.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> I would say that he deserves even more respect than this.
Then what are those conditions where you actually do say it?
> Eric Dahlgren says...
>> Since Bill won't post the mails I am inclined to assume they were
>> offensive. The ball is (and has been) in his court on this.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Ok. Let us assume the emails were offensive. Let us assume that
> the ball is in his court. So - what do you suggest he can do with
> that ball? From what I see here, his train has left the station,
> and there is no turning back. No possibility of appology, or even
> dialogue. And why?
Grist for the mill and more food for the fodder.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> When people run out of arguments, they lower themselves
> to attacking other person's sig lines.
Those who have nothing to say have fatter "sigs" anyway.
- regards
- jb
.
==============================================================
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5822/Poland/poland.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Polish campaign
Explosions of bombs and rattle of anti-aircraft machine guns early in
the morning 1 September 1939 were taken by Varsovians for sounds of
military drills. The war was expected day after day. But nobody
expected that a civilized European nation would start it without a
formal declaration, that it would become a bandit assault.
Polish defence plan can be compared to a curtain hung over a burning
stack. The German invasion had to be countered by the grouping of
several Polish armies deployed alongside frontiers. East Prussian
borders were covered by the Independent Operation Group Narew and Army
Modlin; Pomerania had to be defended by the Army Pomorze; farther to
the south were deployed Armies Poznan and Lódz; the strongest of
Polish armies, Army Kraków was assigned to defence of Silesia and
Carpathian passes together with the weakest one, Army Karpaty.
Furthermore in central Poland, in the quadrangle
Skierniewice-Tomaszow-Kielce-Radom had been formed the reserve Army
Prusy.
An obvious weakness of the Polish grouping was its slightness and
dispersion of divisions along the very long border, what caused the
spread of their operational stripes beyond acceptable limits. Of
course the authors of the defence plan realized the nature of pending
contest. They knew that it would be a manoeuvre campaign, relentless
advance of mechanized troops and defence flexible by necessity. So
they envisaged retreat operations. The Army Kraków had to become an
axis, along which other units had to withdraw beyond Vistula. But this
plan had a major disadvantage: slow, limited in their manoeuvre
abilities to infantrymen legs, Polish armies were shifted too far
westward and exposed to a rapid advance of enemy mechanized troops.
There was also wasted operational potential of the only Polish rapid
force, namely cavalry. The Poles had 38 cavalry regiments equipped
with machine guns and artillery and having a high morale strengthened
by the society's sympathy. Properly used and unbound to roads they
could quickly translocate and surprise enemies. Perhaps they even
could challenge German advanced detachments to pierce shallow infantry
groupings. However they became dispersed among Polish armies and they
had no chance to wage a single fight of a strategic significance.
Polish mobilization plans foresaw calling to arms 30 field infantry
divisions, 9 reserve infantry divisions, 11 cavalry and 2 armoured
brigades, altogether 52 big units. They had to number 1,050,000 men in
the army, 150,000 in reserve and 300,000 in the popular militia;
altogether one and half of million men at arms. The country's human
resources could even provide the army with three or more million
recruits but there were no uniforms, no equipment, no weapon, no
money. So military institutions sent many volunteers back to their
homes. It may be accepted that Polish forces numbered about 1,100,000
men including rear units, many of which after all soon became exposed
to military activities.
German forces numbered about 1,600,000 men. As a whole the German army
was not ready yet. But the best units were pulled out and thrown
against Poland. According to a French historian and military analyst,
Alphonse Goutard, only the core of the German army had a military
value. These forces were wholesale sent to Poland, which Hitler
desired to destroy as soon as possible. No substantial reserves were
left on the French frontier. Almost all the infantry divisions (44 out
of 52), all the armoured, light and motorized divisions, and the whole
Luftwaffe rushed to the east.
But superiority in numbers does not mean yet superiority in quality.
And this was especially true with the German technical superiority.
In the Polish campaign a German armoured division had 400 tanks,
including 48 heavy and 84 medium ones. There were seven armoured
divisions. Each of four light divisions had 200 tanks and dozens of
armoured vehicles. Each of four motorized divisions carried soldiers
in lorries right to the very front line. Independent tank and armoured
carrier units accompanied infantry divisions. Altogether the Germans
used against Poland about 3000 tanks. They were supported by 5000 guns
and 3000 aircraft. Poland could oppose them with about 900 tanks and
armoured cars, 2000 guns and about 400 aircraft, mostly obsolete ones.
Besides the Polish Air Forces possessed virtually no reserve planes.
With the loss of 90% of planes on the first day of the war they were
eliminated from further hostilities as a considerable factor.
The forces designated against Poland were divided into two Army
Groups. First of them, called North and commanded by Gen.Fedor von
Bock, had to seek the seizure of the Pomeranian "corridor" and then to
support the southern wing of German armies in order to close Polish
forces in a gigantic pocket west to Vistula. The group was comprised
of the 3rd Army (Gen.Georg von Küchler) deployed in East Prussia and
the 4th Army (Gen.Günther von Kluge) deployed in Pomerania. Far bigger
and stronger Army Group South (Gen.Gerd von Rundstedt) had to
determine the lots of the campaign. It was made of the 8th Army
(Gen.Johannes von Blaskowitz), which had to strike against Posnania
securing the left wing of advancing main forces, the 10th Army
(Gen.Walter von Reichenau), which had to carry out the main effort
from Silesia to Warsaw, and the 14th Army (Gen.Wilhelm List), which
had to advance from Silesia to Cracow and Lwow. The commander-in-chief
of the forces engaged against Poland was Field Marshal Walter von
Brauchitsch, who since the beginning of 1938 was the supreme commander
of the German land forces and commanded German forces during
occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Land forces' activities were supported by two Air Fleets: the 1st,
deployed in East Prussia and supporting the Army Group North, and the
4th, which supported the Army Group South from airfields in Silesia
and Berlin.
The Germans also had engaged against the Polish coast a grouping
comprised of a battleship, 9 destroyers, 13 minesweepers and a herd of
smaller boats and vessels. The Poles, after having sent three most
valuable destroyers to the Atlantic, had 5 submarines, 1 destroyer, 1
minesweeper and some smaller torpedo and gun boats. Moreover the
Polish Navy was exposed to attacks of the German air forces, which
possessed absolute ease in the air. In these circumstances the defence
of the Polish coast was an enterprise purely honourable.
After all since the very first hours of the war it became clear that
the Germans did not intend to observe any laws or habits of war, which
are accepted among civilized nations. German aircraft used to attack
both railways and shepherds in meadows, defence installations and
defenceless hamlets, military columns hastening to the front and
crowds of civilians fleeing the hostilities. Apparently the goal was
not just to conquer Polish armed forces on battlefields, but to
terrorize and destroy the entire nation, what after all was in
accordance to the Hitler's directive:
Annihilation of Poland in foreground. Goal is elimination of the
vital forces, not the attainment of a specific line. Even if war
breaks out in the West, the destruction of Poland remains the
priority. A quick decision in view of the season. I shall provide
the propaganda pretext for launching the war, no matter whether it
is credible. The victor is not asked afterwards whether or not he
has told the truth. What matters in beginning and waging the war
is not righteousness, but victory. Close heart to pity. Proceed
brutally. Eighty million people must obtain what they have a right
to. Their existence must be made secure. [...] The stronger is in
the right. Supreme hardness.
The defence delivered by the Poles was very hard and it brought to the
Germans a lot of unpleasant surprises. But the great battle on Polish
frontiers inevitably showed enemy's supremacy. In some sectors the
Germans seized initiative at once, and by the third day of the war
tiny infantry positions were pierced elsewhere. In Pomerania got
annihilated in Tuchola Forest the northern wing of the Army Pomorze.
