Offense or Freedom of Expression
PenKFlowers
people. Like call a black man a nigger or tell a 10-year-old child all that
there is to know about sex or call on God just as a curse. There are some
things out there that offend people by existing. Such as Maplethorpe's stuff
(crucifix submerged in urine or stuck up some guy's ass). Then again there are
people who point out things that they consider wrong and this is censored.
Just kind of rambling at the moment, bear with me please.
The US is supposedly a place where an opinion can be rendered in public without
fear of retribution at least from the government. My question, I guess, is
where is the line drawn for the government of the US and, more importantly,
where do people draw line between offense and some asshole's opinion. Why is
it that people get all bent out of shape over the use of vulgar language? I
know that the more vulgar the language a person uses, the dumber they get
labelled in my book. Also the more vulgarities that somebody uses in a
conversation or argument the less and less logical their arguments/points
sound.
I have heard it said that you shouldn't say/do/watch anything that you wouldn't
say/do/watch in front of your own mother. There's a lot of really funny vulgar
stuff out there. Also, I wouldn't discuss my sex life with my parents, but
that doesn't seem wrong.
I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent in
language 'think' the words in that language. Vulgar language is considered
base by most people. Does that mean that someone who uses obscenities as a
matter of course is becoming rather stupider and lower in their thought
processes as they use coarser and 'lower' language/thoughts?
Sorry about that. Back to the original meandering stream of consciousness
thought. Where does someone draw the line between saying that something
offends me and should be removed or that the same something is a radically
different opinion (possibly that of an idiot, a jerk, or someone who just has
had a totally different experience than myself)? And, just to throw something
else into the mix, how the hell would that be put into law?
Thanx
Phildotcom
Diane L.
"PenKFlowers" <penkf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020821020159...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> There are those things that people say that will offend the hell out of
> some people. Like call a black man a nigger
Unless you're another black man. Or woman. I think we've established that
context is important.
>or tell a 10-year-old child all that there is to know about sex
I don't know all there is to know about sex. I'm still having fun finding
out. But part of my job is teaching eleven year old children some of
what they need to know about sex. And answering their questions as
honestly as I can.
> or call on God just as a curse.
I've never used God's name as a curse (is it possible to curse 'in God's
name'?). Perhaps you mean 'just as an expletive'?
> There are some
> things out there that offend people by existing. Such as Maplethorpe's
> stuff (crucifix submerged in urine
"Piss Christ" was Serrano, not Maplethorpe.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502
.html
There's a rather good article about the meanings behind the work here.
http://www.dnai.com/~mindfld/crucifix.html
I'm reminded of a story I was told when visiting the Sagrada Familia
church in Barcelona. Apparently there were objections to the sculpture
of Christ crucified because he wasn't wearing a loincloth. In other words,
it's OK to have a sculpture of a man being tortured to death, but if you
can see his genitalia it becomes obscene.
> or stuck up some guy's ass).
I'm unaware of a Mapplethorpe picture of a crucifix stuck up some guy's
ass. Perhaps you could provide me with a reference?
> Then again there are
> people who point out things that they consider wrong and this is censored.
> Just kind of rambling at the moment, bear with me please.
>
> The US is supposedly a place where an opinion can be rendered in public
> without fear of retribution at least from the government. My question, I
> guess, is where is the line drawn for the government of the US
Small point. The US is not the world. Get hold of a globe and you'll
notice that there are other countries on there. Some of us live in those
other countries.
> and, more
> importantly, where do people draw line between offense and some asshole's
> opinion. Why is it that people get all bent out of shape over the use of
> vulgar language? I know that the more vulgar the language a person uses,
> the dumber they get labelled in my book. Also the more vulgarities that
> somebody uses in a conversation or argument the less and less logical
> their arguments/points sound.
This may not be the best way to judge someone's arguments. I've heard a
lot of stupid arguments from people who would never dream of using
expletives, and some very intelligent ones from people who can't finish a
sentence without swearing. I also know some people who *do* use
'fucking' as their adjective as choice because they have a limited
vocabulary. My point is, it doesn't correlate.
> I have heard it said that you shouldn't say/do/watch anything that you
> wouldn't say/do/watch in front of your own mother.
I think if that was the case the human race would suffer a serious reduction
in population. And enjoyment. I'm quite sure my mother does a lot of things
she wouldn't want me watching, either.
> There's a lot of really funny vulgar stuff out there. Also, I wouldn't
> discuss my sex life with my parents, but that doesn't seem wrong.
>
> I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent
> in language 'think' the words in that language. Vulgar language is
> considered base by most people.
By most people you know. Perhaps you need a wider perspective
> Does that mean that someone who uses obscenities as a
> matter of course is becoming rather stupider and lower in their thought
> processes as they use coarser and 'lower' language/thoughts?
No.
> Sorry about that. Back to the original meandering stream of consciousness
> thought. Where does someone draw the line between saying that something
> offends me and should be removed or that the same something is a radically
> different opinion (possibly that of an idiot, a jerk, or someone who just
> has had a totally different experience than myself)?
If you find yourself saying that anything that offends you should be
removed, then I think you should examine yourself first. Is your
faith/morality/society really so fragile that it can be put in danger
just by being offended?
> And, just to throw something
> else into the mix, how the hell would that be put into law?
It wouldn't. It shouldn't.
Diane L.
Lodestone
It's interesting - the fact is you CANNOT have the Black and White of
"Freedom of Speech" - you HAVE to pick a shade of grey (even if it is only,
of course, grubby white). If you go completely one way, you end up under a
Stalinist regime. If you go completely the other, you end up with a form of
Streunerian [1]anarchy [2] - the belief (put in writing my a man from
Germany, name of Max Streuner [1]) that everyone has the right to do
whatever they want. This means that I have the right to kill somebody, but
that they also have the right to live.
I find the best way to go is to:
a) Never say anything that would offend you were it said of you. That's the
easy part.
b) Find out the sensibilites of the people you're talking to before saying
anything that could be construed as offensive.
Being rather... loose... with language myself, I find this essential.
[1] Possibly incorrect spelling, I can't find my book...
[2] Not to be confused with *true* anarchy [3], the belief that a society
should be able to work together with equal rights for all without the need
for a government or head of state.
[3] In turn not to be confused with nihilism, the belief that all forms of
governments are (to simplify) inherently evil and should be destroyed.
--
Lodestone
Happy the man, and happy he alone,
He who can call today his own,
He who secure within can say,
"Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
(Homer - Ode to the Man, as recited in "Tom Jones")
Lodestone
> I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent
in
> language 'think' the words in that language. Vulgar language is
considered
> base by most people. Does that mean that someone who uses obscenities as
a
> matter of course is becoming rather stupider and lower in their thought
> processes as they use coarser and 'lower' language/thoughts?
>
> Thanx
>
> Phildotcom
Certianly not. I'm trying to disect the train fo thought there to point out
the logical flaw, but am failing. However, the resulting statement is
abhorrent.
Language is subjective - one man's pleasure is another's poison. For
example, I would find saying "Oh God" as a matter of course[1], but I know a
huge number of people would find this incredibly offensive.
[1] Running up against Pterry's "atheists and blasphemy" point
Sian Hiscock
not unless you are a friend." Real Men, Joe Jackson.
Ah, nothing like a good quote to put things into prospective....
>
> Unless you're another black man. Or woman. I think we've established that
> context is important.
>
Indeed. And if you're Ali G, which is just very sad and funny at the same
time.
> >or tell a 10-year-old child all that there is to know about sex
>
How the hell do you explain to a 7 y. o girl I'm babysitting what the hell a
slut is? I asked why she asked, and she said: "my friend's sister called her
friend it." I said it was a very nasty word for a girl, and that she
shouldn't -ever- call anyone it.
> I don't know all there is to know about sex. I'm still having fun finding
> out. But part of my job is teaching eleven year old children some of
> what they need to know about sex. And answering their questions as
> honestly as I can.
>
> > or call on God just as a curse.
>
Oh I do, frequently. But I've taken to saying "Gods!" Now. But acoording to
my mother my language has grown more colourful since college. When I am
around children and when I'm at work the hardest I've sworn is "darn!" or
"oh, dear." This is very hard to do: you try dealing with a pig of a
customer who yells at you (the joy of working with public) because I don't
have a perticular item in the store- obviously it's My Fault. Internally I'm
saying 'fuckofffuckofffuckofffuckoff you horrid man' where as externally I
smile and say "sorry for the inconvinience...etc." One of these days I am
going to have a nasty Freudian slip and say what I think instead of what i'm
meant to.
> I've never used God's name as a curse (is it possible to curse 'in God's
> name'?). Perhaps you mean 'just as an expletive'?
>
> > There are some
> > things out there that offend people by existing. Such as Maplethorpe's
> > stuff (crucifix submerged in urine
>
> "Piss Christ" was Serrano, not Maplethorpe.
>
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502
> .html
> There's a rather good article about the meanings behind the work here.
> http://www.dnai.com/~mindfld/crucifix.html
>
>
Studied "piss-Christ" in re-creation and tranformation lessons in History of
Art. Because I'm not religious I don't get the shock horror of it, but this
is art. *shrugs* If it gets a reaction out of you, either good or bad, then
it's doing its job. And the YBAs are very, very, good at shock tactics. And
quite frankly they're allowed to express how they feel: freedom of the
speech and all that. And don't give me- "but they're only doing it for a
reaction," no- not really. Emin's bed was her showing us how she lives, and
the press couldn't leave her alone! It's been pastiched so many times, used
as a joke- like Hirst's shark/sheep. Emin was showing us that she lives with
used condoms by her bed and dirty sheets. To be honest, I've seen worst
bedrooms in my time, but I can understand what she wanted to say: "this is
how I live: and I don't care what you think."
