Batmud - The End (tm)
Kristenlee Sadowski
While I was happily mailing on Batmud, and I was not, I repeat, was not partying at the time, Faerwon decided
that I had to repent. This is pretty interesting, because the "need to repent" obviously isn't based on any
particular action (partying with an evil member, killing a good creature, etc.) because I did not kill anything or
party with anyone for awhile. Faerwon just got pissed off. Original sin I guess. So he threatened and
threatened to punish lil ole' Talien and since I really wasn't on all that long, I didn't bother to run the 5 to 10
minute walk to Shadowkeep. Well, Faerwon had enough one day and did a number on me.
In the middle of mailing, suddenly I was covered with scars, instantly famished, and my spell points went
from 1500 to -1500. A bit perturbed, I began the long journey to Shadowkeep. For the unitiated, to get
Faerwon to forgive you, you have to go to this absurdity known as the "Paladin
Gift Shop" and buy a robe, candles, and incense. Each of these cost money. You then have to drop them
before you in the altar room (I guess you don't wear the robe), and type "atone".
Thing is, atoning doesn't always work. It's a random chance.
Well, needless to say, I atoned about 6 times before the shop ran out of stuff to atone with. All the while,
I was starving and Faerwon was continually getting pissed off. At this point I had 10 scars, in places I
didn't even know you could get scars, I was at 1 hp, and -2000 sps. I had about 10000 gold cash on me,
sitting in the paladin shop, waiting for the place to somehow regenerate the components I needed to placate
Faerwon and get him off my back.
Does this seem a bit absurd to you? It did to me. Hell, never mind the fact that I never DID anything to
make Faerwon mad, I couldn't repent even when I tried.
I have been on this MUD for nearly two years. I was the first paladin, the first satyr, and I watched the paladins
guild go from having glowing purple "I love Zonni" badges to an actual respectable guild. We were a joke,
originally, and it was myself, Aruthra, Katscratx, Skyfire, and Whitehawk who established a role-playing format
and created our own orders. Zonni neither listened to us nor did he assist us, we did it all on our own.
So then, having this background, I think it would be reasonable for me to tell Zonni, upon seeing him on Bat
channel, that this was, and I quote, "ridiculous".
Well, I had begun to explain myself when I realized something was wrong, notably that Zonni had made himself
a ghost. I don't see Anipa doing this sort of thing so I suppose I should have realized that everyone's favorite
neighborhood immortal was plastered. Or that's what the other arches would later tell me.
To my complaint, Zonni gave me a rather clever answer. "If you don't like it, don't be one." Definitely the
words of a concerned god (or whatever Zonni counts as) who wants the best for his guild.
I was trying to gather a witty remark up, when Zonni began to work himself up. "Talien, I get a lot of mail
about you. Talien did this, Talien did that."
"You are too loud."
"Loud is bad."
"You need to be taught a lesson."
And then without further ado, Zonni zaps me (real hard when you're at 1 hit point).
Yes, this means I lost a few mil exps. It was a miracle that I did not lose a level when I was ressed with all
those scars on me.
I was understandably surprised. But I'm not stupid. After several arches doing tells (and bats) for me to shut
up, I shut bat channel off, and decided to make my way back to Shadowkeep - at the very least I could get
Faerwon to forgive me if Zonni wouldn't.
And while I was halfway there, in the wilderness, Zonni dested me - poof, there goes all my equipment.
I didn't even know why he did it, until I saw him on bat (bat last is a wonderful thing), antagonizing me. "Not
so talkative now, Talien? You're so quiet."
You know, the funny thing is, take away the fact that Zonni's an immortal, and he sounded just like all the other
assholes I've pked, arrested, had removed, deleted, etc.
So why am I leaving? Quite simply, because the MUD is no longer worth playing. Would a pitcher continue to
play baseball (not that they are now anyway) if he KNEW the ref was against him? Would you want to go on
with your life if you knew God didn't like you very much?
Would you play a MUD in which the prick who created your guild might get drunk and then start zapping you?
The answers, in order, are: No, no, and no.
I feel batmud has become unplayable not because of the system but because of the administration. There is no
hope for my guild when the guy who takes DONATIONS, the guy in charge of this whole place, blatantly
abuses his power. Hell, I can't touch him and as Zonni knows all too well, this kind of attitude is one of
desperation - they have all the hardware and software they need, they have all the cash donations - so what
ARE ya gonna do if he zaps you? It's not a joke, that "take one bitter deleted mortal, zap a little, enjoy." That's
not some kind of amusing anecdote put on there because they think it's funny. It's no more a joke than
"Archwizards are always right". There is a little group up top there who likes to keep things tight - those who
don't fall in line are removed from it. Ask Firefox. Ask Amarth. Hell, even ask Duke, he knows the game and
he knows how to play it, it's why he's the only American Arch around. Keep your nose clean, don't complain,
listen to what everyone else says, and you're qualified to be an immortal.
But remember if "you are too loud" "loud is bad".
I am not going to conform to some Nazi-rewrite conceptualization by a supposedly grown man who feels that I
make his MUD a little uncomfortable because I have the balls to complain about individuals, rules, etc. that are
just plain STUPID. It's funny because I never thought I'd support such radical ideas as not conforming to the
system, but I have to say that this MUD is shot. The system is great. The administration (except for a select
group of individuals who don't have all that much power), sucks.
I have never donated, I would NEVER donate, and I sincerely suggest you don't either. Let the tough guys do
it - the guys who spend 800$ on their characters so they can feel important because a bunch of numbers on the
screen show that they have 100+ stats and 2000+ hps/sps. The attitude fostered by the higher ups is filtering
down to the mortals, and they will propogate like a bunch of rabbits - have you noticed there's been a rising tide
of pkers, castle thieves, and general assholes? What do you expect? Look around, look at the administration,
look at what goes on and then try to come up with a reason why the shmucks SHOULDN'T play?
And I'm sure, you'll come up with the same answer I did. They not only are allowed to play, their activity is
ENCOURAGED. Notice how many little worms came crawling out of the woodwork to put me down when
they saw that Zonni zapped me. Heheh, hell, if the IMMORTAL can get away with it, we can too.
For all that, I've but one thing to say:
You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence someone on Usenet.
Have a nice day. >:)
Talien/Mike, who doesn't stay quiet for nobody
Jukka V{is{nen
>For all that, I've but one thing to say:
>You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence someone on Usenet.
Don't be so sure, I've seen it happen.. ;)
>Talien/Mike, who doesn't stay quiet for nobody
Mordac, who is thinking about forging a cancel message just to prove a point.
--
...............................................................................
: Jukka.V...@hut.fi : #include <standard-disclaimer.h> :
:...........................:.................................................:
: +358-0-4682585 : J{mer{ntaival 3c392 02150 ESPOO Finland : Vaiski on IRC :
:................:............................................:...............:
Mike Simos
Kristenlee Sadowski <ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>But remember if "you are too loud" "loud is bad".
>
>I am not going to conform to some Nazi-rewrite conceptualization by a supposedly grown man who feels that I
>make his MUD a little uncomfortable because I have the balls to complain about individuals, rules, etc. that are
>just plain STUPID. It's funny because I never thought I'd support such radical ideas as not conforming to the
>system, but I have to say that this MUD is shot. The system is great. The administration (except for a select
>group of individuals who don't have all that much power), sucks.
>
>I have never donated, I would NEVER donate, and I sincerely suggest you don't either. Let the tough guys do
>it - the guys who spend 800$ on their characters so they can feel important because a bunch of numbers on the
>screen show that they have 100+ stats and 2000+ hps/sps. The attitude fostered by the higher ups is filtering
>down to the mortals, and they will propogate like a bunch of rabbits - have you noticed there's been a rising tide
>of pkers, castle thieves, and general assholes? What do you expect? Look around, look at the administration,
>look at what goes on and then try to come up with a reason why the shmucks SHOULDN'T play?