It was there, in the battle of Krojanty, that German armoured columns
virtually annihilated Polish cavalry troops attempting to challenge
them. This was instantly exploited by propaganda: German - as an
example of Polish stupidity, and Polish - as an example of gallantry
and devotion. In result of these activities the Germans opened the
road to East Prussia and cut out the Polish coast.
The situation on the southern wing of Polish armies was even more
dramatic. Yet on 1 September, at 9:00, the Germans seized Rybnik where
two battalions of Polish infantry tried to halt a German armoured
division. Near Czestochowa German armoured divisions hastening to
Warsaw annihilated a Polish infantry division and thus created a
100-kilometres wide empty gap between armies Kraków and Lódz. Any
efforts to plug that gap proved futile. Polish troops reinforced from
east had been destroyed by Luftwaffe before they managed to reach the
front line.
But the most important thing on those days was declaration of war by
western allies. It was clear to me, shrieked Hitler to his generals on
22 August, that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I
had already made this decision in the spring, but I thought that I
would first turn against the West in a few years, and only after that
against the East. [...] It became clear to me, that in the event of a
conflict with the West, Poland would attack us. But it was not equally
clear, even on 1 September, that the West would strike against Germany
in case of German invasion of Poland. Reluctantly Great Britain
delivered an ultimatum and found herself in war with Germany on 3
September. Several hours later also France declared war on Germany.
The British ultimatum had shaken the hitlerite summit. Former German
foreign office's interpreter, Dr.Paul Schmidt, who had presented it to
Hitler's chancellery, saw everywhere grave faces:
When I entered the room Hitler was sitting at his desk and
Ribbentrop stood by the window. [...] I stopped at some distance
from Hitler's desk and then slowly translated the British
ultimatum. When I finished there was complete silence. Hitler sat
immobile gazing before him. [...] After an interval which seemed
an age, he turned to Ribbentrop, who had remained standing by the
window. What now? asked Hitler with a savage look, as though
implying that his Foreign Minister had misled him about England's
probable reaction.
Ribbentrop answered quietly: I assume, that the French will hand
in a similar ultimatum within an hour.
Even usually ebullient minister for propaganda, Josef Goebbels, stood
in a corner downcast and self-absorbent. Hermann Göring, the minister
of air forces, concluded: if we lose this war, then God have mercy on
us! This episode illustrates how much the Germans believed in
possibility to isolate Poland and to dispose her with absolute
passivity of the rest of Europe.
Western powers' declaration of war was cheered in Warsaw, but it did
not help Polish armies being in complete rout. On 4 September they
left Grudziadz and Bydgoszcz. After the fall of Upper Silesia, it came
the turn of Cracow, left on 5 September evening. On 6 September during
a raid of German aircraft, the commander of the Army Lódz, Gen.Juliusz
Rómmel, made a retreat from his headquarter. He retreated however
somewhat too far, as far as to Warsaw, and lost contact with his
troops since then led by Gen.Wiktor Thommée. Meanwhile advanced
columns of the German 10th Army were already fighting unprepared units
of Polish reserve grouping. Preserving the main axis of advance via
Piotrkow to Warsaw the German command had though unfolded several
armoured and mechanized columns fanned out towards mainstream Vistula.
In this situation the Polish Supreme Command ordered a retreat beyond
Vistula and Dunajec. At night from 6 to 7 September Polish military
and state authorities left Warsaw and headed to the south, towards
Romanian border. After them rushed other institutions and diplomatic
missions. Eastbound roads had become crowded by refugees, soldiers and
deserters from embattled troops and recruits seeking their units.
Simultaneously intensified German "fifth column" recruited among
Poland's German and Ukrainian inhabitants. In these conditions the
control over Polish defence had become virtually impossible.
On 7 September capitulated Westerplatte, Polish outpost in Danzig,
which was supposed to deliver only a 24-hours defence. Nevertheless
two hundred soldiers armed with rifles and one obsolete gun within a
week opposed 2200 men supported by 30 guns and air forces. The
battleship Schleswig-Holstein was firing at Westerplatte at blank
point. In recognition of Poles' gallantry the Germans granted the
Polish commander the right to carry his sabre in captivity. But it was
a rare gesture of fairness towards the conquered. Hitlerite bands used
to massacre prisoners and civilians as they did it with defenders of
the Danzig Polish post office or railway officers in Tczew.
Free City Danzig was seized on the first day of the war. Polish
coastal and naval forces were helpless in face of German air and naval
might. On the third day of war the Polish Navy lost its two biggest
ships; others were incessantly chased by German aircraft. Land
positions were under permanent artillery fire. It was a fortunate
decision to send three Polish destroyers to the Atlantic. In the Gulf
of Danzig they would cost the Germans some ammunition. In England they
formed the nucleus of the Polish Navy fighting efficiently alongside
the Royal Navy. Nevertheless Polish troops, cut out from the rest of
the country, were fiercely defending Gdynia, Wejherowo and Hel and
were expecting help. This however was not to happen.
On 8 September German units reached Warsaw, seized the city's airfield
and attacked its eastmost districts. Although promptly dislodged, they
started a regular siege and artillery barrage. Moreover the enemy had
crossed Narew and menaced Warsaw from the east.
Meanwhile in the headquarter of the Army Poznan was conceived a bold
plan of strategic counter-advance, which had to be done by the core of
the Army's troops towards Radom. The Army Poznan found itself in
between two main axes of German offensive and was not engaged in
hostilities. Moreover it had absorbed units from the destroyed Army
Pomorze and expected co-operation of the Army Lódz. They had to strike
against the left wing of advanced German divisions, then to pierce
from the west to south-east and to restore defence beyond Vistula. But
practical realisation of the plan proved impossible.
On 9 September morning started regular fights for Warsaw. The Germans
stroke with 300 tanks alongside main city's communication corridors.
Although regular troops were reinforced by armed civilians, their
positions became pierced and street fights started. The Army Lódz,
which did not manage to pierce through the German positions, got
destroyed and its scattered units were retreating beyond Vistula. In
the north the Germans, after scattering of the right wing of Polish
armies and crossing of river Bug, had advanced to Minsk Mazowiecki and
Siedlce and were near to close the encirclement ring around Warsaw. On
mainstream Vistula the Germans had won the race to the bridges across
the river and cut Polish units from passages. Stout fights for
passages started, which lasted several days and are known as the
battle of Radom. And in the south German divisions reached San. Even
the weather was in favour of invaders.
Extraordinarily high temperatures had literally drunk the water from
rivers and exposed fords unknown for decades. Neither San, nor Bug nor
even Vistula made any serious natural obstacles.
But due to lack of proper communication the commander of the Army
Poznan, General Tadeusz Kutrzeba, was unaware of existing situation
when he ordered his forces to strike from Bzura river to the south.
The advance literally annihilated the leftmost German 30th Infantry
Division. The Poles instantly recaptured Leczyca and Piatek and
challenged German positions in Strykow as well as in suburbs of
occupied Lodz. The advance menaced German infantry divisions moving
behind armoured ones. Their positions were stretched along the line
Skierniewice - Lowicz - Sochaczew - Blonie. While German air forces
were engaged elsewhere six Polish infantry divisions and two cavalry
brigades managed to fight efficiently seven German infantry divisions,
but the German command could manoeuvre its forces while Gen.Kutrzeba
had not such possibility. He could count neither on reserves, nor
rapid armoured troops, nor air forces, nor even communication with the
Supreme Command, which after all did not control the war effort any
more. The Germans instantly sent to the menaced sector two armoured
divisions, three light ones and a motorized one. Finally they stroke
from the air with several hundred planes detached from both air
fleets. Gen.Kutrzeba had understood impossibility to recapture Lodz
and decided to turn to Kutno and to seek a way to Warsaw. "The biggest
and the bloodiest battle in the hitherto military history", as it was
described by the Germans themselves, extinguished on 20 September.