And if Steve McQueen wants to do an installation at what it is to be a gay
black man, let him. In Chris Ofili needs to express himself through tribal
African figures and elephant dung, so what? But I'm going off on another
tangeant, I know, and YBAs aren't under fire (though I suspect they will be
from soon.)
I can understand the debate. If I called Steve McQueen a nigger faggot, you
would be horrified, and for all the right reasons. I know we live in a P.C
society, and I know P.Cness can be very barmy sometimes, but good! Equality
for all. Everyone has their own version of sexism/racism, but I think the
good people have a line that we daren't cross over, unless of course you'
have the same mentality as a KKK member or one of the heartless bastards
that killed Matthew Shepard.
Sian
XxX
Suzi
Diane L. <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wibbled...
> "PenKFlowers" <penkf...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020821020159...@mb-dd.aol.com...
[Snip]
> > The US is supposedly a place where an opinion can be rendered in public
> > without fear of retribution at least from the government. My question, I
> > guess, is where is the line drawn for the government of the US
>
> Small point. The US is not the world. Get hold of a globe and you'll
> notice that there are other countries on there. Some of us live in those
> other countries.
In fact, in this particular newsgroup, I think I wouldn't be wrong to
state that the *majority* are not from the USA, or even from the
continent of America... if I were to guess at numbers I'd guess that
approximately 75% of this group are British or European :-)
Suzi
gareth bellaby
>
> [has not quoted as concerns whole passage]
>
> It's interesting - the fact is you CANNOT have the Black and White of
> "Freedom of Speech" - you HAVE to pick a shade of grey (even if it is only,
> of course, grubby white). If you go completely one way, you end up under a
> Stalinist regime. If you go completely the other, you end up with a form of
> Streunerian [1]anarchy [2] - the belief (put in writing my a man from
> Germany, name of Max Streuner [1]) that everyone has the right to do
> whatever they want. This means that I have the right to kill somebody, but
> that they also have the right to live.
>
> I find the best way to go is to:
> a) Never say anything that would offend you were it said of you. That's the
> easy part.
> b) Find out the sensibilites of the people you're talking to before saying
> anything that could be construed as offensive.
>
> Being rather... loose... with language myself, I find this essential.
>
> [1] Possibly incorrect spelling, I can't find my book...
<pedant>
Max Stirner.
</pedant>
--
Gareth
"There's a fetid shade that only haunts the study lamp
And it gives my neck a cramp
And it flickers off and on
As I try to read my Necronomicon"
Scarlet's Well, "Why Do Spirits Haunt Ruby Auburn?"
PenKFlowers
>From: "Diane L." di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk
>Date: 8/21/02 6:08 AM Eastern
>There's a rather good article about the meanings behind the work here.
>http://www.dnai.com/~mindfld/crucifix.html
>
Thank you for the reference. I am more enlightened about the message of that
particular piece.
I also got the two references about Serrano's 'Piss Christ' and Maplethorpe's
'Self-Portrait' mixed up. I apologize for any confusion. The link that
cleared it up for me I got from a Yahoo search for crucifix obscene and rectum.
I got the expected religous site but the information that I was looking for
was also present. Here it is:
http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0006213.html
The original intent of my post was to ask two fundamental questions. Why do
governments and people label some things obscene when the original intent is
not to be vulgar or offend, but merely an attempt at expressing an opinion?
Second, why are verbal/written attacks (those things perceived as attacks or
actual attacks) by those with which we are unfamiliar (and had they not
'attacked' would not give one damn about) elicit such a violent response as
they do?
I got on the board after a rather long day and an even longer night. It was 3
am, local time. It was stream of consciousness. If anyone was offended by my
interchanging of US and government freely in my line of questioning, sorry.
You could replace it with 'Free World' if it makes you feel better.
Thank you all for your responses especially Diane L., Sian, and Lodestone. I
really liked Lodestone's "Language is subjective - one man's pleasure is
another's poison. For
example, I would find saying "Oh God" as a matter of course[1], but I know a
huge number of people would find this incredibly offensive.
[1] Running up against Pterry's "atheists and blasphemy" point
"
I try very hard not to take anything personally and thus avoiding getting
really angry. I don't do such a good job sometimes. Most of the time, I
realize that people are merely upset with a situation rather than a person. Of
course, sometimes people are just assholes. I just wanted some opinions of
other people as to why vulgarities/obscenities/whatever are so very very
offensive to people. I just happened to run headlong into that question at a
time in the morning when my brain cells are contemplating civil war with
whatever was keeping me awake.
Thanx
Phildotcom
Maaike
> There are those things that people say that will offend the hell out of some
> people. Like call a black man a nigger
Depends who's doing the calling and the listening, doesn't it?
> or tell a 10-year-old child all that there is to know about sex
I'm not sure about *all* there is to know... It's a nice thought that
people might not learn that until they've stopped having sex
altogether, although at my age I really can't say... But there are
things a ten-year-old child really *should* know about sex; puberty is
only so far away at that age, or else it's already started.
And if any child is about to acquire some younger siblings, I think
it's only fair to sit them down and give them a few basic facts before
those siblings show up. I mean, it's hard not to notice the things.
They're going to wonder where they came from.
> or call on God just as a curse.
Just a tangent, here: *Is* the bit about not taking God's name in vain
supposed to refer to his...well...name, or is it the other sort of
name, his reputation or prestige, that is meant? Any Hebrew readers
who can clarify this? Because I'm sure I read somewhere that there was
a translation error in that passage. And now you've made me all
curious about it again.
<mini-snip>
> The US is supposedly a place where an opinion can be rendered in public without
> fear of retribution at least from the government. My question, I guess, is
> where is the line drawn for the government of the US and, more importantly,
> where do people draw line between offense and some asshole's opinion.
Um. What, exactly, does the US have to do with this? I mean, it's just
some country. Why should it define the line between "offense and some
asshole's opinion"?
> Why is
> it that people get all bent out of shape over the use of vulgar language?
Because the sort of people who get bent up over vulgar language are
the sort who consider bits of language to be vulgar, probably.
> I
> know that the more vulgar the language a person uses, the dumber they get
> labelled in my book. Also the more vulgarities that somebody uses in a
> conversation or argument the less and less logical their arguments/points
> sound.
If you say so. Although I have to point out, in the spirit of pure
pedantry, the use of the word "asshole" further up the post. :-)
> I have heard it said that you shouldn't say/do/watch anything that you wouldn't
> say/do/watch in front of your own mother.
Really? Life could get very constipated, with a philosophy like that.
And there would be an awfully big population drop.
<mini-snip>
> I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent in
> language 'think' the words in that language. Vulgar language is considered
> base by most people. Does that mean that someone who uses obscenities as a
> matter of course is becoming rather stupider and lower in their thought
> processes as they use coarser and 'lower' language/thoughts?
I very much doubt that. Just because it's considered base doesn't mean
it is. Besides, so-called "vulgarities" simply tend to be used for
emphasis. And, of course, people who don't use them will more often
than not resort to euphemisms for same things.
> Sorry about that. Back to the original meandering stream of consciousness
> thought. Where does someone draw the line between saying that something
> offends me and should be removed or that the same something is a radically
> different opinion (possibly that of an idiot, a jerk, or someone who just has
> had a totally different experience than myself)?
You can't, not objectively. Every person draws the line, somewhere in
their heads. And sometimes the lines overlap, and sometimes they
don't. When they don't, people have to deal with it. Sometimes they
deal quietly, inside their heads, and sometimes they deal loudly, with
protests and strikes and demonstrations and who knows what else.
That's the best anyone can do about it.
> And, just to throw something
> else into the mix, how the hell would that be put into law?
In a horrible, horrible nightmare.
-Maaike
VT52
news:MPG.17cddef8c...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> In article <102992449...@doris.uk.clara.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
> Diane L. <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wibbled...
>
> > "PenKFlowers" <penkf...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020821020159...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> [Snip]
> > notice that there are other countries on there. Some of us live in those
> > other countries.
>
> In fact, in this particular newsgroup, I think I wouldn't be wrong to
> state that the *majority* are not from the USA, or even from the
> continent of America... if I were to guess at numbers I'd guess that
> approximately 75% of this group are British or European :-)
Even Australians, New Zealanders, etc. Bias is Ingalesh language not
location.
Regards,
PDP11
Torak
>
> I got on the board after a rather long day and an even longer night. It
was 3
> am, local time. It was stream of consciousness. If anyone was offended
by my
> interchanging of US and government freely in my line of questioning,
sorry.
> You could replace it with 'Free World' if it makes you feel better.
The irony... It always amuses me how the Americans (no reflection on you - I
don't know your nationality - just a general comment) pride themselves on
being the "land of the free" and "leaders of the free world" - but they
restrict freedom more than many other places. You can get investigated just
for an inadvertent word or an opinion that disagrees with the government.
Now, national security, of course, is paramount, but you'll never have a
healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
Lodestone
> <pedant>
>
> Max Stirner.
>
> </pedant>
Thanks mate!
My precious volume about left-wing politics is still sadly absent, no idea
where it got to...
Lodestone
> but you'll never have a healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
Ach you'll never have a healthy democracy anyway. Democracy, by definition,
is never perfect.
But hey, that's just my arrogant opinion ;-)
--
Lodestone
Happy the man, and happy he alone,
He who can call today his own,
He who secure within can say,
"Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have incited political argument today."
(Homer - Ode to the Man, as misquoted by Lodestone)
Mary Messall
> The irony... It always amuses me how the Americans (no reflection on you - I
> don't know your nationality - just a general comment) pride themselves on
> being the "land of the free" and "leaders of the free world" - but they
> restrict freedom more than many other places. You can get investigated just
> for an inadvertent word or an opinion that disagrees with the government.
> Now, national security, of course, is paramount, but you'll never have a
> healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
Torak, you've obviously never lived here. If you'd seen half the utter
crap that gets published, you wouldn't say that...