>
>And I'm sure, you'll come up with the same answer I did. They not only are allowed to play, their activity is
>ENCOURAGED. Notice how many little worms came crawling out of the woodwork to put me down when
>they saw that Zonni zapped me. Heheh, hell, if the IMMORTAL can get away with it, we can too.
>
>For all that, I've but one thing to say:
>
>You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence someone on Usenet.
>
>Have a nice day. >:)
>
>Talien/Mike, who doesn't stay quiet for nobody
>
Funny that just sounds like a mud I use to play called Nuclear War.
Good to see that powertripping arches aren't just reserved for Nuclear
War. Do as I did, don't get mad, get even. *chuckle*
Mike Simos | "I know there is some cosmic diety
sim...@io.org | up there fucking with me
Toronto, Canada | he's no god of light
| cause when things are going right
| he turns the tables and cuts the cables
| and lets this poor puppet fall"
Matthew J Freeman
heheh....
talien/mike has a VERY good point... in asking people about how fucked
the admin is, just ask old ridel... he'll tell you the real reason he was
removed from the game.
oh... and if you have WWW access do http://bat.cs.hut.fi and check out
the picture of zonni... a face only a troll could love.
have a shitty day! *8)
Markku J{rvinen
You write too long lines ... so I folded them to readable length
and I quoted about every line of your message to answer things
in place.
T>While I was happily mailing on Batmud, and I was not, I repeat, was
T>not partying at the time, Faerwon decided that I had to repent. This
T>is pretty interesting, because the "need to repent" obviously isn't
T>based on any particular action (partying with an evil member, killing
T>a good creature, etc.) because I did not kill anything or party with
T>anyone for awhile. Faerwon just got pissed off. Original sin I
T>guess. So he threatened and threatened to punish lil ole' Talien and
T>since I really wasn't on all that long, I didn't bother to run the 5
T>to 10 minute walk to Shadowkeep. Well, Faerwon had enough one day and
T>did a number on me.
So obviously you did not roleplay, would a true paladin just not do
anything when it was his time to make tribute to his GOD? If we have few
guilds that allow or mandate that you roleplay occasionally and you don't
so I think it is all your own fault.
T>In the middle of mailing, suddenly I was covered with scars, instantly
T>famished, and my spell points went from 1500 to -1500. A bit
T>perturbed, I began the long journey to Shadowkeep. For the unitiated,
T>to get Faerwon to forgive you, you have to go to this absurdity known
T>as the "Paladin Gift Shop" and buy a robe, candles, and incense. Each
T>of these cost money. You then have to drop them before you in the
T>altar room (I guess you don't wear the robe), and type "atone".
And now you are trying to put down more of that GOD, seems like you were
never a true paladin!
T>Thing is, atoning doesn't always work. It's a random chance.
So what works in the land of might and magic all the time, maybe your
GOD had better things to do than listen to you when you tried to please
him (as you obviously had not your heart with it).
T>Well, needless to say, I atoned about 6 times before the shop ran out
T>of stuff to atone with. All the while, I was starving and Faerwon was
T>continually getting pissed off. At this point I had 10 scars, in
T>places I didn't even know you could get scars, I was at 1 hp, and
T>-2000 sps. I had about 10000 gold cash on me, sitting in the paladin
T>shop, waiting for the place to somehow regenerate the components I
T>needed to placate Faerwon and get him off my back.
So the shop was poor, maybe you should contribute or have other paladins
contribute so the shop would get to its feet and have more things in
stock.
T>Does this seem a bit absurd to you? It did to me. Hell, never mind
T>the fact that I never DID anything to make Faerwon mad, I couldn't
T>repent even when I tried.
Well I think this proves it all, you simply don't know how to releplay,
and MUD without releplaying sucks (my personal opinion).
T>I have been on this MUD for nearly two years. I was the first
T>paladin, the first satyr, and I watched the paladins guild go from
T>having glowing purple "I love Zonni" badges to an actual respectable
T>guild. We were a joke, originally, and it was myself, Aruthra,
T>Katscratx, Skyfire, and Whitehawk who established a role-playing
T>format and created our own orders. Zonni neither listened to us nor
T>did he assist us, we did it all on our own.
And now you say that you did releplay, maybe it was back then and
you have forgotten how to do it anymore. Maybe you are just remembering
things long since forgotten.
T>So then, having this background, I think it would be reasonable for me
T>to tell Zonni, upon seeing him on Bat channel, that this was, and I
T>quote, "ridiculous".
I'm sorry that my environment crashed and I don't have this on my log,
but I bet you said much more than just plain this is quote "ridiculous".
If you'd said it once I bet Zonni would never have even seen it.
T>Well, I had begun to explain myself when I realized something was
T>wrong, notably that Zonni had made himself a ghost. I don't see Anipa
T>doing this sort of thing so I suppose I should have realized that
T>everyone's favorite neighborhood immortal was plastered. Or that's
T>what the other arches would later tell me.
You normally don't explain things in bat-channel, as people tend to
get into arguments which are not always factual and become very fast
heated discussions and usually nothing concrete comes from them.
T>To my complaint, Zonni gave me a rather clever answer. "If you don't
T>like it, don't be one." Definitely the words of a concerned god (or
T>whatever Zonni counts as) who wants the best for his guild.
From Zonni this sounds perfectly clear, if you can't stand the roleplay
bit that Zonni has put into paladins then you just don't deserve to
be one, simple as that.
T>I was trying to gather a witty remark up, when Zonni began to work
T>himself up. "Talien, I get a lot of mail about you. Talien did this,
T>Talien did that."
Maybe you are one of the people that are too sensitive about some things.
You try to look like a true roleplayer when things suit you, but whenever
there is a slight drawback you lose it.
[few lines of zonnis comments removed]
T>And then without further ado, Zonni zaps me (real hard when you're
T>at 1 hit point).
Zap is enough even if you had 10k hitpoints, so real hard is kinda lame
definition, but you don't piss of the coder of the guild (can be
looked as the GOD of your guild).
T>Yes, this means I lost a few mil exps. It was a miracle that I did
T>not lose a level when I was ressed with all those scars on me.
Few mil exps does not mean anything to you, and you cannot lose
a level if the resses is really balanced.
T>I was understandably surprised. But I'm not stupid. After several
T>arches doing tells (and bats) for me to shut up, I shut bat channel
T>off, and decided to make my way back to Shadowkeep - at the very least
T>I could get Faerwon to forgive me if Zonni wouldn't.
Looks like more stupidity on your part. Why the thing that Zonni zapped
you didn't ring any bells inside, maybe it would have been better to
try later.
T>And while I was halfway there, in the wilderness, Zonni dested me -
T>poof, there goes all my equipment.
Poor you I'd say, but life stinks when you make it stink.
T>I didn't even know why he did it, until I saw him on bat (bat last is
T>a wonderful thing), antagonizing me. "Not so talkative now, Talien?
T>You're so quiet."
Every man has a limit (and if Zonni really was drunk the limit was
lower than normal) on what kind of BS he can take.
T>You know, the funny thing is, take away the fact that Zonni's an
T>immortal, and he sounded just like all the other assholes I've pked,
T>arrested, had removed, deleted, etc.
You really are surprised that people are so like each other, when we
have this virtual world which limits us in many ways it is no surprise
to me.
T>So why am I leaving? Quite simply, because the MUD is no longer worth
T>playing. Would a pitcher continue to play baseball (not that they are
T>now anyway) if he KNEW the ref was against him? Would you want to go
T>on with your life if you knew God didn't like you very much?