Some forces with Gen.Kutrzeba had pierced through Kampinos Forest to
Warsaw and strengthened its defence. The rest, with wounded
Gen.Wladyslaw Bortnowski surrendered. Three other generals fell in
fights. In other sectors the defence was also in the state of complete
rout. Since 12 September German rapid units operated east to Vistula
and challenged Lublin. The same day troops advanced from Slovakia
besieged Lwow, others reached Przemysl and Drohobycz. In Stryj
Ukrainian nationalists scattered Polish authorities and launched
slaughter of Polish inhabitants.
And how, in the mid-September, did look the help of Poland's allies?
It was not until 4 September that in Paris was signed the
Polish-French political protocol, which had to replace the decayed
alliance of 1921. The new alliance was finally concluded on 9
September. The Poles appealed to engage the French army. On 10
September the French Supreme Commander, Gen.Maurice Gamelin, sent the
Polish ambassador a note, which stated:
More than half of our active divisions on the northeast front are
engaged in combat. Beyond our frontier the Germans are opposing with a
vigourous resistance. [...] Air action from the beginning has been
under way in liaison with ground operations. We know we are holding
down before us a considerable part of the German air force. I have
thus gone beyond my promise to take the offensive with the bulk of my
forces by the fifteenth day after mobilization. It has been impossible
for me to do more.
Unfortunately Gamelin had simply lied in his note. What did the
"offensive with bulk forces" look like? Goutard gives an account:
The offensive was carried out not by 35 divisions but by 9
divisions, of the Fourth and Fifth Armies. The Third Army, which
occupied the Wendt Forest seems to have employed 2 divisions.
[...] There was no action in the air except for a few
reconnaissance missions. [...] There was no "vigourous
resistance" on the part of the Germans. After almost bloodless
skirmishes they drew back to the Siegfried Line. [...] Not a
single German division or tank or plane was diverted from Poland
to reinforce the West.
When Gamelin had completed this grotesque enterprise, he condescended
to call an offensive, he stated that due to development of situation
in Poland, nothing could help this country. But Alfred Jodl, one of
nazi war criminals hung in Nuremberg and during the war
Colonel-General, one of the most trusted Hitler's advisers, in 1945
testified before the allied tribunal the contrary:
If we did not collapse in 1939, that was only because the
approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West,
which during the campaign in Poland were facing 25 German
divisions, remained completely inactive.
Let us add, that only few of German divisions were regarded as combat
units. Another high-ranking German militaryman, former chief of staff
at the Oberkommando West, namely Supreme Command West, Gen.Siegfried
Westphal admitted, that a resolute allied offensive in west in
September 1939 would cause the collapse of the hitlerite régime by the
end of the year. The complete passivity of powers ensured a complete
ease to the barbarians, in comparison to whom the medieval Mongols
look like gentlemen. For that mistake the mankind had to pay a
terrible price.
At the final stage of the battle of Bzura one tried to gather the
rests of the Polish army in three basic groupings: the Army Warszawa,
which was defending Warsaw and Modlin, the Gen.Stefan Biernacki-Dab's
army operating in the north and the Army Malopolska, operating in the
south under command of Gen.Kazimierz Sosnkowski, hitherto disfavoured
by the Polish régime. All the organizational shuffles turned already
futile though. Biernacki-Dab simply abandoned his troops telling that
in such a brothel he was not going to impair his soldier glory.
Gen.Sosnkowski with a handful of units tried to pierce to Lwow;
although they managed to destroy a German armoured column by night 16
September, they missed the goal. Meanwhile the Germans seized
Wlodzimierz Wolynski, a town on the eastern bank of Bug. Whereas the
Polish government and the Supreme Command had ventured as far as
Zaleszczyki on the Romanian border.
On 17 September morning Soviet forces had crossed the Poland's eastern
border. To justify this decision the Soviet commissar for foreign
affairs Vyacheslav Molotov had stated:
The Polish-German war has revealed the internal bankruptcy of the
Polish state. After ten days of military operations, Poland has
lost all its industrial areas and cultural centres. Warsaw, as
the capital of Poland, no longer exists. The Polish government
has collapsed and shows no sign of life. This indicates that the
Polish state and government have, in effect, ceased to exist. In
view of this state of affairs, the treaties concluded between
Poland and the Soviet Union have no validity. Abandoned to its
fate and deserted by its leaders, Poland has become a fertile
field for all sorts of acts and surprises which could become a
danger to the USSR. This is why, having preserved its neutrality
until the present, the Soviet government can no longer remain
neutral in the face of these facts.
Neither can the Soviet government remain indifferent when its
Ukrainian and Byelorussian blood-brothers, inhabiting Polish
territory, abandoned to their fate, are left without defence.
The Ukrainians and Byelorussians, often discriminated and persecuted
in pre-war Poland, welcomed Red Armists as liberators. On 18 September
in Stanislawow was declared independence of the Western Ukraine from
Poland.
By night from 17 to 18 September Poland's state and military officials
had crossed the Romanian border. According to international laws and
the Belgian precedence from the First World War they were granted in
France so-called droit de residence, it means the right to accommodate
in and operate from the French territory, whereas the Romanians, also
allies, had to provide so-called droit de passage, it means the right
to trespass. But there was one person, who must not abandon the
territory of a fighting country; it is the Supreme Commander, who as a
militaryman is a subject to internment unless he has passed to the
territory of a country also bound by the fight. Whereas Romania had
declared her neutrality yet on 6 September; Marshal Edward Smigly-Rydz
had overlooked such a detail.
Meanwhile the Polish defence was extinguishing. Although there were
still holding on Warsaw, Modlin, Hel, Brzesc and Lwow the resistance
could not last for ever. On 19 September capitulated Gdynia, on 20
September got dispersed the Army Malopolska. On 22 September Lwow,
which the Germans failed to seize, was handed over to the Russians. On
25 September in the battle of Tomaszow Lubelski got destroyed the
northern grouping of Polish forces. Polish cavalry group heading to
the Romanian border did not manage to pierce through the Soviet
armoured columns on 27 September near Przemysl. On 28 September,
heavily destroyed, burned, deprived of ammunition and supplies,
capitulated Warsaw. Next day fell Modlin, on 2 October - Hel. On 6
October the Independent Operation Group Polesie, which had been
marching from beyond the Bug to Warsaw, after four days' successful
battle of Kock, ran short of ammunition and got dispersed in St.Cross
Mountains.
Poland fought 36 days with forces of 39 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry
brigades and one armoured brigade. They did not obtain support from
the Allies. There was no formal cease-fire, no formal capitulation.
The underground resistance was undertaken immediately.
Paul Neumann
jum...@my-deja.com
> ban...@mynet.com (Bantari) wrote:
>>> And so we can debate it over and over for years. Bottom line
>>> - this is an issue between tweet and geek, and I doubt that you
>>> or I can solve it definitely. And the fact that Erik took any
>>> protocols is still open. tweet says he did, Erik says he did not...
> Michael Alford <ma...@spiritone.com> writes
>> Oh, come on, bantari, your memory just can't be that short
>> (or selective) Erik posted to this newsgroup that NNGS uses the
>> IGS protocol.
> From: Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk>
> I don't think anyone doubts that IGS, NNGS, a dozen other Go servers,
> and a dozen Go clients, all use the same protocol. What is at issue
> is whether Erik did anything reprehensible in helping to bring this
> about.