-Mary (just watched a West Wing re-run: "*We'd* credential the National
Enquirer if they ever asked us. Making sure that the Enquirer can write
whatever it wants is the only way I can be sure the New York Times is
writing whatever they want." - Toby the unfortunately fictional.)
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Rocky Frisco
> The irony... It always amuses me how the Americans (no reflection on you - I
> don't know your nationality - just a general comment) pride themselves on
> being the "land of the free" and "leaders of the free world" - but they
> restrict freedom more than many other places. You can get investigated just
> for an inadvertent word or an opinion that disagrees with the government.
> Now, national security, of course, is paramount, but you'll never have a
> healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
Agreed; we have lost it. The US Constitution is a document that was
supposed to guarantee that government would abide by certain
restrictions. Within a short time, the abuse of power guaranteed that
the US Supreme Court would "interpret" the document in ways that would
erode those guarantees. The hypocrisy of the "land of the free" slogans
and pronouncements is appalling.
We have more humans per capita in prison for frivolous reasons than any
other country. Property and currency are regularly confiscated without
any charges or conviction to justify this highway robbery.
Gracian stated centuries ago that the best way to prevent a thing from
happening is to believe it has already happened. He was alluding to the
Christian doctrine of "salvation," but it also seems to be a relevant
statement about "America."
As long as Americans are deluded into thinking they live in a
Constitutional republic, it will never come to pass.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Red Dirt Rangers (Rocky on piano): http://www.reddirtrangers.com
JJ Cale Live (w/Rocky): http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Luggage Fan Club: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luggage-fans
Torak
news:3D64AF52...@ups.edu...
> Torak wrote:
> > The irony... It always amuses me how the Americans (no reflection on
you - I
> > don't know your nationality - just a general comment) pride themselves
on
> > being the "land of the free" and "leaders of the free world" - but they
> > restrict freedom more than many other places. You can get investigated
just
> > for an inadvertent word or an opinion that disagrees with the
government.
> > Now, national security, of course, is paramount, but you'll never have a
> > healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
>
> Torak, you've obviously never lived here. If you'd seen half the utter
> crap that gets published, you wouldn't say that...
No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for questioning
on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
misconstrued.
Trence
Torak wrote:
> No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for questioning
> on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
> misconstrued.
>
Really? Which one? Would you mind pointing us to it? I for one am
interested in reading it... (If you'd point me to the NG and the thread
I'll look it up on deja.com and read the entire thread so as to get it
in context of course)
To beat you to the question of why I'm not already there looking it up,
I personally do not like to do general searches for what people may have
posted when and where, feels a bit like stalking to me.
Terence
Lodestone
news:3D652CB5...@rocky-frisco.com...
> Agreed; we have lost it. The US Constitution is a document that was
> supposed to guarantee that government would abide by certain
> restrictions. Within a short time, the abuse of power guaranteed that
> the US Supreme Court would "interpret" the document in ways that would
> erode those guarantees. The hypocrisy of the "land of the free" slogans
> and pronouncements is appalling.
>
> We have more humans per capita in prison for frivolous reasons than any
> other country. Property and currency are regularly confiscated without
> any charges or conviction to justify this highway robbery.
>
> Gracian stated centuries ago that the best way to prevent a thing from
> happening is to believe it has already happened. He was alluding to the
> Christian doctrine of "salvation," but it also seems to be a relevant
> statement about "America."
>
> As long as Americans are deluded into thinking they live in a
> Constitutional republic, it will never come to pass.
Me ole mucker, have one of these and cheer up:
*huggles*
And no, Torak, that's NOT a slang name for a spliff ;-)
A huggle, for those not in the know, is a cross between a hug and a cuddle.
It should be given to anyone who is either feeling down or has done
something very special. Alternatively, give random huggles to people on a
regular basis - make the world a better place.
--
Lodestone
Happy the man, and happy he alone,
He who can call today his own,
He who secure within can say,
Diane L.
"Sian Hiscock" <Sianie...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ak0qas$qv9$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> And if Steve McQueen wants to do an installation at what it is to be a gay
> black man, let him.
Agreed.
>. In Chris Ofili needs to express himself through tribal
> African figures and elephant dung, so what?
Just *in case* we're going to have the 'Art' thread again,
and in case Chris Ofili gets mentioned as an example, could
anyone who cares to comment have a look at
http://digitalconsciousness.com/artists/ofili/ please?
Just so we all know what we're talking about.
Diane L. (who agrees with the rest of Sian's comments, BTW)
Diane L.
> >Subject: Re:[I] Offense or Freedom of Expression
> >From: "Diane L." di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk
> >Date: 8/21/02 6:08 AM Eastern
>
> >There's a rather good article about the meanings behind the work here.
> >http://www.dnai.com/~mindfld/crucifix.html
> >
>
> Thank you for the reference. I am more enlightened about the message of
that
> particular piece.
You're welcome. Too many people judge a piece of art by what they've read
about it, rather than their own reactions or by what the artist intended.
> I also got the two references about Serrano's 'Piss Christ' and
Maplethorpe's
> 'Self-Portrait' mixed up. I apologize for any confusion. The link that
> cleared it up for me I got from a Yahoo search for crucifix obscene and
rectum.
> I got the expected religous site but the information that I was looking
for
> was also present. Here it is:
>
> http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0006213.html
OK, two things about this,
1) There doesn't seem to be any Robert Maplethorpe picture of a crucifix up
some guy's ass.:-)
2) The people who wrote this site have an agenda. Which is fine, as long as
you recognise the fact. (I also have an agenda - I don't think art should be
judged by whether or not it offends someone.)
> The original intent of my post was to ask two fundamental questions. Why
do
> governments and people label some things obscene when the original intent
is
> not to be vulgar or offend, but merely an attempt at expressing an
opinion?
I think because they have so much invested in the status quo that they see
any
attempt to express a contrary opinion as an attack on them, as people,
rather
than as a questioning of the system.
> Second, why are verbal/written attacks (those things perceived as attacks
or
> actual attacks) by those with which we are unfamiliar (and had they not
> 'attacked' would not give one damn about) elicit such a violent response
as
> they do?
I think I'd have to say "insecurity" here. I can't think of any other
reason.
> I got on the board
ITYM 'newsgroup' :-)
>after a rather long day and an even longer night. It was 3
> am, local time. It was stream of consciousness. If anyone was offended
by my
> interchanging of US and government freely in my line of questioning,
sorry.
> You could replace it with 'Free World' if it makes you feel better.
I probably over-reacted. Most newsgroups *are* predominantly US- based
(this is a reflection of the numbers of people on-line in different
countries) but
as Suzi said, afp is not. This means we get quite annoyed by USians saying
"In this country ..." implying that the whole world is American.
<snip>
Diane L.
Rocky Frisco
>
> "Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
> news:3D652CB5...@rocky-frisco.com...
> > Agreed; we have lost it. The US Constitution is a document that was
> > supposed to guarantee that government would abide by certain
> > restrictions. Within a short time, the abuse of power guaranteed that
> > the US Supreme Court would "interpret" the document in ways that would
> > erode those guarantees. The hypocrisy of the "land of the free" slogans
> > and pronouncements is appalling.
> >
> > We have more humans per capita in prison for frivolous reasons than any
> > other country. Property and currency are regularly confiscated without
> > any charges or conviction to justify this highway robbery.
> >
> > Gracian stated centuries ago that the best way to prevent a thing from
> > happening is to believe it has already happened. He was alluding to the
> > Christian doctrine of "salvation," but it also seems to be a relevant
> > statement about "America."
> >
> > As long as Americans are deluded into thinking they live in a
> > Constitutional republic, it will never come to pass.
>
> Me ole mucker, have one of these and cheer up:
>
> *huggles*
>
> And no, Torak, that's NOT a slang name for a spliff ;-)
Correct; that would be "muggles." ;)
> A huggle, for those not in the know, is a cross between a hug and a cuddle.
> It should be given to anyone who is either feeling down or has done
> something very special. Alternatively, give random huggles to people on a
> regular basis - make the world a better place.
Well, I'm not really down about the loss of America's dream of freedom,
although I am pissed off, which is different, but I do accept in the
spirit it was offered.
Andrew Gray
>> Torak, you've obviously never lived here. If you'd seen half the utter
>> crap that gets published, you wouldn't say that...
>
>No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for questioning
>on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
>misconstrued.
Details? "Called in" implies a stick behind a request, so presumably they
had some legal force to this questioning - what jurisdiction was this in?
Regardless, that's not censorship. Had they deleted that post, caused it to
not exist, that would be (strangely precise) censorship...
- Andrew.
--
shim...@bigfoot.com ; andre...@dur.ac.uk
Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race.
- Albert Einstein.
Torak
news:3D653F58...@planet.nl...
> Torak wrote:
>
> > No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for
questioning
> > on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
> > misconstrued.
>
> Really? Which one? Would you mind pointing us to it? I for one am
> interested in reading it... (If you'd point me to the NG and the thread
> I'll look it up on deja.com and read the entire thread so as to get it
> in context of course)
alt.military.air-cadets - someone decided to post the details of a
government agent, and we all replied with things along the lines of "get off
our NG". Unfortunately, I made a reference to certain exothermic
compounds... ;-)
Search for "nitro" and my nick, that should find it.
> To beat you to the question of why I'm not already there looking it up,
> I personally do not like to do general searches for what people may have
> posted when and where, feels a bit like stalking to me.
I like that, it shows integrity.
Torak
news:ak3juk$17f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Me ole mucker, have one of these and cheer up:
>
> *huggles*
>
> And no, Torak, that's NOT a slang name for a spliff ;-)
A what?
> A huggle, for those not in the know, is a cross between a hug and a
cuddle.