So you lost the touch with MUD and with the creator of your favourite
guild. I'm sure that Zonni has nothing personal against you, it is just
that people who whine (and expect arches to jump when they do) sometimes
really piss us off.
T>Would you play a MUD in which the prick who created your guild might
T>get drunk and then start zapping you?
I think everyone needs to answer this for him/herself, but I think I could
play so low that I could enjoy it and not get zapped, but this is only
my personal feeling.
T>The answers, in order, are: No, no, and no.
Well you seem to have a problem here, you know things (for sure) that
others don't, like workings of Zonni's mind.
T>I feel batmud has become unplayable not because of the system but
T>because of the administration. There is no hope for my guild when the
T>guy who takes DONATIONS, the guy in charge of this whole place,
T>blatantly abuses his power. Hell, I can't touch him and as Zonni
T>knows all too well, this kind of attitude is one of desperation - they
T>have all the hardware and software they need, they have all the cash
T>donations - so what ARE ya gonna do if he zaps you? It's not a joke,
T>that "take one bitter deleted mortal, zap a little, enjoy." That's
T>not some kind of amusing anecdote put on there because they think it's
T>funny. It's no more a joke than "Archwizards are always right".
T>There is a little group up top there who likes to keep things tight -
T>those who don't fall in line are removed from it. Ask Firefox. Ask
T>Amarth. Hell, even ask Duke, he knows the game and he knows how to
T>play it, it's why he's the only American Arch around. Keep your nose
T>clean, don't complain, listen to what everyone else says, and you're
T>qualified to be an immortal.
I think this is an area you are not qualified to say anything, so I just
skip it with one comment, total bullshit all the previous chapter.
T>But remember if "you are too loud" "loud is bad".
Yes, if you irritate people that is bad, remember the saying:
"Don't get mad, get even!"
T>I am not going to conform to some Nazi-rewrite conceptualization by a
T>supposedly grown man who feels that I make his MUD a little
T>uncomfortable because I have the balls to complain about individuals,
T>rules, etc. that are just plain STUPID. It's funny because I never
T>thought I'd support such radical ideas as not conforming to the
T>system, but I have to say that this MUD is shot. The system is great.
T>The administration (except for a select group of individuals who don't
T>have all that much power), sucks.
And now starts the namecalling when everything else is gone.
I pity you if you have to resort things like this.
T>I have never donated, I would NEVER donate, and I sincerely suggest
T>you don't either. Let the tough guys do it - the guys who spend 800$
T>on their characters so they can feel important because a bunch of
T>numbers on the screen show that they have 100+ stats and 2000+
T>hps/sps. The attitude fostered by the higher ups is filtering down to
T>the mortals, and they will propogate like a bunch of rabbits - have
T>you noticed there's been a rising tide of pkers, castle thieves, and
T>general assholes? What do you expect? Look around, look at the
T>administration, look at what goes on and then try to come up with a
T>reason why the shmucks SHOULDN'T play?
This sounds like a kid telling ... I've been using your toys and
I didn't have to pay and now that you don't have nice toys anymore
I'm going to yell everybody that your toys suck and everybody should
go somewhere else to play. Because I don't have fun the rest are
not allowed to have fun either!
T>And I'm sure, you'll come up with the same answer I did. They not
T>only are allowed to play, their activity is ENCOURAGED. Notice how
T>many little worms came crawling out of the woodwork to put me down
T>when they saw that Zonni zapped me. Heheh, hell, if the IMMORTAL can
T>get away with it, we can too.
Well I'm sure when the new castlesystem arrives things will change.
I think that is the main reason nothing has been done to stop robbers,
as things are going to change soon anyway. And we have too much
stuff in chests, so maybe we want to increase the circulation of
items a bit.
T>For all that, I've but one thing to say:
Well you have said quite a many things before this...
T>You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence
T>someone on Usenet.
Freedom of Usenet is just an illusion, don't be fooled by it.
T>Have a nice day. >:)
I will!
T>Talien/Mike, who doesn't stay quiet for nobody
- Markku (one of arches)
Niilo Neuvo
> talien/mike has a VERY good point... in asking people about how fucked
> the admin is, just ask old ridel... he'll tell you the real reason he was
> removed from the game.
I delete around one player a day on the average. You can just figure
out how fucked I am.
++Anipa
David Bennett
>In article <34ahvq$n...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>,
>Kristenlee Sadowski <ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>>But remember if "you are too loud" "loud is bad".
>>
>>I am not going to conform to some Nazi-rewrite conceptualization
>>by a supposedly grown man who feels that I
>>make his MUD a little uncomfortable because I have the balls to
>>complain about individuals, rules, etc. that are
>>just plain STUPID. It's funny because I never thought I'd support
>>such radical ideas as not conforming to the
>>system, but I have to say that this MUD is shot. The system is
>>great. The administration (except for a select
>>group of individuals who don't have all that much power), sucks.
Damn. Youi mentioned nazi's al;ready. Now what have I got to drege
up and use as a tired argument? Some people have no respect. You should
know that you only mentiion nazi's after the third flame.
You never thgought you would support such radical ideas as
not coforming to the system? So your boring. Who cares?
The adminstration probably do not have much time. If they have a job or
are going to uni this would suck up a lot of their time. The rest
well. Say they have a couple of hours a day. Just catching up on mail and
news on a running mud can take a good hour or so. Dealing with problems
take significantly longer. Every wombat and their blue coloured lamp ray
wants to talk to you/hassle you about something/try and grow petunias
in your backyard. In a mud the size of BatMUD I can see why the arches
would become cynical and seem in some cases to not care. The fact they are
arches and still log on means they do.
>>I have never donated, I would NEVER donate, and I sincerely suggest
>>you don't either. Let the tough guys do
>>it - the guys who spend 800$ on their characters so they can feel
>>important because a bunch of numbers on the
>>screen show that they have 100+ stats and 2000+ hps/sps. The
>>attitude fostered by the higher ups is filtering
>>down to the mortals, and they will propogate like a bunch of rabbits -
>>have you noticed there's been a rising tide
>>of pkers, castle thieves, and general assholes? What do you
>>expect? Look around, look at the administration,
>>look at what goes on and then try to come up with a reason why the
>>shmucks SHOULDN'T play?
Now whos the fasist? Don't want to spend any of your ill gained wealth
huh? Fine to play it but, heck. Why should I want to give anything
back to a place where I spent two years. No idea, I bet no one else
has any idea either.
>>You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence someone on Usenet.
Close enough. Ever heard of kill files? And you can cancel mnews articles.
>Funny that just sounds like a mud I use to play called Nuclear War.
>Good to see that powertripping arches aren't just reserved for Nuclear
>War. Do as I did, don't get mad, get even. *chuckle*A
I always end up gettyying odd.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
Kristenlee Sadowski
I almost didn't bother to post a response to this one, merely because the accusations are so
groundless as to border on the absurd.
1) Talien, as anyone can tell you, role-played extensively. He was (usually) courteous,
kind, and when it came to the bad guys he was just plain stubborn. Let me tell you, I had
my days when I slipped and Talien was a foul-mouthed, violent individual on occassion -
but for the most part I tried my best to role-play on Batmud, back when there WERE no
role-players. I was continually criticized for role-playing when nobody saw any reason
for it (if only then I knew about MUSHes, *sigh*), but I can definitely state that there
were NO role-players for the longest time. Several of the paladin members created
various 'sects' of the paladins guild, and we nominated various individuals who belonged
to the guild to be leaders of their sect, Talien was made Arch-Prelate of the Paladins.