Bantari's impression seems to be that of endless debates, yet if
that were true then his world of gossip, chatter and innuendo would
never find opportunity amid the limited time-and-space to admit any
discourse of new topics in an undiscovered country. Professionals
can -solve- problems by reaching the solutions, while amateurs can
never find the solutions to their problems. Thereby the moves of
amateurs are in gameplay are forever suboptimal, yet that's not an
excuse for preferring amateur over professional discourse, and not
the -purpose- for which "free speech" was intended. A "free speech"
that offers no promise of convergence upon truth might as well not
exist at all. As with music, a "silence is golden" aesthetic would
be the preferred alternative, without any hope nor promise for truth.
Bantari's notion also seems to be that of never reading archives,
yet why were archives created in the first place if they were never
going to be read? So Bantari should instead do a lot of searching
and more sifting through archives whenever he has further questions.
Erik's official "ban" from IGS was on account of a letter sent to
him from INET, a letter Erik had initially promised to publish to
this newsgroup in the Spring of 1995, but never did. There should
have never been a discussion concerning Erik's case without public
review of the actual terms of INET's letter "banning" Erik's access.
The reprehensible elements of Erik's activity must have been itemized
by that letter, and extremely unflattering to Erik (which explains
why Erik had never made its contents available to the rest of us).
- regards
- jb
.
==============================================================
[NA] The Hosing of America (A Critique of Public Opinion Polls)
Author: lloyd <ll...@a-albionic.com>
Date: 2000/04/04
Forum: alt.activism
From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
Conspiracy Shopping Cart: http://a-albionic.com/shopping.html
From: Jim Condit Jr. <netam...@unidial.com>
To: <network...@topica.com>
Subject: The Hosing of America (A Critique of Public Opinion Polls)
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:33 PM
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything."
-- Communist Tyrant Josef Stalin
March 27, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire
The Hosing of America (A Critique of Public Opinion Polls)
Change of pace: Today we focus on public opinion polls, which we at
Network America maintain constitute one of the three “black box” tools
of mind control being used on the American people (the other two being
exit polls and computerized vote counts).
!!! After reading below and the article on polling to follow, it will
become clear that The Reform Party, The Constitution Party, the
Libertarian Party, the Natural Law Party, and the Green Party must
challenge the premise that polls should be the determining criteria
for ANYTHING, let alone the all important Presidential Debates coming
up in October, 2000. The Establishment clearly wants to keep all
non-Dem-Repub candidates off the stage -- so that their computer
generated results will be believable in November --- which will of
course show all third party candidates at less than 5%. In fact, I
would say to the Reform Party and the Buchanan campaign that, if
Buchanan can't be stopped from the Reform Nomination, the next phase
will be to have the computers show Buchanan at less than 5% in
November, thus wiping out the Reform Party as a force in the future,
and (they hope) killing the spirit of the burgeoning 3rd party
movements. It must be announced by these parties that they WILL NOT
ABIDE by either Big TV Network poll numbers or by computer-generated
counts. !!!
Soon we will carry a complementary article to the below article –
written during the impeachment proceedings by your editor, also about
the warping of public opinion polls by the Big TV Networks during the
Clinton impeachment. That e-wire will also carry shocking first hand
witness from Larry Nichols, one of the state troopers who guarded
Clinton as Governor of Arkansas – but is now exposing the truth about
the Clinton phenomenon. Nicholas information concerns conversations
with Tim Russert of NBC’s Meet the Press – and strong evidence that
the Big TV network owners simply lie in a pinch – when they need to
distort public opinion polls.
This is the longest e-wire we’ve ever carried by about 3 times, so if
you don’t have time now, put this in your “Network America” folder and
read it later. It is important that this research, and the sources
used in this research, be put “on the record.” Independent talk show
hosts such as Bill Boshears, Jeff Rense, Geoff Metcalf, Zoh
Hieronomus, and others – may want to contact Mr. Koenig for an
interview.
The following information is carried under the fair use provisions of
the copyright laws and with the intent to make our readers aware of
the work of Mr. Jack Koenig and his group, “Impact Voters of America.”
The following article and more can be found on the internet at:
http://www.impactnet.org/thepolls.htm
The Hosing Of America: How The Media Manipulated Our Minds
(An Investigative Report) Copyright © 1999 Impact Voters of America
By: Jack Koenig, Chairman
In association with “Impact Voters of America”
Forward And Acknowledgements
"The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of
arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may
lead to apathy and indifference, the I-don’t-care reaction, or to a
more intensified desire to study and to understand. Unfortunately, the
first reaction is the more popular one." Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo
What began as an investigation into polling practices, took a sudden
turn when the media began bombarding the public with the outrageous
statement "Everyone’s doing it". In meeting after meeting,
conversation after conversation, people from all political persuasions
were questioning the assertion "Everyone's doing it". Most claimed
they weren't "doing it", and furthermore, didn't believe their
neighbors were "doing it" either. The media's' continuous propagation
of this mind bending atrocity would have made George Orwell proud!
In The Rape of The Mind, Dr. Joost Meerloo states, "Ready made
opinions can be distributed day by day through the press, radio, and
so on, again and again, till they reach the nerve cell and implant a
fixed pattern in the brain. Consequently, guided public opinion is the
result, according to Pavlovian theoreticians, of good propaganda
technique, and the polls are a verification of the temporary
successful action of the Pavlovian machinations on the mind." Now, I’m
not a moralist or a prude, but I have never cheated on my wife. Not
once! Personally, I have more respect for myself ... and an equal
amount for my wonderful wife!
And I’m not even one of those so called "Right Wing Extremists” . . .
But as I traveled throughout Illinois and surrounding states, others
deluged me with complaints about the Clinton assertion, "Everyone’s
doing it!" Of all things on the horizon, this particular phrase set
emotions in play. Regardless whether I was in a coffeehouse, a
library, a school, a bookstore, a Democrat's office or a Republican
gathering, everyone was asking the same question "Where are they
finding these people?"
And I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist. But after dealing with
human nature throughout my career as a Management Consultant, it
became a necessity to understand and interpret what others were
thinking, saying, and doing. Day in and day out I have interacted with
all type of individuals, from all genders, races, creeds, religions
and political persuasions. But in this situation in which the media
constantly trivialized Clinton's sexcapades, it didn't take a brain
surgeon to realize something was "rotten in Denmark". The big question
was Why? Why was the media creating such a distrustful atmosphere
between committed partners?
Between my own moral beliefs and those of the thousands challenging
the assertion, I was spurred on to investigate what I believed to be
an insidious White House lie amplified and propagated by the media. At
this point, the polling investigation lost its priority and the media
took center stage. What I uncovered is nothing short of astonishing.
The investigation spanned 13 months of intensive research and included
several interviews with the Managing Editor of the Gallup
organization; interviews with a former pollster from a competing
company; reviewing hundreds of articles from various newspapers and on
the Internet, and researching approximately 30 books on polling,
statistics, psychology, and brainwashing. And after all the above was
done, I spent hundreds of hours analyzing the information and tying it
together. The bottom line is this interesting and fascinating report.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the countless librarians who assisted in gathering
information for this report. Like most other Americans, they were
confused and distraught by the statement "Everyone's doing it". As a
result they put in 135% effort in proving the Locksteppers wrong.