> It should be given to anyone who is either feeling down or has done
> something very special. Alternatively, give random huggles to people on a
> regular basis - make the world a better place.
Assuming one doesn't misinterpret it and wallop you one. ;-)
Torak
news:ak57l4$jtg$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
> Torak wrote in message ...
>
> >> Torak, you've obviously never lived here. If you'd seen half the utter
> >> crap that gets published, you wouldn't say that...
> >
> >No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for
questioning
> >on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
> >misconstrued.
>
> Details? "Called in" implies a stick behind a request, so presumably they
> had some legal force to this questioning - what jurisdiction was this in?
That was in Galloway, Scotland. (See a couple of posts up - someone was
going to look it up) The CIA or FBI or something called Scotland Yard, who
called the local police HQ, who called the local station, who called our
house (and found it empty) so called our gardener, who gave them our other
number, so they called us here in Brussels and asked if we "might take a
moment and drop into the station when you get back to the UK, Sir, if it's
not too much trouble".
> Regardless, that's not censorship. Had they deleted that post, caused it
to
> not exist, that would be (strangely precise) censorship...
In effect, it is. Because if you know something like the US government is
keeping an eye on you, you watch out with what you post. For that reason, I
hardly ever post any serious criticisms of the US these days.
Trence
Torak wrote:
> "Trence" <tar...@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:3D653F58...@planet.nl...
>
>>Torak wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I've never lived there. However, I have been called in for
>>>
> questioning
>
>>>on behalf of the US Government because of a post I made that they
>>>misconstrued.
>>>
>>Really? Which one? Would you mind pointing us to it? I for one am
>>interested in reading it... (If you'd point me to the NG and the thread
>>I'll look it up on deja.com and read the entire thread so as to get it
>>in context of course)
>>
>
> alt.military.air-cadets - someone decided to post the details of a
> government agent, and we all replied with things along the lines of "get off
> our NG". Unfortunately, I made a reference to certain exothermic
> compounds... ;-)
> Search for "nitro" and my nick, that should find it.
>
And that was enough to get you in for questioning? Sheez.
Although to be fair, I gather that you are a member of the armed forces
and as such I can understand a bit of higher scrutiny; the assumption
that you know what you're talking about as opposed to most of the posts
concerning this sort of thing, which are made by nutcases.
>
>>To beat you to the question of why I'm not already there looking it up,
>>I personally do not like to do general searches for what people may have
>>posted when and where, feels a bit like stalking to me.
>>
>
> I like that, it shows integrity.
>
Thank you. I do keep track of what's being posted under my nick, as I'm not
the only one using it and I'd like to know what someone may call me up
on. (there is someone in the wwf newsgroup who uses it for instance.)
Terence
Mary Messall
> In effect, it is. Because if you know something like the US government is
> keeping an eye on you, you watch out with what you post. For that reason, I
> hardly ever post any serious criticisms of the US these days.
I can think of almost no more damning criticism than the one you're
levelling now.
-Mary
Andy Davison
<3D660610...@ups.edu>, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>I can think of almost no more damning criticism than the one you're
>levelling now.
Too true. I think you explained it well when you returned to the US
and you said that the British are far more cynical. We criticise our
leaders and take the rise out of them as a matter of course but
criticising the mother country seems almost to be a crime in the US (I
speak as an outsider looking across the pond). Dubya's famously stupid
"You're either with us or against us" comment was the sort of thing
that, if a British politician had said it, he would have expected to
have everyone and his dog blowing raspberries at.
I certainly couldn't imagine a US magazine having a cover like the
latest Private Eye (1061) http://www.private-eye.co.uk/cover.htm
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 23/08/02 19:16 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vgucmu0drvdelqbh3...@4ax.com>
Actually, the one before last is a better example. Most countries can criticise
someone *else's* leaders 8-).
--
Dave
EU SF&FSoc http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
When one is tired of London, one is tired of being overcharged, overcrowded,
insulted, rushed and compelled to make 2 hour journeys that anywhere else would
take 15 minutes. -Diane L on afp.
Andy Davison
<20020823142737...@mb-mt.aol.com>,
daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Chiennedelh) wrote:
>Actually, the one before last is a better example. Most countries can criticise
>someone *else's* leaders 8-).
Which is why I mentioned the latest. I should have pointed out the
take-the-piss-out-of-the-Blairs covers they often have but only the
current cover is on the website.
My favourite recent cover was the one with Bin Laden saying "Forget
terrorism. I'm going to become an accountant" after the Worldcom crash
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Julia Jones
<to...@andrew-perry.com> writes
>alt.military.air-cadets - someone decided to post the details of a
>government agent, and we all replied with things along the lines of "get off
>our NG". Unfortunately, I made a reference to certain exothermic
>compounds... ;-)
>Search for "nitro" and my nick, that should find it.
<boggle> They got upset about *that*? *Before* Sep 11?
So did someone reading the newsgroup misconstrue your post and report
you for threatening to bomb a DEA agent, or did the non-existent Echelon
get you?
--
Julia Jones
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
<di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
must resist...
Shirley you meant Merkins?
FiX <couldn't resist>
<G,D&R>
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
And Swede, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, spain, France...
bias is enjoying the froup's feel, not maternal language ;-)
FiX
>
>Regards,
>PDP11
>
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
>I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent in
>language 'think' the words in that language.
Yup. Can you imagine the fluency required to think in a language and
speak in another language? Directly thinking in the output language is
_much_ easier.
FiX
Janice Wright
Easier, yes, but generally only possible if one either a) learned
the second language before/around puberty, or b) have spent *many*
years in total immersion.
Jan
Beth Winter
>
> Easier, yes, but generally only possible if one either a) learned
> the second language before/around puberty, or b) have spent *many*
> years in total immersion.
Really? I've only learned German in the last two years (I knew a few
words before, but I really started studying right now), and even though
I'm not very fluent, I find myself thinking in it if I have to speak in
it.
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Topi Saavalainen
<j...@frivolous.ossifrage.net> wrote:
True, though media immersion is enough. I had been thinking in English
for years before the first time I ever visited an English-speaking
country. I often even speak to myself in English.
I didn't actually need to tell you that, did I? Damn.
Topi.
Eric Jarvis
> Janice Wright wrote:
> >
> > Easier, yes, but generally only possible if one either a) learned
> > the second language before/around puberty, or b) have spent *many*
> > years in total immersion.
>
> Really? I've only learned German in the last two years (I knew a few
> words before, but I really started studying right now), and even though
> I'm not very fluent, I find myself thinking in it if I have to speak in
> it.
>
likewise...I didn't even start on Italian until I was in my 30s...I don't
have a tremendous vocabulary, and I make grammatical errors...but I simply
can't translate between English and Italian, I can only think and speak
directly in both
I've been on the verge of it with both French and Russian...though I find
it more difficult because I was taught both of those at school
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Sylvain Chambon
Montgolfier, alt.fan.pratchett} ->
I do that all the time: whenever I think consciously, I do it in English
or sometimes (rarely these days) Swedish. As an exercise, kind of thing
-- I don't believe I can become "good" at a language if I don't think
it, and habits are hard to break. I hardly ever think in French, yet
it's by far the language I speak the most (and best).
It doesn't require being fluent in either language, just a bit of self-
discipline.
Sylvain.
Sylvain Chambon
alt.fan.pratchett} ->
Wrong.
Thinking in a language that is not your native language only requires a
bit of self-discipline -- I think in English and sometimes Swedish. When
I was learning German I'd make a point of translating my every thought
into German (or thinking straight into German).
I normally dream in English, too.
For the record, I started learning English around the age of 11
(although I've been *hearing* English all my life) and Swedish around
the age of 23. I have never lived in an English-speaking country yet,
and only 23 months in Sweden. And that was hardly total immersion since
All Swedes Speak Perfect English(tm).
Sylvain.
Mary Messall
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:52:00 GMT, in message
> <3D660610...@ups.edu>, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> >I can think of almost no more damning criticism than the one you're
> >levelling now.
> Too true. I think you explained it well when you returned to the US
> and you said that the British are far more cynical. We criticise our
> leaders and take the rise out of them as a matter of course but
> criticising the mother country seems almost to be a crime in the US (I
> speak as an outsider looking across the pond). Dubya's famously stupid
> "You're either with us or against us" comment was the sort of thing
> that, if a British politician had said it, he would have expected to
> have everyone and his dog blowing raspberries at.
On the other hand, Americans stereotypically hate government. Wheras
the British just hate whoever's in the government. If the British are
cynical, Americans are paranoid.
How can you be paranoid and patriotic, you ask? I must first point out
that we look more patriotic than we are, from the outside. Because you
mostly hear from government spokespeople, no doubt. Try a college
campus, and you find (rather than cynicism) earnest opposition all over
the place. *Nobody* I know likes Bush, in spite of the approval
ratings. (His election was not, you will recall, a landslide, and poll
numbers mean little when people are equating "supporting the president"
with "opposing the people who attacked our economic and military
capitals".)
And that brings us to the other reason you can be patriotic and
paranoid--because America started the way it did, and was populated by
the disaffected, patriotism here is allegiance to an ideal, not any
particular people. The people who most hate the federal goverment are
also those who wave the flag with the most pride. Hating government is
a principle the flag is supposed to stand for, in many people's eyes...
I'm sorry Torak, I don't believe that the US government pays any
attention at all to your posts. But you sound like a good American,
saying that...
Julia Jones
<an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:52:00 GMT, in message
><3D660610...@ups.edu>, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>
>>I can think of almost no more damning criticism than the one you're
>>levelling now.
>
>Too true. I think you explained it well when you returned to the US
>and you said that the British are far more cynical. We criticise our
>leaders and take the rise out of them as a matter of course but
>criticising the mother country seems almost to be a crime in the US (I
>speak as an outsider looking across the pond).