So although it can't be directly proven without witnesses speaking for me, I DID role-
play, and it had nothing to do with the rules of the MUD. I fault the admin. in charge of
the paladin guild that he didn't bother to perhaps ask for our advice or otherwise assimilate
our own little sects into part of the guild itself (i.e., a perfect opportunity/idea for code).
2) Paladins, as I have always read/role-played/or otherwise heard about, were not only
judged on JUST how faithful they were to their god, but how good they were in general -
Talien was not some evil arch-villain (although some people may say otherwise >:) ) who
went around looting and murdering, etc. No, Talien was, as I said previously, a generally
"good" character. For Faerwon to punish him so severely is ridiculous. The title "paladin
gift shop" sounds more like a commercialistic business where the god makes his money
not by tithes but by how many souveniours the tourists will buy. It's just plain silly.
3) As for the atonement - it's a flat, random chance, having nothing to do with role-playing.
In fact, I wrote several long posts (remember Zonni said I'm loud? He wasn't kidding),
about the severe lack of role-playing and why it's impossible to do so - I refer anyone
interested to Batmud's news general for my comments on that (and spare everyone
another hideously long post). There's simply no way I can "replenish the shop" and
get it back on its feet - we're talking how the place is coded here, and that's simply
something I couldn't possibly get around - if the shop runs out of stuff (again - a Paladin
Gift Shop? "I'm sorry sir but we're all out of Paladinwear (tm) for atonement, perhaps
you should try level three, the longerie section of our department store..."), it
runs out of stuff. Plain and simple, and no amount of role-playing will replenish the
shop.
4) It's rather amusing that the individual who posted presumes that "every man has his
limit" - even gods. Ah, yes. I see, gods are people too, and therefore, when they get
drunk and go around zapping an individual, and when he makes everyone on the MUD
shout, "Zonni is the anti-god!" and when he dests you after that for good measure - ah
yes, the poor fellow is only human, and as we all know, gods should be allowed to do
whenever they want and we secretly they're great guys. Funny that it was never stated
that perhaps there's something wrong with a god getting on who is blasted and is having
"a bad day". I dunno, you'd think the person in charge of donations for Batmud (a hefty
responsibility) would have enough good sense to not get on a MUD when he's having
a bad time of it. But then, he's only human, right?
5) The other implication (and now that I am a little wizling myself on another MUD I get
the "administrative perspective") that when I whined I expected the arches to jump is
utterly false. I was explaining what I saw as a problem with the guild, to a god, foolishly
(and naievely) thinking that he might hear my complaint and attempt to rectify it rather
than blasting me to shut me up.
6) This post has proven yet another example of what's wrong with Bat - this guy's an
ARCH on there? I dread to think how an arch such as this responds to a complaint about
his guild - it's obviously the mortal's fault, the whining mortal expects the arch to jump
when he complains, and most of all, the best excuse for doing anything (including abuse
of power) is that immortal's having a bad day. Shaddup, take your zap, and play nice. >:)
Talien, who thinks the only way to do it right is to be a wiz himself >:)
: T>not partying at the time, Faerwon decided that I had to repent. This
Bob Farmer
>No excuses, no answers, and not even a good response.
>Feel free to visit RetroMUD: MUD.ID.NET 3000 - we're nothing but
>a fetus of a MUD right now but we're working on it.
>And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
>be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
>
>Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
Well, guess I'm quite fucked then, I'm sure I probably delete more than
one player per day on average. Does this disqualify me from club
membership? Fuck.
--
Bob Farmer ucs...@pip.shsu.edu
University Computer Services, Sam Houston State Univ. (409)294-3546
Gregory Avicola
Kristenlee Sadowski <ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>No excuses, no answers, and not even a good response.
>Feel free to visit RetroMUD: MUD.ID.NET 3000 - we're nothing but
>a fetus of a MUD right now but we're working on it.
>And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
>be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
>
>Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
I as a newbie on batmud heard it was really good and checked it out and it
has absolutely the most awesome features i have ever seen in a mud..
However, listening to the responses the admins have been giving abou this
issue is not ecouraging. I have to say as somone thinking about playing
this place alot, you sure are not giving a good impression.
If this guy is a whiner/deserves to get nuked, i do not know, but i do know
that you did not answer one thing he said about the problems..
I dont know if i want to play somewhere where an arch wizard in a drunken
frenzy can do whatever he likes possibly destroying hours of playing time
just becuase he feels like it, and then have any complaints on the matter
ignored or even worse, used against you.
IF talien deserved this you should say why, WAS zonni drunk, did he deserve
to get dested? Is the paladins guild that messed right now? etc etc etc
If you can answer this in a mature way I and alot of other new players
would feel better about playing a mud. Up to now, ive only seen childish
posts by the wizes.
-Greg
Petri Virkkula
Talien> 3) As for the atonement - it's a flat, random chance, having
Talien> nothing to do with role-playing. In fact, I wrote several
Talien> long posts (remember Zonni said I'm loud? He wasn't kidding),
Talien> about the severe lack of role-playing and why it's impossible
Talien> to do so - I refer anyone interested to Batmud's news general
Talien> for my comments on that (and spare everyone another hideously
Talien> long post).
BatMUD news can be read with normal newsreaders (atleast with
GNUS). Our NNTP-server (coded with LPC) listens normal NNTP
port (which is 119. Everybody is free to read articlesthere,
unfortunately it's not possible to write without special
access checking. Writing and reading is possible from inside
of the mud, it's worth of reading "help news".
Petri (former arch of BatMUD)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri Virkkula | Internet: Petri.V...@hut.fi
JMT 11 E 125 | X.400 : /G=Petri/S=Virkkula/O=hut/ADMD=fumail/C=fi/
02150 Espoo | Voice : +358 0 455 1277
FINLAND |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niilo Neuvo
> : I delete around one player a day on the average. You can just figure
> : out how fucked I am.
>
> : ++Anipa
Actually I remember deleting 2000 characters on one day. It is
usually called a player purge. This means that you get rid of all the
unused characters (no money, no exp, level 1, not played for a month).
Those 2000 characters are enough to supply me an average deletion rate
of 1/day for over 5 years.
> And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
> be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
I hope you have a big disk. Remember to give players random names so
that they won't ask you for a deletion of an unused character, that
has 'their' name.
> Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
All publicity is good publicity.
++Anipa
Markku J{rvinen
Now I don't quote so much, read the refrence if you need.
T>I almost didn't bother to post a response to this one, merely
T>because the accusations are so groundless as to border on the absurd.
I don't think they are groundless, but let's see. And you still write
too long lines.
T>1) Talien, as anyone can tell you, role-played extensively. He was
T>[... removed ...]
But for just this once you decided not to roleplay, "my GOD can wait,
I have more important things to do". And for that your GOD got angry
and decided to punish you. Seems like self inflicted thing this curse.
T>2) Paladins, as I have always read/role-played/or otherwise heard
T>[... removed ...]
Sure, whenever there is a religion there is some business that gets
it's business from the poor suckers that believe in it. That is how
the system works, some religions have it better, but all I've seen
sell something to cover expenses.
T>3) As for the atonement - it's a flat, random chance, having nothing
T>[... removed ...]
No, it is not flat random, it has to do with gifts you bring. About
the shop you are right, but if you think of it, are there any shops
that are full all the time.
T>4) It's rather amusing that the individual who posted presumes that
T>[... removed ...]
Ever thought that we do something other than look over you when in MUD.
We try to have good time ourselves and talk a lot, maybe that should
just be something reserved for players?
T>5) The other implication (and now that I am a little wizling myself
T>[... removed ...]
The way things work is that you get a discussion going in news or in
mail. I personally hate to describe the same thing for several people
in the row because they ask the same question (and then answer again
next day). So use the proper channels.