A special thanks to the super group of proof-readers who corrected
grammatical errors, and when warranted, suggested improvements. They
are (in alphabetical order by last name):
Karen Boettcher
Ann Koenig
Jake and Terri Olbrich
Bob and Diane Wheat
Summary
"Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions
and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and
opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of
the masses." Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo
The good news is that a study coming out of the University of Chicago
refutes Clinton’s claim of "Everyone’s doing it" and exposes it for
what it is just another outrageous lie. According to the 1994
University of Chicago study, over 75% of married men in their 50's had
never cheated on their wives while the same held true for 85-90% of
men under 50. In addition, recent surveys reveal the 18-24 year old
crowd has embraced "old fashioned" values similar to their
grandparents ... and even great-grandparents!
Although the Administration used the "Everyone’s doing it" lie to
shift focus away from claims of perjury to that of a marital
infidelity, its truth was never challenged by a blatantly White House
friendly media. Instead, they paraded Clinton Locksteppers across our
television screens repeating the "Everyone’s doing it" assertion in a
brazen attempt to confuse and manipulate the minds of Americans.
According to several books on the subject, especially those by mind
control specialist Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo, confusing a targeted
audience is one of the necessary ingredients for effective mind
control.
The bad news is the same lies left a negative impact on America’s
morale. Those supporting the infidelity concept "came out of the
closet" celebrating the news "Everyone’s doing it." The 75%-90%
(depending on age group) of men who weren't "doing it" were mystified
and felt isolated. At the same time, countless women across America
were disillusioned with the prospect their partners-in-life were part
of the "Everyone’s doing it" crowd. Demoralization of the target
audience is yet another step in successful mind control.
Evidence suggests the success in manipulating America’s minds with the
"Everyone’s doing it" lie would have made World War II Nazis green
with envy. In his book The Rape of The Mind, Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo
discusses how saturation coverage of a given lie can lead the
unsuspecting public into believing it as truth. In describing World
War II Nazis, Dr. Meerloo states "The big lie and monotonously
repeated nonsense have more emotional appeal in a cold war than logic
and reason." And by any measurement, the oft repeated Clinton lie of
"Everyone’s doing it" numbed our senses to the point most of us
accepted at least part of the assertion without question. Numbing the
senses by monotonously repeating an assertion is still another factor
in utilizing mind control techniques.
As Starr’s failed attempt to convict Clinton went down in flames,
unintended consequences began to emerge. In addition to the tear in
America’s moral fabric and the lowering of the public’s morale, the
women’s movement was set back a decade or more, what little respect
was left for both major political parties was shattered, and the
execution date for a failed media was accelerated.
The Clinton-Starr Odysseys further parceled America by pitting
families, friends, neighbors and relatives against each other: Blacks
were pitted against Black, White against White, Black against White,
Hispanic against everyone, and male against female. Never in recent
history has America seen such divisions as that produced by Clinton
and Starr, individually and collectively. Dividing the public is very
important for successful mind control.
This report does not go into Starr’s inability (some say
unwillingness) to focus on the more serious issues involving Clinton’s
alleged abuse of power, nor does it address the huge cost of the
investigation, which almost equals the $40+ million spent by Walsh
during the Iran-Contra investigation. Instead, it targets the role
played by the pollsters, the media, and the Locksteppers in their
quest to manipulate the minds of America.
And as far as Starr is concerned, his erratic behavior and poor
communication skills provided ammunition for his demonization process.
In Starr’s unfortunate quest to salvage his reputation by attempting
to convict Clinton in the same manner the "Feds" used to convict
Capone, Starr lost any remaining credibility and destroyed countless
reputations in the process . . . including his own.
This report suggests the media’s role included consciously deceiving
and dividing America. Their techniques included saturation coverage to
numb the senses; use of the Opinion Triangle to build on a lie and
convince the public to accept it as fact; use of the Bandwagon Effect
to convince others to join in acceptance of the falsehood, and
employment of the Herd Mentality syndrome to promote unanimity in the
falsehood.
This investigation also discovered that the cooperation rate is only
25% for overnight polls and only 40-45% for 4-5 day polls. These low
numbers challenge the very validity of such polls. In addition, the
report provides evidence showing how polling organizations have
manipulated polls in the past and how they did it this time around.
And finally, the report provides some conclusions which seem to go
against current thoughts on the strength and resiliency of America.
In spite of the controversial nature surrounding the Clinton-Starr
fiasco, every attempt was made to present the findings in a balanced,
non-partisan manner.
The Report Itself
"Political demagoguery is, to some extent, a problem in our country.
The particular form this demagoguery takes is only a passing phase,
and when our current dragons and inner phantoms have been laid to
rest, the eternal demagogue will arise anew. He will accuse others of
conspiracy in order to prove his own importance. He will try to
intimidate those who are neither so iron-fisted nor so hotheaded as
he, and temporarily he will drag some people into the web of his
delusions. Perhaps he will even wear a mantle of martyrdom to arouse
the tears of the weak-hearted. With his emotionalism and suspicion, he
will shatter the trust of citizens in one another." Dr. Joost A. M.
Meerloo
America just went through a mind wrenching experience which pitted
neighbor against neighbor, race against race, and gender against
gender. And in spite of this obnoxious experience, in spite of
Clinton’s acknowledged sexual liaison with an employee half his age,
and in spite of his lies, deceptions, and stonewalling, his Job
Approval numbers remain sky high. The big question is: "Why?"
Is it really "The Economy Stupid?" Or is it something else? Do morals
mean anything anymore? Or is it true, as Clinton’s Locksteppers
assert, that "Everyone’s doing it" when it comes to marital
infidelities? Has America really gone to "hell in a handbasket" as the
"Moral Majority" has suggested?
Many claim Clinton has a "magnetic personality", and indeed, former
House Speaker Gingrich claimed he was mesmerized by it. Does that
explain why Clinton's "numbers" remain so high in spite of his
repeated "follies"?
Not according to information published by Ms. Denise Winn in her book
“The Manipulated Mind.” In that book, Ms. Winn documents a study by
noted psychologist Solomon Asch in which he found that nearly 75% of
all individuals will always rally around the same conclusion. These
results were repeated over, and over, and over again.
Some argue this is a coincidence. But is it . . . especially when the
public was manipulated into believing they would be out-of-step to
think otherwise? Information uncovered during the course of this study
suggests Americans were conditioned to think in a prescribed manner
through the use of techniques such as the Opinion Triangle, the
Bandwagon Effect, and the Herd Mentality syndrome.
The Opinion Triangle involves suggesting a given premise and then
using the media to spread the message. An opinion poll is then
taken to measure the statement's impact, and if positive, a new
press release is issued re-affirming the original premise.
Investor’s Business Daily had a good example of the Opinion
Triangle creating a self fulfilling prophecy: "Candidate A will
lose the election because he’s trailing badly in the polls - and
he’s trailing badly in the polls because the media keep reporting
that he’s going to lose the election."
The Bandwagon Effect refers to the public's tendency to "say what
you want them to say", especially after suggesting they would be
in the minority to do otherwise. As mentioned previously, “The
Manipulated Mind” documents a series of interesting studies
showing that nearly three quarters, 75% of all subjects, showed a
tendency to conform to the views expressed by others in a given
situation.
The Herd Mentality syndrome refers to a human trait in which we try
to stick together for mutual protection.
After 13 months of investigations, which included interviewing the
Managing Editor of the Gallup Organization as well as former
pollsters from competing organizations, reading countless articles
and books on psychology, mind control, polling procedures, and
advertising, and spending hundreds of hours analyzing data, more
than enough information was uncovered to suggest the Clinton White
House, along with a more than compromised media, used the above
three psychological techniques to manipulate our minds.
Over the years, Americans have come to view the media with a
jaundiced eye because of their half truths, outright lies, and
deceitful practices. And although the media claims they don’t
influence public opinion, then why do they take advertising
dollars under the pretense advertising will generate or improve
sales? This paradox cannot be explained away!