Speaking as an insider living under the latest version of McCarthyism -
Dubya certainly thinks it's a crime to criticise the executive. A very
serious crime. Earlier this week he was suggesting that it was an act of
treason to query whether the erosion of civil liberties was really
necessary.
Alec Cawley
> Andy Davison <an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Dubya's famously stupid
>> "You're either with us or against us" comment was the sort of thing
>> that, if a British politician had said it, he would have expected to
>> have everyone and his dog blowing raspberries at.
>
> It is somewhat cyclical. Hmm, and it seems more common with
> presidents named Bush. During the (original) Gulf War, it was very
> common that one could be accused of not "supporting the soldiers" if
> one was opposed to the war. Sort of silly, since there were already a
> vast number of cheerleaders out in the streets giddy with happiness
> that we were killing foreigners again, so why the need to try and drum
> up even more support. Very disturbing. The more recent attitude that
> all true patriots should be supporting every action by the president
> and the attorney general at least isn't so nasty that people aren't
> afraid to criticize it out loud.
My great grandfather got accused of the same thing wrt the Boer War.
Becuase he though we shouldn't have got involved in it in the first case,
he was accused of dengrating Britain, non-patriotism, etc. (he still won
the election, though).
--
@lec Šawley
Paul E. Jamison
> In article <vgucmu0drvdelqbh3...@4ax.com>, Andy Davison
> <an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes
> >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:52:00 GMT, in message
> ><3D660610...@ups.edu>, Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>I can think of almost no more damning criticism than the one you're
> >>levelling now.
> >
> >Too true. I think you explained it well when you returned to the US
> >and you said that the British are far more cynical. We criticise our
> >leaders and take the rise out of them as a matter of course but
> >criticising the mother country seems almost to be a crime in the US (I
> >speak as an outsider looking across the pond).
>
> Speaking as an insider living under the latest version of McCarthyism -
> Dubya certainly thinks it's a crime to criticise the executive. A very
> serious crime. Earlier this week he was suggesting that it was an act of
> treason to query whether the erosion of civil liberties was really
> necessary.
>
Who was it that said something along the lines of "If this be treason,
then let's make the most of it"? (I've likely got the quote wrong and would
welcome correction.)
McCarthyism, you say? I was thinking more along the lines of Germany
in the '30s.
Personally, the Shrub doesn't scare me that much - he's basically a
moron with a rich Daddy. It's the creatures gathered around him
that I find frightening. Cheney is obviously an oily snake who sees
Dollar signs when he looks at the Alaskan wilderness, but
Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
I haven't been so scared about the fate of my beloved country
since the Repubs took over Congress in '94. Thankfully we survived,
but I fear that they'll do it again this year. A Right-wing Congress
coupled with a Right-wing administration. Brrr...
If I suddenly stop posting here, look for me in the internment camps.
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
raymond larsson
says...
[...]
That's new, my father didn't. Though he probably spoke better English
than I do.
--
rgl hoping for less than 12 hrs work tomorrow
Topi Saavalainen
wrote:
>{<qolcmukoa7kufhu2s...@4ax.com>, François-Xavier de
>Montgolfier, alt.fan.pratchett} ->
>> On 21 Aug 2002 06:01:59 GMT, penkf...@aol.com (PenKFlowers) wrote:
>>
>> >I've heard that people think in language, that those people who are fluent in
>> >language 'think' the words in that language.
>>
>> Yup. Can you imagine the fluency required to think in a language and
>> speak in another language? Directly thinking in the output language is
>> _much_ easier.
>
>I do that all the time: whenever I think consciously, I do it in English
>or sometimes (rarely these days) Swedish. As an exercise, kind of thing
That's interesting. I never thought of actually making an effort to
think in a foreign language, it just sort of happens when I speak a
language I understand well enough or when I've been exposed to a
language recently.
Must try that. Thanks for the idea.
Topi.
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 24/08/02 00:33 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cu14rdl...@thatch.nwr>
>
>Andy Davison <an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Dubya's famously stupid
>> "You're either with us or against us" comment was the sort of thing
>> that, if a British politician had said it, he would have expected to
>> have everyone and his dog blowing raspberries at.
>
>It is somewhat cyclical. Hmm, and it seems more common with
>presidents named Bush. During the (original) Gulf War, it was very
>common that one could be accused of not "supporting the soldiers" if
>one was opposed to the war. Sort of silly, since there were already a
>vast number of cheerleaders out in the streets giddy with happiness
>that we were killing foreigners again, so why the need to try and drum
>up even more support. Very disturbing. The more recent attitude that
>all true patriots should be supporting every action by the president
>and the attorney general at least isn't so nasty that people aren't
>afraid to criticize it out loud.
While I agree with Andy that Brits are more resistant to this sort of thing, I
have to point out that the above sounds an awful lot like the Falklands. Of
course the power of madness to fascinate was a factor there...
andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk
> used condoms by her bed and dirty sheets. To be honest, I've seen worst
> bedrooms in my time, but I can understand what she wanted to say: "this is
> how I live: and I don't care what you think."
If she didn't care what we think, why bother telling us? Personally I find
that sort of thing *incredibly* dull, but if people want to look at it, fine
by me...
--
http://www.stealthmunchkin.com
The Revenge Of The Psychotic Munchkin - Stealth Munchkin , The Psychřtic
Reactiřn , Safari
Sunday, 29 Sept, The Retro Bar Manchester
Lodestone
> >It is somewhat cyclical. Hmm, and it seems more common with
> >presidents named Bush. During the (original) Gulf War, it was very
> >common that one could be accused of not "supporting the soldiers" if
> >one was opposed to the war. Sort of silly, since there were already a
> >vast number of cheerleaders out in the streets giddy with happiness
> >that we were killing foreigners again, so why the need to try and drum
> >up even more support. Very disturbing. The more recent attitude that
> >all true patriots should be supporting every action by the president
> >and the attorney general at least isn't so nasty that people aren't
> >afraid to criticize it out loud.
>
> While I agree with Andy that Brits are more resistant to this sort of
thing, I
> have to point out that the above sounds an awful lot like the Falklands.
Of
> course the power of madness to fascinate was a factor there...
Alas... old Bread and Circuses, eh?
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
<j...@frivolous.ossifrage.net> wrote:
Nope... I'm not bilingual, but when speaking/writing English, I _have_
to think in English... this doesn't mean that I don't have to switch
back to French to translate a specific word, but the structure of the
languages are different enought that thinking a whole sentence in
French then translating in English requires _far_ more efforts than
directly thinking in English and leaving blank words in the sentence,
to be filled-in before uttering the sentence...
it's something which happens quite often in irc: I'm chatting, can't
remember the actual word, and will use a periphrase to replace it(1)
:-)
FiX
(1) of course, when a given word escapes me, it'll often be replaced
by "thingy", which _very_ often works...
Maaike
Nope, and nope. Last year, after a life of French and English, three
years of German, and three months of Latin, I was studying for an exam
in the latter. It was quite a shock when, while going through some
nouns, I realized, "Wait une minute--ich denke en quatre linguae!".
There was also the plane ride home from Germany last summer, which I
spent sitting next to an Italian couple. We didn't share a language,
but I could understand most of what they said to me because of the
similarity to French... But I kept thinking and answering in German.
Don't ask me why.
Granted, once I realize I'm thinking in more than two languages at
once things get confused in about half a minute. But as long as I
suppress the part of my mind that wants to analyze this strange
phenomenon, I can go on for hours.
-Maaike
Len Oil
> It's interesting - the fact is you CANNOT have the Black and White of
> "Freedom of Speech" - you HAVE to pick a shade of grey (even if it is
only,
> of course, grubby white). If you go completely one way, you end up under
a
> Stalinist regime. If you go completely the other, you end up with a form
of
> Streunerian [1]anarchy [2] - the belief (put in writing my a man from
> Germany, name of Max Streuner [1]) that everyone has the right to do
> whatever they want. This means that I have the right to kill somebody,
but
> that they also have the right to live.
I had in mind a long time ago[1] the idea that "Everybody has the right to
do anything they want as long as that doesn't prevent anyone else from
doing anything they want." I think I phrased it more elegantly that that
at the time.
This should[2], of course, outlaw murder and just about any obviously moral
issue (theft of goods or intellectual property, rape,
blockading/segregating/anything apartheid) but then further questions
arise.
As an example of the complex issue, the question of whether someone should
pay a bill (for example) would involve the issue of this depriving the
debiter of the right of offering the money to anyone else (for service or
otherwise) against that of the creditor who would end up being unable to
continue in business or pursue his own interests. The obvious answer is
initially arbitration to decide and then to add on further rules to ensure
that commitments like this are upheld, but then this looks suspiciously
similar to just about any (reasonably accepted) legal system we already
have, only having to start from scratch. It also doesn't specify what
penalties there are for breaking the convention[3].
Using my method, you do get suspiciously close to the Code of Hammurabi
(which I've read only recently) which I could vainly take to mean I'm on
the right track (if millennia behind), though the first item on that list
is something like "The punishment for false imprisonment is death", which
indicates they'd already had some time to work out difficulties surrounding
false accusations.
Anyway, I'm no legislator[4] and realise this is a lot more complex an
issue than I anticipated[5].
[1] Childhood fantasies of how I would organise my Moon Government, if you
really want to know... )
[2] Originally I wrote 'would', but I can see additional cracks forming as
I type...
[3] At the most simple it could be "eye-for-an-eye", deprive of life =>
deprived of life, deprive of goods => deprived of goods
[4] Well I write company policy documents, but I'm not Ruler of the Moon or
any other kind of Selenic Overlord. Drat!