T>6) This post has proven yet another example of what's wrong with Bat
T>[... removed ...]
What did I say towards this? I have my work to do, I do this on my free
time. So if you start to complain directly to me and not use the means
provided (idea or bug, depending on what it is) you just show no respect
of my privacy.
T>Talien, who thinks the only way to do it right is to be a wiz
T>[... the character removed ...]
- Markku
Petri Virkkula
Bob> Well, guess I'm quite fucked then, I'm sure I probably delete
Bob> more than one player per day on average. Does this disqualify me
Bob> from club membership? Fuck.
I calculated yesterday that I removed 10-11 players per day
on average during last year. Can I join the club? :-)
Petri
Petri Virkkula
I wrote> BatMUD news can be read with normal newsreaders (atleast with
I wrote> GNUS). Our NNTP-server (coded with LPC) listens normal NNTP port
I wrote> (which is 119. Everybody is free to read articlesthere,
I wrote> unfortunately it's not possible to write without special access
I wrote> checking. Writing and reading is possible from inside of the mud,
I wrote> it's worth of reading "help news".
I forgot to give address, it is bat.cs.hut.fi (130.233.40.180)
Petri
Stig Sæther Bakken
> After a post like this...my point's been made in spades.
> No excuses, no answers, and not even a good response.
> Feel free to visit RetroMUD: MUD.ID.NET 3000 - we're nothing but
> a fetus of a MUD right now but we're working on it.
> And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
> be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
>
> Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
With more people with you around, I'd delete more!
Auronthas
--
Email: Stig....@pvv.unit.no, XPilot/IRC: Euphoriac, MUDs: Auronthas
<A HREF="http://www.pvv.unit.no/~ssb">My WWW page</A>
GCS d@ -p+ c++(++++) l++ u+ e* m++(-) s++/- n- h-- f+ g+(-) w+ t- r y+(*)
Duane Lunday
>All publicity is good publicity.
>
>++Anipa
I'm sure that Pee Wee Herman and O. J. Simpson would certainly agree
with that!
Kristenlee Sadowski
: ++Anipa
After a post like this...my point's been made in spades.
DININ
Heh.. back to where all this mess started... Who even said muds are
democratic and caring anyways? If ya are gonna be an butt, someone is
sure to get ticked and slam your player. That is how everything works.
Live with it. I have.
Rob Kennedy std...@pip.shsu.edu
Jacob Hallen
Stig Sæther Bakken <s...@pvv.unit.no> wrote:
>In article <34j22r$f...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu> ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu (Kristenlee Sadowski) writes:
>
>> After a post like this...my point's been made in spades.
>> No excuses, no answers, and not even a good response.
>> Feel free to visit RetroMUD: MUD.ID.NET 3000 - we're nothing but
>> a fetus of a MUD right now but we're working on it.
>> And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
>> be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
>>
>> Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
>
>With more people with you around, I'd delete more!
>
>Auronthas
Hear, hear!
The Cabal of Nasty Nazi Mud Admins has excommunicated you. We are strong, we are
few, and we eat people like you for midmorning snack. Any player should feel
lucky if he is ignored by a member of the CNNMA.
We can change your virtual life into virtual hell, and we do in with a sadistic
smile.
Now go away, or you will be taunted a second time.
Jacob Hallen
Rudolf Gross
>
>Exactly. If Batmud is so fucked... none of the admin care... they only
>log on to zap players, wasting hours of their time... Quite simply, leave,
>don't waste your breath taunting the 'admin society' who'll simply pat each
>other on the head with feeble joke.
I'm not so sure about that. In more than 4 years I've never encountered a
single Admin who didn't care when his mud and manners were being attacked.
As a general rule, the less the Admin claims to care, the more annoyed he
tends to be. After all, "stop whining, sniveling idiot" means nothing else
than "shut up, I don't want to hear and talk about it".
>(Christ! The 'puny mortals fuck up
>muds' joke was old about 2 years ago[3 years?]) It's like someone has
>already mentioned. If you are playing with some kids, and the person who
>owns the ball decides to be a dick, go play with someone else.. buy your
>own ball... take up piano lessons or something. Crying at people, for whom
>kicking someone who is crying in the teeth makes their day, is a completely
>worthless occupation.
>
Not at all worthless. The admin's reactions to 'whining' players are quite
telling. It is a good indication of his attitude towards players. If he is
the 'high and mighty' type, he will usually flame and belittle the player
instead of giving a short statement, _why_ the player has been banished.
They are just too cool and worthy for something like that.
More mature and responsible Admins usually don't have to bear player flames
on the net like that. A brief explanation usually does the job.
Before my asbestos has got to save me: I know, I know. There's no way telling
an admin how to run his mud. And yes, he can do whatever he wants in his mud.
But player flames and especially the followups to them give players a good
impression of how they can expect to be treated by the admins. And I wouldn't
call this a 'worthless occupation' at all.
Mentar
m.a.hall
: Heh.. back to where all this mess started... Who even said muds are
: democratic and caring anyways? If ya are gonna be an butt, someone is
: sure to get ticked and slam your player. That is how everything works.
: Live with it. I have.
: Rob Kennedy std...@pip.shsu.edu
Exactly. If Batmud is so fucked... none of the admin care... they only
log on to zap players, wasting hours of their time... Quite simply, leave,
don't waste your breath taunting the 'admin society' who'll simply pat each
other on the head with feeble joke. (Christ! The 'puny mortals fuck up
muds' joke was old about 2 years ago[3 years?]) It's like someone has
already mentioned. If you are playing with some kids, and the person who
owns the ball decides to be a dick, go play with someone else.. buy your
own ball... take up piano lessons or something. Crying at people, for whom
kicking someone who is crying in the teeth makes their day, is a completely
worthless occupation.
Mike Hall
the koog
[snip]
>Heh.. back to where all this mess started... Who even said muds are
>democratic and caring anyways? If ya are gonna be an butt, someone is
>sure to get ticked and slam your player. That is how everything works.
>Live with it. I have.
>
>Rob Kennedy std...@pip.shsu.edu
>
>
not neccessarily *everything.* i once ran a muck where there were absolutely
NO rules. and had the site admin not killed it after eight months, it would've
lasted. you could be a butt and get praised for it. :)
--
--dan
**************************************************
Pekka Aakko
whine here that I have been zapped... *sniff* ;)
Most of this posting has been deleted.
Anyways, few things I would like to comment:
In article <34ahvq$n...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>,
Kristenlee Sadowski <ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>"Archwizards are always right". There is a little group up top there who
>likes to keep things tight - those who don't fall in line are removed from
>it. Ask Firefox. Ask Amarth. Hell, even ask Duke, he knows the game and
>he knows how to play it, it's why he's the only American Arch around.
>Keep your nose clean, don't complain, listen to what everyone else says,
>and you're qualified to be an immortal.
I would like to ask you on WHAT grounds you tell the world
these things? You have never been an immortal in Bat so you
really dont know what you are talking about. Firefox hasn't
been arch in bat, Amarth was and did few errors and was removed
from archhood. No, the errors weren't those you mentioned,
and it is not my job to explain what someone did to the whole
world when the thing concerns only the certain mud.
>But remember if "you are too loud" "loud is bad".
Yes... "loud", "annoying", "right everytime" go together
or what, Talien? ;-)
>You can't zap, dest, kill, remove, banish, or otherwise silence someone
>on Usenet.
Heh... true... but you can do lotsa other things here
as your posting has shown us :)
No, I don't want this to be a flame war - this could open
nice discussion about politics of mud administration. I myself
have nothing to do with the mentioned incident, but yet I
found this complaint rather stupid... heh, don't think I want
to silence someone.. no :) the case is that I know things
more deeply.. as a neutral bystander. And on that basis
I made my comments.