In spite of protestations to the contrary, the media will use
every trick in the book to manipulate an unsuspecting public. This
comes as no surprise to those who remember the 1950's when the
media used subliminal advertising to stimulate sales. This brazen
attempt at thought control went unannounced, and by many reports,
was very successful. Unfortunately for the media, an alert
individual discovered the mental manipulations and "blew the
whistle".
But that all seems to be child’s play compared to what the media
just put us through! All indications suggest the media was highly
successful in the mass manipulation of America’s psyche during the
recent Clinton-Starr Odysseys.
In “Rape Of The Mind”, mind control specialist Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo
discusses various ingredients for successful mind control. These
include: gaining rapport with the masses (a hallmark of the Clinton
mysticism) isolation of the enemy (labeling dissenters as part of the
"vast right wing conspiracy") being unpredictable (constantly shifting
on positions, etc.) creating and maintaining confusion (firing
missiles at alleged enemies) repetition of the lie while withholding
the truth ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman")
rewarding acceptance and penalizing opposition (use of the media to
pummel adversaries such as Paula Jones while rewarding Susan McDougal)
ostracizing those who won’t go along (the male ego prevented most men
from contesting the claim "everyone was doing it" when referring to
marital infidelities, and those that did were ridiculed), creating
boredom (saturation coverage of the Lewinski affair numbed the senses
of Americans over the brink of boredom), damage the opponents morale
(Everyone’s doing it", etc.), diminishing the opportunity for dissent
(with the exception of one cable show, Chris Matthew’s "Hardball" on
CNBC, the major media all but trivialized opposition opinion), remain
focused on the sameness (constant repetition of the same mantra by the
Clinton Locksteppers - "He must get back to the people’s business,
etc.") minimizing social discourse (creating an atmosphere in which
one felt they would be left on the "outside" if they leveled criticism
at Clinton).
In the latter part of the 19th century, Nobel Prize winner Ivan
Pavlov conducted his famous experiments with a bell and a dog. As
Dr. Joost Meerloo points out in “The Rape Of The Mind,” "...
Pavlov’s findings were that some animals learned more quickly if
rewarded (by affection, by food, by stroking) each time they
showed the right response, while others learned more quickly when
the penalty for not learning was a painful stimulus." It is the
author’s opinion that this is exactly what the media did to those
who supported Clinton and to those who opposed him.
Dobrogaev, one of Russia’s leading psychologists, stated: "Speech
manipulation represents conditioned-reflex functions of the human
brain." In a simpler way, Dr. Meerloo interprets this to say: "He
who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who
is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind." Meerloo
continues: "Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions,
diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition.
This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses." And
in reviewing the media’s handling of the Clinton-Starr fiasco,
either consciously or unconsciously they used their "Bully Pulpit"
and other psychological ploys to downplay the Starr investigation
and deceive America. For one to argue the media was unaware of
what they were doing would be a stretch of the imagination!
The media claims they always delay a story in order to check out
the facts. They cite the Juanita Broaderick allegation that she
was brutally raped by Clinton as an example. However, if one is to
accept that assertion as truth, why didn’t they check out the
story "Everyone’s doing it"? Instead, the media chose to keep the
truth about "Everyone’s doing it" from the public as they
relentlessly promoted the deception.
The truth of course, was to the contrary! According to carefully
conducted studies by the University of Chicago in 1994, over 75%
of married men in their 50's had never cheated on their wives
while the same held true for 85-90% of men under 50. And as far as
Presidential infidelity is concerned, only three sitting
Presidents were definitely known to have cheated on their wives:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.
The public’s reaction to the "Everyone’s doing it" lie seems to
offer proof positive that both the Clinton Administration and an
accommodating media worked in cahoots to employ not only the
Opinion Triangle and the Bandwagon Effect in their quest to
deceive the public. Once the public became "somewhat" convinced
the lie was a fact, the Locksteppers used the Herd Mentality
syndrome to create an atmosphere in which the public believed it
was to their advantage to "stick" together.
George Bush, either consciously or unconsciously, used the Opinion
Triangle to create support for his actions in the "original" Gulf
War. In describing an alleged nightmare in which a Kuwaiti woman
was repeatedly gang raped by the aggressors, Bush was able to
create a public outcry for action.
Although it was later shown to be a complete fabrication, the media
saturated the air waves with the lie until further public opinion
polls showed growing support for the defense of Kuwait and a repelling
of the Iraqi invasion.
In addition to the media and the Locksteppers, polling
organizations and individual pollsters played an important role in
"The Hosing of America".
This should come as no surprise since several polling organizations
already have a checkered past. It must be remembered that even if a
polling organization has strict procedures in place to minimize
manipulation, knowledgeable individuals can always circumvent the
rules. The old axiom, "Figures Lie and Liars Figure" is something to
remember when viewing polling results.
In Thomas E. Mahl’s book, “Desperate Deception”, a situation is
described in which World War II British agents successfully
manufactured public opinion polls to help generate enthusiasm for
an American peacetime draft. In unmasking this fraud, Mr. Mahl
showed how these manufactured surveys, conducted by the Gallup
Organization and others, were all done under the influence of
dedicated interventionists and British Intelligence agents.
Although one might argue this was "the patriotic thing to do" in that
time frame, it raises the question of polling integrity itself. And if
an organization or individual has a history of compromise, why would
anyone think they wouldn’t repeat it?
And repeat it they did! At least two, and possibly three serious
breaches of polling integrity have come to light so far in the
Zippergate fiasco.
In the first situation, a leading pollster has admitted to
manufacturing poll results to achieve a desired result. On the
August 19, 1998, CNN Moneyline show with Lou Dobbs, CNN Polling
Director Keating Holland discussed how he manipulated Clinton’s
numbers upward to meet their expectations after plummeting from
the Lewinsky affair. Holland’s justification for this breach of
polling integrity was that the question had been worded wrong and
if different wording had been used, Clinton’s numbers would have
been higher!
In the second situation and on the same Moneyline show, USA Today
Polling Editor Jim Norman acknowledged revising questions to
achieve "better" results. Norman defended his actions by stating
"you try like the devil to get it right but every once in awhile
you find out there’s a better way to ask questions."
The above two examples bring the "Wording" game to the front
burner.
According to pollster Scott Rasmussen from Rasmussen Research
(www.portraitofamerica.com), "There are three parts to any good
survey: design, interviewing, and analysis. For some reason, people
who dislike polls often get concerned about the middle part which
involves sample selection, response rates, etc.
Ironically, this is the least problematic aspect of polling. Those who
are concerned about polling should focus their attention on question
wording and, especially, analysis. If a polling firm or a media outlet
won't let you see the question wording, you shouldn't trust the poll."
In David Moore’s 1995 book, The Superpollsters, pollster Louis Harris
was quoted as writing in an internal memo: "when designing a study,
the analyst must know what he or she is after. The real world is
biased, and you must present questions that way." In “Can You Trust
Opinion Polls”, author Claude R. Marx comments "Harris said he makes
sure there are an equal number of biased questions on both sides of an
issue to ensure a balanced result."
"But", Marx concluded, "there are sometimes different degrees of bias
in the questions", indicating of course, that you can easily make one
side more biased than the other. And as Herbert Asher describes in
“Polling And The Public”, "because the investigator has tremendous
leeway in deciding how to frame questions about a particular subject,
it is important to recognize that two ostensibly similar questions
generated highly divergent results."
Both CNN’s Keating Holland and USA Today’s Jim Norman seem to have
proven those remarks!
But all this should come as no surprise if history repeats itself.