[5] Though I still plan to run the Moon's primary mass transit systems
along the lines overlaid by an Icosahedron (with triangle-based
sub-systems) which would enable a relatively obvious alphanumeric indexing
of all node-to-node routes[6]
[6] You can tell I thought extensively about this. :)
--
AFP Code 2.0: AC$/>M-UK d@(--) s:+>- a- UP+ R+++ F++ h- P3x= OSD+:-- ?C M--
L pp--- I->** W+ c@ B+ Cn::::+ CC- PT+>+++ Pu* 5+>++ X-- MT++ eV+(++-) r*
y+ end
Lodestone
Blimey. and here's me hanging about in vague optimism for worldwide anarchy
to break free.
--
Lodestone
Happy the man, and happy he alone,
He who can call today his own,
He who secure within can say,
"Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
(Homer - Ode to the Man, as recited in "Tom Jones")
Ben Hutchings
<snip>
> Emin's bed was her showing us how she lives, and the press couldn't
> leave her alone! It's been pastiched so many times, used as a joke-
> like Hirst's shark/sheep. Emin was showing us that she lives with
> used condoms by her bed and dirty sheets. To be honest, I've seen
> worst bedrooms in my time, but I can understand what she wanted to
> say: "this is how I live: and I don't care what you think."
I heard her talking about this piece on the radio some time back, and
as I recall it she was recording a low point in her life, a time when
she was not in a good way. So it was not intended as a statement about
how she is happy to live. I might have this wrong, though.
(In the same interview, she also said that the title 'Everyone I Have
Ever Slept With 1963-1995' was misinterpreted; 'slept with' was meant
in a literal, not euphemistic, sense.)
--
Ben Hutchings | personal web site: http://womble.decadentplace.org.uk/
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Torak
news:ak8c15$a8o$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Emin was showing us that she lives with
> > used condoms by her bed and dirty sheets. To be honest, I've seen worst
> > bedrooms in my time, but I can understand what she wanted to say: "this
is
> > how I live: and I don't care what you think."
>
> If she didn't care what we think, why bother telling us? Personally I find
> that sort of thing *incredibly* dull, but if people want to look at it,
fine
> by me...
Agreed. Not to mention totally lacking in any talent. Anyone can prop up a
pile of junk and call it art, it doesn't show anything. Which is why I never
bothered seeing it - but I got annoyed by critics on TV constantly telling
me what a marvellous "work" it was.
Torak
news:MPG.17d0b3d51...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> Beth Winter wrote:
> > Janice Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > Easier, yes, but generally only possible if one either a) learned
> > > the second language before/around puberty, or b) have spent *many*
> > > years in total immersion.
> >
> > Really? I've only learned German in the last two years (I knew a few
> > words before, but I really started studying right now), and even though
> > I'm not very fluent, I find myself thinking in it if I have to speak in
> > it.
>
> likewise...I didn't even start on Italian until I was in my 30s...I don't
> have a tremendous vocabulary, and I make grammatical errors...but I simply
> can't translate between English and Italian, I can only think and speak
> directly in both
> I've been on the verge of it with both French and Russian...though I find
> it more difficult because I was taught both of those at school
I only speak English and Swedish fluently, but I still think in Dutch and
French when I speak them - and I've learnt them in the last seven and three
years, respectively.
When I get to Durham, I'll be taking up Mandarin - always wanted to learn
it.
Mark
Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
> The irony... It always amuses me how the Americans (no reflection on you - I
> don't know your nationality - just a general comment) pride themselves on
> being the "land of the free" and "leaders of the free world" - but they
> restrict freedom more than many other places. You can get investigated just
> for an inadvertent word or an opinion that disagrees with the government.
> Now, national security, of course, is paramount, but you'll never have a
> healthy democracy with that level of censorship.
This reminded me of a post on alt.games.baldurs-gate back around the panic
last september. An American posted on the board and though I don't have the
post saved, he was saying that America is the only country in the world where
people are safe to walk down the streets at night, where all the freedoms are
fiercly protected more than any other country, etc, etc.
And there I was not realising I was living in a fascist dictatorship...
:-)
--
__ __ _
| \/ |__ _ _ _| | __ Star Trek: Voyager. 100% recycled.
| |\/| / _` | '_| |/ /
|_| |_\__,_|_| |_|\_\ E-Mail to dmzweb...@yahoo.co.uk
Eric Jarvis
as somebody who has close personal friends working [1] at creating
conceptual art, may I put it on record that the attitude by which it is
permissible to insult the art and the artist sight unseen and somehow
attempt to take the high moral ground is the worst kind of prejudice...and
it annoys me immensely
Torak...you have not seen the work...so could you perhaps moderate your
opinion to take that into account
[1] and I mean working as in terms of the sort of hard physical and mental
slog that many afpers have never experienced [2]
[2] and many have...as any Con goer has witnessed
Sherilyn
I saw Emin's tent at the Royal Academy a few years back. For me it
was the biz, you could keep your sliced-up bits of sheep. All the
stuff I have seen by her since has that same very cosy feel, like
someone just letting the barriers between herself and the viewer down.
--
Sherilyn http://www.greedycorporate.com/minority-report/
Free reliable text-only posting news accounts: http://news.cis.dfn.de/
Torak
I should rephrase that. I have never *been* to see it. I have seen photos,
however - and it's just what I'd expect to find if someone had left their
room without tidying it for a month. Nothing more.
> [1] and I mean working as in terms of the sort of hard physical and mental
> slog that many afpers have never experienced [2]
Slog? Putting up a bed and draping it in rubbish?
Eric Jarvis
then criticise the photo and the photographer...you haven't seen the
artwork...you are doing the same as the critics that read the cover blurb
and assume they know everything they need to know about Terry Pratchett's
books
>
> > [1] and I mean working as in terms of the sort of hard physical and mental
> > slog that many afpers have never experienced [2]
>
> Slog? Putting up a bed and draping it in rubbish?
>
even by your proposed method (see above) it would take a month
ever tried cataloguing that amount of stuff...then specifying how it needs
to be laid out so that it can go from gallery to gallery and remain
constant?...even without the creative aspect of choosing the items it is a
considerable task
we've done this debate to death before
just bear in mind that when you sling out the insults about conceptual art
you are talking about MY FRIENDS...by all means if you've seen the work
and didn't like it, then you have the perfect right to say so...but
sneering from a position of total ignorance isn't a good thing to do
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
rachel walmsley
<len...@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I had in mind a long time ago[1] the idea that "Everybody has the right to
>do anything they want as long as that doesn't prevent anyone else from
>doing anything they want." I think I phrased it more elegantly that that
>at the time.
I believe this is sometimes phrased somewhere along the lines of
"and harm none, do what ye will"
rw.
--
http://www.quoth.org.uk/ - Quoth the Rachel... /////
Bringing giant hedgehogs to the , o__///////
common steamroller since 2001 O=O___\'///////___
"my foo's got no bar!" "then how does it baz?" "quux!"
Laurabelle
<snip>
> Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
> who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
> every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
<snip>
Ulp! I've got a calico cat! What's he got against them?!
Laurabelle
--
ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI.
Lodestone
Oh good :-D
Does this mean, that, as I've seen "Fountain" at the SFMOMA, I'm allowed to
call it an unbearable lump of sh...eramic?
But I won't. 'Cause I'm not antagonistic.
No, not one little bit.
Honestly.
--
Lodestone
"Bother," said Pooh, "I am, aren't I?"
Steve James
> "Eric Jarvis" <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17d0b3d51...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> Dutch and
> French when I speak them - and I've learnt them in the last seven
> and three years, respectively.
> When I get to Durham, I'll be taking up Mandarin - always wanted to
> learn it.
wouldn't bother taking them up to Durham if I was you. Far better to
take a few PTerry books.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Torak
>
> ever tried cataloguing that amount of stuff...then specifying how it needs
> to be laid out so that it can go from gallery to gallery and remain
> constant?...even without the creative aspect of choosing the items it is a
> considerable task
Superglue. The answer to any problem. ;-)
> we've done this debate to death before
> just bear in mind that when you sling out the insults about conceptual art
> you are talking about MY FRIENDS...by all means if you've seen the work
> and didn't like it, then you have the perfect right to say so...but
> sneering from a position of total ignorance isn't a good thing to do
Fair enough. Apologies all round - from now on I'll mention my opinions once
and be done with it. ;-)
Torak
news:akdk5c$ups$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > conceptual art, may I put it on record that the attitude by which it is
> > permissible to insult the art and the artist sight unseen and somehow
> > attempt to take the high moral ground is the worst kind of
prejudice...and
> > it annoys me immensely
> >
> > Torak...you have not seen the work...so could you perhaps moderate your
> > opinion to take that into account
>
> Oh good :-D
> Does this mean, that, as I've seen "Fountain" at the SFMOMA, I'm allowed
to
> call it an unbearable lump of sh...eramic?
> But I won't. 'Cause I'm not antagonistic.
> No, not one little bit.
> Honestly.
>
ROFLMLBO!
Torak
news:memo.20020826...@steeljam.compulink.co.uk...
Thank you, very good advice to be heeded by all sane people.
Fortunately, I am mad.
Speaker-to-Customers
> Paul E. Jamison in alt.fan.pratchett with the keyboard:
>
> <snip>
>> Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
>> who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
>> every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
>> <snip>
>
> Ulp! I've got a calico cat! What's he got against them?!
In ancient US slang, from the time of the Wild West, a "calico cat" was a
prostitute.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
"Bother!" said Pooh. "We deal in lead, friend."
Paul E. Jamison
> Paul E. Jamison in alt.fan.pratchett with the keyboard:
>
> <snip>
> > Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
> > who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
> > every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
> <snip>
>
> Ulp! I've got a calico cat! What's he got against them?!
>
Allegedly, Ashcroft believes that calico cats are signs of the
Devil. Supposedly Ashcroft laughed this off, so I would
question its veracity.
The following article makes for interesting reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4367019,00.html
Odd how the United States' so-called "Liberal Press" never reports
this stuff.