Well, hopefully Talien has found another mud that doesn't
suck, fuck, grind, treat unfairly, zap, abuse admin powers,
rip money, cheat, use illusions, blaah as BatMUD.
Yours Sincerely,
Pekka Aakko
aka Arakorni
Bob Farmer
>In article <34j22r$f...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>,
>Kristenlee Sadowski <ksad...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>>: m...@oin.unh.edu (Matthew J Freeman) writes:
>>: > talien/mike has a VERY good point... in asking people about how fucked
>>: > the admin is, just ask old ridel... he'll tell you the real reason he was
>>: > removed from the game.
>>
>>: I delete around one player a day on the average. You can just figure
>>: out how fucked I am.
>>
>>: ++Anipa
>>
>>After a post like this...my point's been made in spades.
>>No excuses, no answers, and not even a good response.
>>Feel free to visit RetroMUD: MUD.ID.NET 3000 - we're nothing but
>>a fetus of a MUD right now but we're working on it.
>>And I'm going to do my best not to be a part of...well, not to
>>be a part of the "delete a player a day" club.
>>
>>Talien/Mike...who thinks he made his point
>
>I as a newbie on batmud heard it was really good and checked it out and it
>has absolutely the most awesome features i have ever seen in a mud..
>However, listening to the responses the admins have been giving abou this
>issue is not ecouraging. I have to say as somone thinking about playing
>this place alot, you sure are not giving a good impression.
>
>If this guy is a whiner/deserves to get nuked, i do not know, but i do know
>that you did not answer one thing he said about the problems..
What's the point? No matter how whoever runs BatMUD responds, he's going
to come back with counter-arguments.
>I dont know if i want to play somewhere where an arch wizard in a drunken
>frenzy can do whatever he likes possibly destroying hours of playing time
>just becuase he feels like it, and then have any complaints on the matter
>ignored or even worse, used against you.
You don't want to play any mud then. The people who own/run a mud can do
whatever they want anywhere. Duh.
>IF talien deserved this you should say why, WAS zonni drunk, did he deserve
>to get dested? Is the paladins guild that messed right now? etc etc etc
>
>If you can answer this in a mature way I and alot of other new players
>would feel better about playing a mud. Up to now, ive only seen childish
>posts by the wizes.
>-Greg
--
m.a.hall
: In article <1994Sep8.0...@bradford.ac.uk> M.A....@bradford.ac.uk (m.a.hall) writes:
: >
: >Exactly. If Batmud is so fucked... none of the admin care... they only
: >log on to zap players, wasting hours of their time... Quite simply, leave,
: >don't waste your breath taunting the 'admin society' who'll simply pat each
: >other on the head with feeble joke.
: I'm not so sure about that. In more than 4 years I've never encountered a
: single Admin who didn't care when his mud and manners were being attacked.
*snicker* Nice little world you live in. As a rule, all admin _know_ that
they are the greatest coders in the world, their mud is the greatest and
that it is your _privilege_ to be fucked around by them.
: As a general rule, the less the Admin claims to care, the more annoyed he
: tends to be. After all, "stop whining, sniveling idiot" means nothing else
: than "shut up, I don't want to hear and talk about it".
Those two lines contradict each other in many ways... I'd agree with the
last sentence. On a lot of muds, any suggestion is greeted as a whine. I
just don't see the point in advising someone to waste their life somewhere,
where they aren't appreciated as the Batmud victim appears not to be.
[snip]
: >kicking someone who is crying in the teeth makes their day, is a completely
: >worthless occupation.
: >
: Not at all worthless. The admin's reactions to 'whining' players are quite
: telling. It is a good indication of his attitude towards players. If he is
: the 'high and mighty' type, he will usually flame and belittle the player
: instead of giving a short statement, _why_ the player has been banished.
: They are just too cool and worthy for something like that.
Bs. Admin log on to muds to have _fun_ often. Insulting people who enjoy
their code and completely wasting their time isn't unheard of... Short
flames aren't enjoyable to write. A long flame, which all the boot
lickers can get some saliva on, gives more satisfaction. The boot lickers
will cheer out loud and massage the admin's ego some more. Fine if you
like it. If you don't, don't waste your life there...
: More mature and responsible Admins usually don't have to bear player flames
: on the net like that. A brief explanation usually does the job.
Quite true. Certainly some of the batmud admin have come across like well-
rubbed nuggets of chickenshit. They have done what you said 'Mature and
responsible Admins' don't have to do. They're enjoying themselves, why
shouldn't you... somewhere else.
: Before my asbestos has got to save me: I know, I know. There's no way telling
: an admin how to run his mud. And yes, he can do whatever he wants in his mud.
: But player flames and especially the followups to them give players a good
: impression of how they can expect to be treated by the admins. And I wouldn't
: call this a 'worthless occupation' at all.
: Mentar
Quite true- and when a player who has been playing as long as Talien gets
pissed on like that, you realise how Batmud must be run. I hope the
mutual backpatting society of Batmud realise now how their stupid flames
looked on the net now. To me, and to at least three others who took the
time to email me on the subject (so probably a hell of a lot more
lurkers), Batmud admin looked like dicks. Plain and simple. You may have
a million players, but you still came across as dicks. Can you read the
writing on the wall now?
Mike Hall
Kristenlee Sadowski
The big reply:
Well, seems I did generate a bit of attention here, didn't I?
The post (and all those which came afterwards) did exactly what I wanted
it to do, and that is, bring attention to the attitude,
whether it is a god on
batmud or a wizling on some other MUD, that "administration can do
whatever they want".
Yer damn right they can.
By all rights, the administration can virtually blast you, obliterate
you, be rather unfair about the whole thing, and prevent you from
playing the MUD.
HOWEVER (and this is a big however here):
Such actions have equal and opposite reactions. Abuse your players,
and they'll leave. Plain and simple. Administration can say whatever
they want - there is no administration without players, they have no one
to administrate over.
#1 Rule of a Tyrant: Abuse the people then reward them so they can
continue to tolerate the abuse. Unfortunately, while I have tolerated
a lot of ridiculous stuff from wizzes/arches/etc., being zapped and then
dested for (and I must stress Arakorni obviously felt Zonni's actions
were wrong or he wouldn't have fixed Talien after the god's drunken
zap/deletion) little reason is pushing it. A lot of people have said, "so
tough". The gods on Batmud said that as well, including several of those
who posted. This was never intended by any means to be an effort to
'reinstate' Talien on the MUD, nor did I expect a massive MUD riot so
the mortals would rise up and take over Batmud and the land would live
in peace and harmony. What I DID want was a discussion, using a worst-case
scenario (Batmud in this case) of what a "good" administration is.
To quote someone else, I "bought my own ball." I am now on another
MUD, as a wiz, and trying my best (lordy knows it ain't easy).
So far, I haven't seen much in the way of overbearing egos, anyone
coming on drunk to zap anyone else, or any of the nonsense I explained
(some would say whined) about Batmud. I see people who code, who
care about coding and who care about who comes on - of course, since
we're in the formative stages, I'm sure that's a team effort and therefore
we're more likely to be accommodating to a mortal - but conversely - does
that mean because you're a "big, popular MUD" you should be able to
treat your players like dirt?
m.a.hall (M.A....@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
Kristenlee Sadowski
should be at the beck and call of
their players. One player came on and demanded I trans him somewhere...
when I gave him the directions to walk there, he told me it was too far and
continued to expect a wiz ride.