Going back a few years, other serious challenges to polling
integrity have been unearthed. Consider the 1992 election cycle.
In that campaign, an initial CNN poll showed Perot ahead by a
sizable margin. Suddenly, and before Perot went schmuckypuck on
everyone, his lead plummeted to the low teens and then into the
single digits. Later investigation suggested this "drop" was the
result of a change in the manner CNN selected its sample. Instead
of continuing to use all eligible voters (all adults) in their
sample, ground rules were changed to include only registered
voters. This effectively eliminated a large portion of the
population . . . the disenchanted who may have very well have
registered and voted for Perot.
In “A Journalist’s Guide to Public Opinion Polls”, another 1992
situation is described in which additional changes in eligibility
procedures dramatically altered the polls. In this example, the
authors document how CNN’s change from "eligible voter" to "most
likely voter" in the latter days of the ‘92 campaign, impacted the
Bush-Clinton numbers by a full six percentage points . . .
overnight!
Still further manipulation of public opinion occurred in 1992 when
the Gallup organization altered a crucial poll by allocating the
five or six percentage points representing undecided voters to
Clinton. This resulted in Gallup’s final pre-election numbers as
49% Clinton, 37% Bush, and 14% Perot. Unfortunately for Gallup
(and Bush), the actual percentages of 43-38-19 were closer to the
unadjusted numbers. How many Bush voters stayed home because they
thought it was futile to vote? We’ll never know for sure, but
chances are it would have made a difference!
In addition to outright hanky-panky, there are also challenges to
the methods used in selecting polling samples. When one considers
the cooperation rate (the number of individuals from a pool who
agree to be included in a survey) is only 25% for overnight polls
and 40%-45% for 4-5 day polls, one has to question the validity of
the sample itself.
Further problems are introduced by individual pollsters. According
to Herbert Asher, author of “Polling and The Public”, leading
polling organizations rely mainly on middle aged women to conduct
their polls. This is done because of a better response rate
accorded female pollsters.
In addition, pollsters are often pared with their own race in order to
minimize the "I’ll say what you want to hear" bias. However, by
admitting that pollsters get the "I’ll say what you want to hear" bias
at all, they must admit it can occur even when race isn’t a factor.
This is especially important if previously mentioned psychological
techniques such as the Opinion Triangle, the Bandwagon Effect and the
Herd Mentality syndrome have been put into play.
Many interviewed for this study argued the Clinton Juggernaut
became masters of these deceptions in the ‘92 elections, honed
them to perfection in the ‘96 elections, and raised them to a fine
art during the recent damage control efforts. Evidence seems to
support those conclusions.
The Clinton Administration was quick to learn from past mistakes
with remarkable speed. After the Health Care Task Force went down
in flames, it appears the Clinton Team began seeking better
methods of manipulating public opinion in their efforts of
building support for their agenda. Indications are that they
focused on mind control techniques to achieve their objectives.
And if the reader has a problem accepting this premise, they
should bear in mind Dr. Joost Meerloo’s thoughts on mass mind
manipulation: "The continual intrusion into our minds of the
hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds
of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the
I-don’t-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study
and to understand. Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more
popular one. The flight from study and awareness is much too
common in a world that throws too many confusing pictures to the
individual. For the sake of our democracy, based on freedom and
individualism, we have to bring ourselves back to study again and
again. Otherwise, we can become easy victims of a well-planned
verbal attack on our minds and our consciences."
The Global Warming campaign is a case in point. By the time the
Administration embarked on this crusade, they had a public
relations juggernaut in place that was second to none. As if on
queue, a complying media was rolled out and the mind manipulators
"went-to-town"!
As Gore's Shock Troops hit the speaking circuit and saturation
coverage began, the intensity and speed of the campaign caught
just about everyone off guard. Unfortunately for the global
warming proponents, a number of alert organizations were able to
quickly mobilize and counter the hysteria with solid facts to the
contrary. As Dr. Meerloo points out time and time again, well
publicized facts are always the bane to the mind controllers.
Even if we put the polling-media controversy aside, it appears the
Clinton Administration falls into a pattern best described by
psychologist Edward Schills in his article Authoritarianism: Right
and Left. In that article, Schills outlines features that were
common to both the Nazi and Russian systems, and which seem to
describe the Locksteppers with precision:
In-group exclusiveness and hostility to all outside of it. Demand for
total submissiveness to the "in-group" which alone can bring about
good. The categorization of people according to selected
characteristics and making overall judgments on the basis of these
(e.g. right wing extremists, imperialist bastards, etc.)
Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing conflict
(e.g. class warfare) The view that any toleration of enemies serves
only to weaken the in-group in its struggle and dilutes commitment.
Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces whose aim is to destroy the
in-group. Belief in a wholly harmonious society which can only be
created by the in-group
Schills also indicates these types of power structures tend to
implode.
Is that what we’re starting to witness right now?
Clinton's Waterloo seems to be the way he lied to his wife, his
most loyal supporters, and to the public. But at the same time,
these deceitful actions turned a small, but fanatical group of
loyalists into Locksteppers at the expense of their individual
integrity.
Or were these Locksteppers always that way?
Author's Conclusions
The Hosing of America has presented a growing body of evidence
suggesting the Clinton White House, together with the Clinton
Locksteppers, certain pollsters, and a compromised media engaged in
mind manipulation activities which made the 1950's subliminal
advertising attempts look like child’s play.
Similar to modern day religious cultists, the Clinton Locksteppers
seem to fall into a pattern described by Edward Schils in an article
called "Authoritarianism: Right and Left”. In that article, Schills
outlines features that were common to both the Nazi and Russian
systems, and which seem to describe the Locksteppers with precision:
In-group exclusiveness and hostility to all outsiders
Demand for total submissiveness to the "in-group" which alone can
bring about good.
The categorization of people according to selected
characteristics and making overall judgements on the basis of
these (e.g. right wing extremists, imperialist bastards, etc.)
Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing
conflict (e.g. class warfare)
The view that any toleration of enemies serves only to weaken the
in-group in its struggle and dilutes commitment.
Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces whose aim is to destroy
the in-group.
Belief in a wholly harmonious society which can only be created
by the in-group.
If polls are to be judged correct, an assertion this reports
challenges, 76% of all Americans believe Clinton is doing a good job.
This beguiling figure of 76% seems to pop up time and time again,
regardless of what happens. As discussed in Denise Winn’s “The
Manipulated Mind”, there appears to be a simple answer for this
reoccurring number. Ms. Winn discusses a celebrated study on social
conformity conducted by noted psychologist Solomon Asch. In that
study, Asch found that nearly three quarters - 75% - of his subjects
showed a tendency to conform to the views expressed by others in a
given situation. This occurred time after time after time! Considering
the Clinton mind manipulators used techniques such as the Opinion
Triangle, the Bandwagon Effect, and the Herd Mentality syndrome
extensively to promote their deceptions, it’s no wonder the 76% figure
has remained constant!
Although we leave it to the reader to arrive at their own conclusions,
it is believed they will come away with enough information to question
the integrity of the media, the polling organizations, and certain
pollsters. It is also believed the reader will now have an
understanding on how the media uses half truths, outright lies, and
deceptions to manipulate and alter our thinking process. In the
1950's, various types of media used subliminal messages in an attempt
to modify our thought processes. They were successful then and they
were very successful this time using a different approach. Evidence
has been presented which suggests pollsters contributed to this
“Hosing of America” through poll manipulation. However, their impact
was relatively small compared to the distortions created by the media.
The report questions the validity of overnight and the 4-5 day polls
due to the very low response rates of 25% and 40-45% respectively.