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>From: "Paul E. Jamison" paul...@infi.net
>Date: 27/08/02 02:15 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D6AD2AF...@infi.net>
>
>Laurabelle wrote:
>
>> Paul E. Jamison in alt.fan.pratchett with the keyboard:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
>> > who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
>> > every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Ulp! I've got a calico cat! What's he got against them?!
>>
>
>Allegedly, Ashcroft believes that calico cats are signs of the
>Devil. Supposedly Ashcroft laughed this off, so I would
>question its veracity.
>
>The following article makes for interesting reading:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4367019,00.html
>
>Odd how the United States' so-called "Liberal Press" never reports
>this stuff.
>
thought USians called tabbies tabbies, and calico meant tortoiseshell?
Steve James
> >Freedom of Expression
> >From: "Paul E. Jamison" paul...@infi.net
> >Date: 27/08/02 02:15 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3D6AD2AF...@infi.net>
> >Laurabelle wrote:
> >> Paul E. Jamison in alt.fan.pratchett with the keyboard:
> >> <snip>
> the US)". I
> thought USians called tabbies tabbies, and calico meant
> tortoiseshell?
leads me to think the Calico Cat reference to prostitutes is
acceptable. Tabbies can be of either sex.
SSharp5210
heard a
lot of stupid arguments from people who would never dream of using
expletives, and some very intelligent ones from people who can't finish a
sentence without swearing. I also know some people who *do* use
'fucking' as their adjective as choice because they have a limited
vocabulary. My point is, it doesn't correlate.<<
But surely this is in flat contradiction of the obvious truth that someone who
swears has, in fact, *more* words at their disposal than abstainers?
Stevo
Phil Davison
Surely that depends on how many swear words they know!
IGMFC
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator
Stevie D
> But surely this is in flat contradiction of the obvious truth that someone who
> swears has, in fact, *more* words at their disposal than abstainers?
Only if they also know other words. Which usually they don't. I very
much doubt if most of the —ing idiots who can't —ing utter a —ing
sentence without —ing swearing would be capable of constructing a
well-formed argument if you paid them.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Vivek Dasmohapatra
[snip]
> Only if they also know other words. Which usually they don't. I very
> much doubt if most of the —ing idiots who can't —ing utter a
> —ing sentence without —ing swearing would be capable of
> constructing a well-formed argument if you paid them.
How do you pronounce \227?
--
Just one nuclear family can ruin your whole life.
Trence
Please move this ---< way where you will find a selection of typical
Jerry Springer shows.
Terence
Rocky Frisco
>
> SSharp5210 wrote:
>
> > But surely this is in flat contradiction of the obvious truth that someone who
> > swears has, in fact, *more* words at their disposal than abstainers?
>
> Only if they also know other words. Which usually they don't. I very
> much doubt if most of the —ing idiots who can't —ing utter a —ing
> sentence without —ing swearing would be capable of constructing a
> well-formed argument if you paid them.
What would you say about somebody like me that has a "mensa-level"
vocabulary, but one that also includes all of the words in the language and
not just the pretty nice ones with lace on the edges and Billy Graham's
Seal of Approval?
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Red Dirt Rangers (Rocky on piano): http://www.reddirtrangers.com
JJ Cale Live (w/Rocky): http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Luggage Fan Club: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luggage-fans
Stevie D
> What would you say about somebody like me that has a "mensa-level"
> vocabulary, but one that also includes all of the words in the language and
> not just the pretty nice ones with lace on the edges and Billy Graham's
> Seal of Approval?
That's fine. I know that you can, and frequently do, speak and write
very elegant, er, stuff. (I think the right word to use there would
be "prose" ... but can this apply to the spoken word?) When you do use
Four Letter Words™, I know it is because you have thought about the
most appropriate word for that situation, and mayhap decided it was
"Fuck". Nothing wrong with that. I might not agree with what you are
saying, or even the way you have expressed it, but that's neither here
nor there. Swearing has its place in language, that's how come it
evolved. It's when people don't know any other way to express
themselves that I become concerned.
Stevie D
> How do you pronounce \227?
I have no idea. If this ... — ... is \227, then it is an em-dash, a
preface to the word 'ing' as popularised by "The Truth". Don't know
why it didn't display correctly on your machine, but Agent has
definitely put the correct headers oną. If Gnus can't read a correctly
encoded message, it has problems - but then, given that it is sending
messages in 8-bit ASCII that seems quite likely!
ą Although bizarrely, when I post to moderated NGs, the charset lines
mysteriously disappear.
Vivek Dasmohapatra
> Vivek Dasmohapatra wrote:
>
> > How do you pronounce \227?
>
> I have no idea. If this ... — ... is \227, then it is an em-dash, a
> preface to the word 'ing' as popularised by "The Truth". Don't know
> why it didn't display correctly on your machine, but Agent has
> definitely put the correct headers oną. If Gnus can't read a correctly
> encoded message, it has problems - but then, given that it is sending
> messages in 8-bit ASCII that seems quite likely!
The headers received:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Which would make it seem that agent is _sending_ 8 bit ascii.
What headers do you think you're sending?
--
Sleep, where is thy sting,
Bed, where is thy victory...
-- Insomnia? Me?
Richard Bos
> Vivek Dasmohapatra wrote:
>
> > How do you pronounce \227?
>
> I have no idea. If this ... — ... is \227, then it is an em-dash, a
> preface to the word 'ing' as popularised by "The Truth".
So, erm... why not be Usenet-compatible and use the plain ASCII -?
> Don't know why it didn't display correctly on your machine,
Because, for one thing, Usenet is a seven-bit, ASCII-only medium.
> If Gnus can't read a correctly encoded message, it has problems
And if you can't send one, you have problems.
> - but then, given that it is sending
> messages in 8-bit ASCII that seems quite likely!
That'd be quite an achievement, given that ASCII is seven-bit...
Richard
Stevie D
> Because, for one thing, Usenet is a seven-bit, ASCII-only medium.
Really? So what happens in any language other than English, where, for
example, accented letters and non-ASCII punctuation marks are
required? If Usenet is supposed to only support ASCII, why do so many
newsreaders offer multiple character sets for 8-bit encoding?
> That'd be quite an achievement, given that ASCII is seven-bit...
Look at the headers on Vivek's message - the headers say both "8-bit"
and "us-ascii". I don't know how he's done it, but he has...
Stevie D
> The headers received:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Which would make it seem that agent is _sending_ 8 bit ascii.
> What headers do you think you're sending?
ASCII is not the same as ISO-8859-1. The former is 7-bit, the latter
is 8-bit. They are different, hence the different names.
Vivek Dasmohapatra
[snip]
> Look at the headers on Vivek's message - the headers say both "8-bit"
> and "us-ascii". I don't know how he's done it, but he has...
I replied to your message. GNUS warned me I was replying to a severely
borken message that it didn't know how to fix, and I told it to damn
the torpedoes.
--
"A distributed system is one in which I cannot get something done
because a machine I've never heard of is down"
--Leslie Lamport
Rocky Frisco
>
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
> > What would you say about somebody like me that has a "mensa-level"
> > vocabulary, but one that also includes all of the words in the language and
> > not just the pretty nice ones with lace on the edges and Billy Graham's
> > Seal of Approval?
>
> That's fine. I know that you can, and frequently do, speak and write
> very elegant, er, stuff. (I think the right word to use there would
> be "prose" ... but can this apply to the spoken word?) When you do use
> Four Letter Words™, I know it is because you have thought about the
> most appropriate word for that situation, and mayhap decided it was
> "Fuck". Nothing wrong with that. I might not agree with what you are
> saying, or even the way you have expressed it, but that's neither here
> nor there. Swearing has its place in language, that's how come it
> evolved. It's when people don't know any other way to express
> themselves that I become concerned.
My Dad had a friend like that: Paul B_____. Paul had accidentally got
aboard a train when trying to escape from some some German soldiers during
WW II. He was a combat photographer and was armed with a camera and a big
box of film and a little carbine. The train went straight into Berlin,
where Paul jumped off and hid in a warehouse. While hiding there until the
Allied takeover of Berlin, he photographed hundreds of pictures of
coal-cars full of stacked-up bodies, mostly intact but naked, of men women
and children, plus some severed limbs. These were apparently headed for a
rendering factory to be made into soap.
Paul's photographs proved invaluable during the War Trials, but they
exacted a heavy price from Paul. He simply could not express himself
without using the forbidden words, including the only time my father ever
managed to coerce him into coming to church with us.
"Fucking God-Damned good sermon, preacher."
Reverend Haskell almost had a coronary on the spot.
I do remember Paul with great fondness: he was kind to children and animals
and helped teach me how to put a new clutch in my old Chevrolet one
weekend.
He and his second wife died in an auto crash; they had been drinking and
arguing and forgot that somebody had to drive the car. This was reported by
the survivors from the back seat.
I miss him; he was a good friend.
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > Because, for one thing, Usenet is a seven-bit, ASCII-only medium.
>
> Really? So what happens in any language other than English, where, for
> example, accented letters and non-ASCII punctuation marks are
> required?
fr.*, pl.* and the like are, officially, not part of Usenet; they just
use the same protocols. Actually, strictly speaking the same is true for
alt.*, but the normal convention is that English-language groups should
be kept seven-bit only unless absolutely necessary.
> If Usenet is supposed to only support ASCII, why do so many
> newsreaders offer multiple character sets for 8-bit encoding?
Foreign language groups.
> > That'd be quite an achievement, given that ASCII is seven-bit...
>
> Look at the headers on Vivek's message - the headers say both "8-bit"
> and "us-ascii".
Yup, but that means nothing in this respect. It certainly doesn't mean
that ASCII is eight-bit. It means two unrelated things: a. he's using
the ASCII charset (original US version, not one of those iffy
Scandiwegian things), and b. he's using an eight-bit encoding scheme.