So with that little experience in mind, I'll say something else: I am not against
arches, wizzes, or administration. I am against the abuse of power - players who
expect immortals to jump at their beck and call are equally at fault. However,
when someone says "your monster is too hard" or "this spell sucks" or even
"your guild is ridiculous" , sure I might be a bit miffed, but I want to IMPROVE
things, so I pay attention. It makes sense. I obviously can't judge with an
unbiased opinion a monster which I coded - I'm thinking about whether
or not he casts fireballs and how hard he is, etc., not just survival. A
player's opinion is the most reliable. While they may not know code,
these are the guys who live and breathe the guild after the wizzes code
them, these are the guys who fight those monsters every day, these are
the guys who live and die by the WIZZES' code. It's the player's business
to keep his character alive, selfish perhaps, but it does not invalidate a player's
opinion. It takes a lot to ask, in the face of "this monster sucks, recode it" to
swallow my pride and ask "why?" But I do, and I take that commentary
into account along with other players and wizzes.
A MUD, being a game, means that the game would be meaningless without
a challenge. Too easy, and no one will play, too hard...and no one will play.
The players are the wiz's eyes and ears. They PLAY the game, after all, it's
why they're there.
My point is (EGADS I'VE FOUND A POINT!) that I do not believe absolute
power HAS to corrupt absolutely. Some of the responses to this post seemed
almost indignant that I even brought the subject to light, a kind of "how dare you,
you can't do anything about it so why are you whining?" attitude - and of course,
if you see this as whining, then your mind is already closed to the idea of a
relatively fair administration.
Just because you're a god, and have the ability to blow someone to bits
does NOT mean you should be praised for it, certainly doesn't mean such
routine abuse is expected, and if you use such titanic forces wisely...THAT
is the definition of a good administrator.
It's not in the powers, but the attitude.
Talien/Mike
David Bennett
es:
>
>Well, guess I'm quite fucked then, I'm sure I probably delete more than
>one player per day on average. Does this disqualify me from club
>membership? Fuck
Yes, I am afraid so. You have to go into the delete many players a day
club. The memberships are mutually exclusive. However, you do get a gold
plated wombat as a joining gift.
Andy Lewis
>So far, I haven't seen much in the way of overbearing egos, anyone
>coming on drunk to zap anyone else, or any of the nonsense I explained
>(some would say whined) about Batmud. I see people who code, who
>care about coding and who care about who comes on - of course, since
>we're in the formative stages, I'm sure that's a team effort and therefore
>we're more likely to be accommodating to a mortal - but conversely - does
>that mean because you're a "big, popular MUD" you should be able to
>treat your players like dirt?
Hmmm. I've been reading this debate with interest, because the postings from
many of the Batmud arches, together with the description of the original
incident are all a little disturbing. I'm a Lord (a bit below Arch status,
but higher than a normal wiz) on Discworld, and much of what has been said
here really goes against all my reasons for being a MUD creator.
My philosophy is that a MUD exists for the benefit of its players. The MUD
admin also exists for the benefit of the players. I don't like desting
people, and when a player needs disciplining in some way, I feel that if
I have to resort to using my "powers", I've failed in some way.
I have no god-given right to be a lord - I am helping to provide a service
for the players, and I get a lot of satisfaction from what I do.
The impression that I get from several of the posters in this debate
is "players are allowed to play on our sufferance", and this is more
than backed up by the Batmud online help topic "archwizard's handbook".
This to me is bad enough for a normal mud, but on a donation-fuelled one,
I find it horrifying.
Anyway, enough from me....
Andy (aka Dek@Discworld)
--
Andy Lewis (a...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) | Confucius, he say -
Department of Electronics | "To juggle, need many
and Computer Science | many mind pieces."
University of Southampton |
David Bennett
TU-Muenchen.DE (Rudolf Gross) writes:
>More mature and responsible Admins usually don't have to bear player flames
>on the net like that. A brief explanation usually does the job.
>
>Before my asbestos has got to save me: I know, I know. There's no way telling
>an admin how to run his mud. And yes, he can do whatever he wants in his mud.
>But player flames and especially the followups to them give players a good
>impression of how they can expect to be treated by the admins. And I wouldn't
>call this a 'worthless occupation' at all.
Not all Mud admins are male you know.
David Bennett
a.hall) writes:
>Quite true- and when a player who has been playing as long as Talien gets
>pissed on like that, you realise how Batmud must be run. I hope the
>mutual backpatting society of Batmud realise now how their stupid flames
>looked on the net now. To me, and to at least three others who took the
>time to email me on the subject (so probably a hell of a lot more
>lurkers), Batmud admin looked like dicks. Plain and simple. You may have
>a million players, but you still came across as dicks. Can you read the
>writing on the wall now?
As far as I know only one or two Batmud people have actually responded to your
threatening and name calling letters. The original post was one long dribble
that was pretty difficult to read. Your posts however are just plain
offensive. I would rather be on BatMud with Anipa who has come across as much
more of a person than yourself, than on your mud.
Lost for words,
Reimer Behrends
: In message <34novq$4...@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> - grossr@Informatik
: TU-Muenchen.DE (Rudolf Gross) writes:
: >Before my asbestos has got to save me: I know, I know. There's no way telling
: >an admin how to run his mud. And yes, he can do whatever he wants in his mud.
: Not all Mud admins are male you know.
You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
gender is 'he'.
Reimer "Why do I join this stupid flame war" Behrends
Jukka V{is{nen
>: Not all Mud admins are male you know.
>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>gender is 'he'.
But in a MUD it's always 'it'.. ;)
- Vaiski
--
...............................................................................
: Jukka.V...@hut.fi : #include <standard-disclaimer.h> :
:...........................:.................................................:
: +358-0-4682585 : J{mer{ntaival 3c392 02150 ESPOO Finland : Vaiski on IRC :
:................:............................................:...............:
Tim Hollebeek
he/she/gender challenged person.
-Beek
George Reese
That's what the textbooks say, however, they are wrong. Best to
phrase things without noting gender at all than to use any gender.
However, Pinkfish, bad form for correcting English grammar for a
non-native speaker in Usenet. You go to the penalty box for a day.
--
George Reese
Descartes of Borg
bo...@icicle.winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~borg/
phone/fax: (612) 829-5495 ftp://nightmare.winternet.com/
"No one ever conquered Wyoming from the left or from the right."
-Camper Van Beethoven
David BENNETT
>In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>>: Not all Mud admins are male you know.
>>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>>gender is 'he'.
This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
Use of he and other such sexist terms is to be discouraged. If you are
wondering why, let me explain. You think in the language you write/say
I hope you will agree. If you write say things in a sexist fashion,
ie where male is 'normal' and female is an exception to the rule. You
will also think this way. One of the best ways to stop being sexist
is to stop thinking this way, a good start to this is to fix your
language.
So, fix your language.
David.
[DDT] Forever exploding.
m.a.hall
: In message <1994Sep8.2...@bradford.ac.uk> - M.A....@bradford.ac.uk (m.
Erm.., I'm not Talien.
Mike Hall (not Talien or Anipa or even from Scandanavia)
Reimer Behrends
: >In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
: >>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
: >>gender is 'he'.
: This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
: person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
The Oxford English Dictionary has (among other definitions) the following
usage of 'he':
'a person etc. of unspecified sex, esp. referring to one already named or
identified ("if anyone comes he will have to wait").'
Webster's dictionary on 'he':
'used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified
<he that hath ears to hear, let him hear --Mt 11:15 (AV)> <one should do
the best he can>'
On 'they', however, only the following is to be found:
'often used with an indefinite third person singular
antecedent <everyone knew where they stood --E. L. Doctorow> <nobody has
to go to school if they don't want to --N.Y. Times>'
Therefore 'they' would not have been appropriate (unless you're going
to tell me that 'an admin' counts as an 'indefinite third person
singular antecedent').