Many suggest Clinton is trying to prove former Democratic Presidential
candidate Sen. Eugene McCarthy correct when he predicted the
destruction of the Democrat party: “Jimmy Carter sort of started the
destruction and Clinton is just finishing up.” When asked to
elaborate, McCarthy continued: "Roosevelt proved you could be
President forever. Truman proved anyone could be President. Ike proved
you didn’t need one. Kennedy and Johnson proved it’s better not to
have one. Nixon killed the Presidency. Ford embalmed it. Jimmy Carter
buried it. The Reagan years demonstrated life after death. And Clinton
started over. I think he’s the first Governor of the United States.”
. . . Clinton will now be remembered for his sexual escapades, his
lies, his manipulation of the public, and as the first modern
President to be impeached.
Clinton will also be remembered as the President who removed the
safety net from our less fortunate while leading the fight to protect
wealthy investors with bailout after bailout; as the President who
fought for an expansion of the NAFTA at the expense of our minorities
and unions, and as the President who arrogantly advised Americans they
didn’t have the mentality to invest their own retirement savings.
History will not treat our other elected officials much better. The
Republicans will be remembered as the leaderless party who did not
exercise their constitutional authority to stop Clinton’s military
incursions into sovereign countries; as the leaderless party who sat
quietly by as Clinton deceived the country about the Mexican loan
repayment; as the leaderless party who supported the IMF bailout; and
as the leaderless party who partnered in the lies and deceptions
surrounding an alleged budget surplus.
And the Democratic Party? All of the above applies equally as well to
the Democrats. In addition, the Locksteppers who paraded endlessly and
shamelessly in front of cameras with lies and deceptions have cast a
pall across the very integrity and heart of the Democratic Party.
And John Q. Public? Well, contrary to the Locksteppers’ wishes,
morality isn’t dead. John Q. has been very faithful to his spouse,
thank you!
And the younger generation? Well, the morals of the younger generation
make those of the Locksteppers pale in comparison. According to
American Demographics magazine (February 1999), 80.5% of the
18-24-year-olds gave a resounding "YES" to the question would they get
married if they found the right person, while at the same time a
dramatic drop in early sexual activity has been reported. And pity the
poor Patricia Irelands of the world: The New Millennium Woman reports
that 82% of 20-24-year-olds thought motherhood was the most important
job in the world! So for the doomsayers who believe our society has
reached new depths in immorality, guess again!
As Mr. and Ms. John Q. Public become more aware of how they were
deceived and manipulated, their anger will continue to mount. They are
disgusted with both the media and the congressional circus surrounding
Clinton’s impeachment. Contrary to the spin coming out of Washington,
the public will not forget how they were deceived by the Locksteppers
and the media. Many organizations are already studying the possibility
of 12 month floating boycotts against selected companies advertising
on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. From all indications, Americans are
planning serious retribution for being manipulated!
America is still the greatest country in the world and our diversity
adds to that strength each and every day. Democrats, Republicans,
Libertarians, and Independents alike continue to mold its greatness in
spite of those intent on keeping us divided. We must be alert for
those who find it profitable to keep us from developing synergies and
focusing on remediating our governmental bodies. It will take more
than liars, cheaters, deceivers, and thieves to take us down!
Short Biography of Jack Koenig
President of Jack Koenig & Associates, a management consulting firm
specializing in restructuring and fine tuning "challenged" companies
Chairman and President of the nation’s largest grassroots network,
the Impact Voters of America
Elected to Who’s Who Worldwide in 1992
Elected to Kensington’s Who’s Who in 1998
Recipient of 1998 Illinois Citizen Initiative Award
Has appeared on national and local television including CNN’s
Inside Politics and several Public Television programs
Frequent guest and guest host on numerous radio shows including
Citizen Lobby
Participant in a nationally televised panel discussion, along with
former presidential candidates Eugene McCarthy and John
Anderson, as well as with the chair of the University of
Texas Political Science Department, in a discussion on third
party politics
Featured in numerous newspaper articles discussing his career and
political involvement
Editor and Publisher of Grassroots America, the nation’s leading
grassroots publication. Editorial contributors to Grassroots
America have included Congressman Dick Armey, Billy Tauzin,
Bill Archer, and John Porter; numerous Illinois legislators
including Senate President Pate Philip, Senate Minority
Leader Emil Jones, House Minority Leader Lee Daniels, State
Representative Lauren Beth Gash, and hundreds of other
authors
Public Speaker and Political Activist
Civic Contributions
National Chairman, Impact Voters of America
Former State Chairman, United We Stand, America-IL
Past President, Del Mar Woods Homeowners Association
Voter Registrar
Volunteer at a home for the handicapped
Military
U.S. Navy - Honorable Discharge
Education
Bachelor of Science, De Paul University
Work Experience
Management Consultant
Entrepreneur
Senior Industrial Engineer
Senior Systems Analyst
Cost and Financial Analyst
Inventor
Researcher
End of section on “Hosing of America.”
When we do a follow up e-wire on public opinion polling, we will refer
readers back to this e-wire for reference. More tomorrow.
Jim Condit Jr.,
Director Citizens for a Fair Vote Count
To contact us, e-mail to: jcon...@networkamerica.org
or
netam...@unidial.com
Please forward our messages to friends and opinion molders. The year
2000 Presidential Campaign offers an opportunity to de-stablize the
New World Order Ruling Elite and restore honest elections with
citizens checks and balances, true Freedom and true Free Enterprise in
America.
Let fellow citizens, opinion molders, pastors, public officials, and
the newsmedia know -- that we will not accept the 2000 Election
results unless paper ballots with citizen checks and balances are
restored to the process at the local precinct level.
To Subscribe: networkameri...@topica.com
To Unsubscribe: networkameric...@topica.com
Our website: www.networkamerica.org
Our Address: PO Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
To read all current messages on the Network America listserve news
service, do the following: 1) go to www.topica.com 2)if you have not
yet done so, log in as a topica member which requires your e-mail
address and a password you make up (this only need be done once) 3)
then when you log in to www.topica.com, click on "my topica" at the
top of the screen; then on 4) Network America, and then 5) click on
"Read Current Messages" which is the top choice at the left column on
that screen. (Note: in some cases you may find that you have skipped
over the "my topica" screen and have been sent straight to the screen
with the "Network America" choice.)
_________________________________________________________
Enlighten your in-box. http://www.topica.com/t/15
Erik Van Riper
>
> Erik's official "ban" from IGS was on account of a letter sent to
> him from INET, a letter Erik had initially promised to publish to
> this newsgroup in the Spring of 1995, but never did. There should
> have never been a discussion concerning Erik's case without public
> review of the actual terms of INET's letter "banning" Erik's access.
> The reprehensible elements of Erik's activity must have been itemized
> by that letter, and extremely unflattering to Erik (which explains
> why Erik had never made its contents available to the rest of us).
>
> - regards
> - jb
Once again, you are wrong. Either you do not know that you are wrong,
or you are a liar.
to...@corning-cc.edu
Erik Van Riper <ge...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Erik's official "ban" from IGS was on account of a letter sent
to
> > him from INET, a letter Erik had initially promised to publish to
> > this newsgroup in the Spring of 1995, but never did. There should
> > have never been a discussion concerning Erik's case without public
> > review of the actual terms of INET's letter "banning" Erik's
access.
> > The reprehensible elements of Erik's activity must have been
itemized
> > by that letter, and extremely unflattering to Erik (which explains
> > why Erik had never made its contents available to the rest of us).
> >
> > - regards
> > - jb
>
> or you are a liar.
>
prove him wrong post the letter!
--
Terry Tozer
to...@corning-cc.edu