One of those eight bits is, obviously, going to waste, but this says
nothing about the ASCII charset itself.
Richard
nils
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
>> Because, for one thing, Usenet is a seven-bit, ASCII-only medium.
s/is/used to be/
=O)
> Really? So what happens in any language other than English, where,
> for example, accented letters and non-ASCII punctuation marks are
> required? If Usenet is supposed to only support ASCII, why do so
> many newsreaders offer multiple character sets for 8-bit encoding?
>
>> That'd be quite an achievement, given that ASCII is seven-bit...
>
> Look at the headers on Vivek's message - the headers say both
> "8-bit" and "us-ascii". I don't know how he's done it, but he has...
AFAIK 8bit and encodings are supported, but you should rath
er not count on it. That why I usually substitute specific Germ cha
racter like ä/ö/ü into ae/oe/ue which is quite fine and widely unde
rstood even among the clueless..
=O)
nils
--
"i refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person"
Stevie D
> fr.*, pl.* and the like are, officially, not part of Usenet; they just
> use the same protocols.
Is that so? You learn something new every day. I'd always thought
everything I can subscribe to via a news server was Usenet, just some
of it was older than the rest.
> Yup, but that means nothing in this respect. It certainly doesn't mean
> that ASCII is eight-bit. It means two unrelated things: a. he's using
> the ASCII charset (original US version, not one of those iffy
> Scandiwegian things), and b. he's using an eight-bit encoding scheme.
> One of those eight bits is, obviously, going to waste, but this says
> nothing about the ASCII charset itself.
OK, I admit, I don't know as much about character encoding as I
thought I did. Apologies to all.
Sanity
Stevie D <stevieiny...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> OK, I admit, I don't know as much about character encoding as I
> thought I did. Apologies to all.
You don't know ei(ght) bit of it?
I'll have my nl.coat.that-one, thank you :-)
Michel
reply-to sanity at affordable-hedgehogs dot co dot uk valid
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret" - Doing Affordable things to AFP
Seafood fetish: http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
No buggering at all: http://www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk/
Vivek Dasmohapatra
[snip]
> OK, I admit, I don't know as much about character encoding as I
> thought I did. Apologies to all.
Fair enough: For the record, my original reply was intended as
vaguely humorous. I didn't expect anyone to come out shooting,
and I did check, but rfc 1345 listed \227 as the EG (end guard
area) control character in iso-8859-1.
--
That which doesn't kill you will make you bitter and cynical.
-TMEG
Suzi
alt.fan.pratchett, nils <ni...@headonism.de> wibbled...
[Snip]
> AFAIK 8bit and encodings are supported, but you should rath
> er not count on it. That why I usually substitute specific Germ cha
> racter like ä/ö/ü into ae/oe/ue which is quite fine and widely unde
> rstood even among the clueless..
Nils, I'm not quite sure how you are mangling your postings, but they
are actually quite difficult to read when you keep splitting words over
the ends of lines :-(
Suzi
Tony Donovan
"Lodestone" <lode...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:akdk5c$ups$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...> news:MPG.17d34ab69...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> > Torak wrote:
> > > <andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:ak8c15$a8o$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > Emin was showing us that she lives with
> > > > > used condoms by her bed and dirty sheets. To be honest, I've seen
> worst
> > > > > bedrooms in my time, but I can understand what she wanted to say:
> "this
> > > > > is how I live: and I don't care what you think."
> > > >
> > > > If she didn't care what we think, why bother telling us? Personally
I
> find
> > > > that sort of thing *incredibly* dull, but if people want to look at
> it,
> > > > fine by me...
> > >
> > > Agreed. Not to mention totally lacking in any talent. Anyone can prop
up
> a
> > > pile of junk and call it art, it doesn't show anything. Which is why I
> never
> > > bothered seeing it - but I got annoyed by critics on TV constantly
> telling
> > > me what a marvellous "work" it was.
> > >
> >
> > as somebody who has close personal friends working [1] at creating
> > conceptual art, may I put it on record that the attitude by which it is
> > permissible to insult the art and the artist sight unseen and somehow
> > attempt to take the high moral ground is the worst kind of
prejudice...and
> > it annoys me immensely
> >
> > Torak...you have not seen the work...so could you perhaps moderate your
> > opinion to take that into account
>
> Oh good :-D
>
> Does this mean, that, as I've seen "Fountain" at the SFMOMA, I'm allowed
to
> call it an unbearable lump of sh...eramic?
>
> But I won't. 'Cause I'm not antagonistic.
>
> No, not one little bit.
>
> Honestly.
>
> --
> Lodestone
>
> "Bother," said Pooh, "I am, aren't I?"
>
>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say. Sometimes I wonder.
Yes, I've seen some of the 'modern conceptual art' they seem to be churning
out today.
I've also seen my mother's oil and water colour paintings. My mother is in
her sixties and paints for pleasure.
However, despite the family loyalties, I would still prefer one of her
paintings to this 'modern art'.
I mean, anyone can throw a load of junk on a table and call it art. If
that's art, I'd better have a word with my sister and get her to display my
niece's bedroom. Now THAT'S a junk heap! - Or is it art?
AJD
Tony Donovan
"Speaker-to-Customers" <gre...@manx.net> wrote in message
news:ake8hb$1hvk9m$1...@ID-138064.news.dfncis.de...
> Laurabelle wrote:
> > Paul E. Jamison in alt.fan.pratchett with the keyboard:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Ashcroft strikes me as dangerous - a crazed religious fundie
> >> who would probably love to enact mandatory church attendance
> >> every Sunday. Not to mention the extermination of all calico cats.
> >> <snip>
> >
> > Ulp! I've got a calico cat! What's he got against them?!
>
> In ancient US slang, from the time of the Wild West, a "calico cat" was a
> prostitute.
>
Isn't it amazing what those furry little so and so's will get up to?
AJD
Gid Holyoake
Donovan generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.
Do they?.. I've always taken it as "Beauty is in the eye of the beer-
holder"..
Gid
Donald Shepherd
td...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> I mean, anyone can throw a load of junk on a table and call it art. If
> that's art, I'd better have a word with my sister and get her to display my
> niece's bedroom. Now THAT'S a junk heap! - Or is it art?
It's an interpretive piece on the hectic rate of today's life combining
with the modern world's indifference to society's problems.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
In other words, she either doesn't have enough time to clean it up or
just can't be bothered.
Francesco Santini
> that's art, I'd better have a word with my sister and get her to display
my
> niece's bedroom. Now THAT'S a junk heap! - Or is it art?
Yes, it's true that anyone can do that. But that's not art.
In my opinion, only an artist can make art, in the sense that only after an
exploration and experience of the "classical" art techniques one can decide
to use alternative forms of expressions.
Anybody can tear a canvas, but only Fontana's works are worth something. And
anyone can paint like Pollock, but his paintings are masterpieces of
contemporary art.
The point is that an artist like them chose to express himself in a certain
way because his reasoning led him to think that that was the best form of
expression, having tried everything else. And behind a work, no matter how
dull it may seem, there's always a meaning and reasoning, a message that the
artist wanted to transmit to us.
In contemporary art, usually it's the philosophy behind a work that matters
more than the beauty of the work itself.
So, you are always free to say that you don't like a particular work,
because you don't like the aesthetic of it, or because you may think that
the message didn't get through correctly, but there's no questioning whether
it *IS* art or not, or whether anyone's bedroom has the same value of the
one displayed in a museum. Moreover, now it's easy to say "but everyone can
do that!", the problem is that noone had ever done that before, and with
that particular meaning.
Regards
Francesco
Torak
news:akv24e$r1c$1...@library.lspace.org...
> > I mean, anyone can throw a load of junk on a table and call it art. If
> > that's art, I'd better have a word with my sister and get her to display
my
> > niece's bedroom. Now THAT'S a junk heap! - Or is it art?
>
> Yes, it's true that anyone can do that. But that's not art.
> In my opinion, only an artist can make art, in the sense that only after
an
> exploration and experience of the "classical" art techniques one can
decide
> to use alternative forms of expressions.
But would you not agree with the definition of an artist as someone who
produces art?
> Anybody can tear a canvas, but only Fontana's works are worth something.
And
> anyone can paint like Pollock, but his paintings are masterpieces of
> contemporary art.
No comment... ;-)
> The point is that an artist like them chose to express himself in a
certain
> way because his reasoning led him to think that that was the best form of
> expression, having tried everything else. And behind a work, no matter how
> dull it may seem, there's always a meaning and reasoning, a message that
the
> artist wanted to transmit to us.
For instance, the tins of faeces produced by wossname in the sixties (?)
were considered art, and I read about one of the London galleries buying one
for a ridiculous sum a few months ago. But the "message" in that "artwork" -
as stated by the artist - was that "some people will buy anything".
I like that guy. ;-)
On the other hand, he could have used a tidier medium.
> one displayed in a museum. Moreover, now it's easy to say "but everyone
can
> do that!", the problem is that noone had ever done that before, and with
> that particular meaning.
Columbus' egg.
Eric Jarvis
Francesco...that was utterly perfectly put...thank you...I've been trying
to say that every time this subject came up, over several years and in
several newsgroups...and I've never managed to quite find the words...that
sums up most what I would have liked to say, articulately and concisely
in short: what he said
:)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I am a man of many parts,
unfortunately most are no longer in stock"
Eric Jarvis
>
> A lot of modern art does work on its own. However, there tends to be
> a lot that doesn't that still gets held up as masterpieces by a tiny
> insular group of people.
>
I think you'd find that is several tiny insular groups of people, all of
whom disagree about which are and aren't masterpieces
tastes differ...this shouldn't be a problem...and it wouldn't be if there
weren't so many people loudly proclaiming that any art they don't either
like or understand is some sort of trick at their expense
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"