: Use of he and other such sexist terms is to be discouraged. If you are
: wondering why, let me explain. You think in the language you write/say
: I hope you will agree. If you write say things in a sexist fashion,
: ie where male is 'normal' and female is an exception to the rule. You
: will also think this way. One of the best ways to stop being sexist
: is to stop thinking this way, a good start to this is to fix your
: language.
Sigh. Political correctness rears its ugly head again. Personally, I do
not think that by suppressing certain language constructs and by
enforcing this kind of Newspeak anything gets changed. In fact, I think
that you just suppress the problem instead of solving it. An example:
A handicapped person will not get any less crippled if you avoid calling
him (sic!) a cripple. In fact, some handicapped people _do_ mind if you
constantly avoid 'ugly' terms.
: So, fix your language.
I see no need.
Reimer Behrends
Reimer Behrends
: Reimer Behrends (behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
: : You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
: : gender is 'he'.
: That's what the textbooks say, however, they are wrong. Best to
: phrase things without noting gender at all than to use any gender.
It's not as clear-cut as you put it. See the following excerpt from
the alt.usage.english FAQ:
--- begin quote ---
Gender-neutral pronouns
-----------------------
Singular "they" (as in "Everyone was blowing their nose"), which
has been used in English since the time of Chaucer, has gained
popularity recently as a result of the move towards gender-neutral
language. Prescriptive grammarians have traditionally (since 1795,
although the actual practice goes right back to 1200) prescribed
"Everyone was blowing his nose."
Proposals for other gender-neutral pronouns get made from time to
time, and some can be found in actual use ("sie" and "hir" are
the ones most frequently found on Usenet). Cecil Adams, in _Return
of the Straight Dope_ (Ballantine, 1994, ISBN 0-345-38111-4) says
that some eighty such terms have been proposed, the first of them in
the 1850s.
Discussions about gender-neutral pronouns tend to go round and
round and never reach a conclusion. Please refrain.
--- end quote ---
Btw, a flame war on grammatically correct vs. politically correct
usage raged on rec.games.frp.advocacy not long ago. But I don't
think we need to repeat that. ;-)
Reimer Behrends
Pekka Aakko
Lars Duening <due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>In article <359qkp$h...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>>David BENNETT (benn...@cs.uwa.oz.au) wrote:
>>: >In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>>
>>: >>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>>: >>gender is 'he'.
>>
>>: This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
>>: person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
heh.. this subject changed into gender question. Mikey,
drop this to the right level! :) Burp yes more lapin kulta :)
Lars Duening
>: >In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>: >>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>: >>gender is 'he'.
>
>: This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
>: person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
> [...]
>: Use of he and other such sexist terms is to be discouraged. If you are
>: wondering why, let me explain. You think in the language you write/say
>: I hope you will agree. If you write say things in a sexist fashion,
>: ie where male is 'normal' and female is an exception to the rule. You
>: will also think this way. One of the best ways to stop being sexist
>: is to stop thinking this way, a good start to this is to fix your
>: language.
>
> Sigh. Political correctness rears its ugly head again.
Bah, sexism, political correctness... Schnickschnack! It all paces
around the real fact which at least every 2.4.5-veteran should know:
that in core we all are furry creatures - and therefore 'it' is
perfectly right.
I'm now just unsure if that is contra- or covariance...
--
Lars "I'm a were-corvette!" Duening; due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
Sven C. Dack
Reimer> usage raged on rec.games.frp.advocacy not long ago. But I don't
Reimer> think we need to repeat that. ;-)
A: "What does 'pc' stand for if it doesn't mean 'pure crap'?"
B: "It's an abbreviation for 'politically correct'."
A: "Hmm. So it does mean 'pure crap'."
--
Sven C. Dack / GMD Darmstadt, Germany / da...@gmd.de
--
You speak of courage. Obviously you do not know the difference between
courage and foolhardiness. Always it is the brave ones who die, the
soldiers.
-- Kor, the Klingon Commander, "Errand of Mercy",
stardate 3201.7
Tim Hollebeek
>: >In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>: >>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>: >>gender is 'he'.
>
>: This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
>: person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
>
>to tell me that 'an admin' counts as an 'indefinite third person
>singular antecedent').
Dispite being grammatically incorrect, "they" is what you will hear
95% of the time in that case, even in formal contexts.
>: So, fix your language.
>
>I see no need.
>
Suit yourself, but 'they' in this context will probably be considered
proper english grammar in the near future ...
Gay David
I much prefer those who randomly choose between he and she when the gender
is unknown (and stick to the choice, obviously). It sounds better, and it
might even make you think ...
David Gay
dg...@di.epfl.ch
Ian Dean
>: So, fix your language.
>I see no need.
> Reimer Behrends
While you have the dictionary open ...look up the word PEDANTIC and
think about it.
Ian
Reimer Behrends
[...]
: While you have the dictionary open ...look up the word PEDANTIC and
: think about it.
My dearest Ian,
may I extend my sincerest thanks to you for this honest and heartfelt
criticism of yours. However, there is - I hate to say this - a small
catch. It may have escaped you (but heavens forbid, I don't blame you
for failing to notice the obvious - after all, almost everything is in
the genes nowadays) that I was just paying like with like. It may
therefore have occurred to you (much as I hate to offend your sensible
ears with such a vulgar phrase) that you are barking up the wrong tree.
(If you didn't get it yet: I accuse you of operating a double standard.)
Reimer Behrends
P.S.: At the risk of being called pedantic again: It is generally
considered a breach of netiquette and a waste of bandwidth to
quote a lengthy posting just to add a single sentence of your own.
Hall, Dana L.
if you are one of those people who cannot stand to read off topic posts,
kill this immedatly. but it is important in todays society, so please
read it anyway.
In article <icdea1.780144544@giaeb>, icd...@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Ian Dean) writes...
>behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>>David BENNETT (benn...@cs.uwa.oz.au) wrote:
>>: >In article <350fiv$b...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
>
>>: >>You know, the proper English pronoun to use for a person of unknown
>>: >>gender is 'he'.
>
>>: This is not true. There are gender non specific pronouns. it, they, them
>>: person. In the case I was replying to they would have been appropriate.
>
>
>
>>: Use of he and other such sexist terms is to be discouraged. If you are
>>: wondering why, let me explain. You think in the language you write/say
>>: I hope you will agree. If you write say things in a sexist fashion,
>>: ie where male is 'normal' and female is an exception to the rule. You
>>: will also think this way. One of the best ways to stop being sexist
>>: is to stop thinking this way, a good start to this is to fix your
>>: language.
>
>>Sigh. Political correctness rears its ugly head again. Personally, I do
>>not think that by suppressing certain language constructs and by
>>enforcing this kind of Newspeak anything gets changed. In fact, I think
>>that you just suppress the problem instead of solving it. An example:
>>A handicapped person will not get any less crippled if you avoid calling
>>him (sic!) a cripple. In fact, some handicapped people _do_ mind if you
>>constantly avoid 'ugly' terms.
>
the analogy is not accurect <sp>
>>: So, fix your language.
>
>>I see no need.
>
>> Reimer Behrends
>
>While you have the dictionary open ...look up the word PEDANTIC and
>think about it.
>
>Ian
hmmm, let me give you an example of how changing the language has changed
thought. the following passage is quoted without permission from
_Womanwords: A Dicionary of Words About Women_ be Jane Mills published
by Henery Holt and Company. <IBSN# 0-8050-2609-6>
"Woman if from Old English wifman, formed on wif, meaning woman, and man(n),
meaning humankind, thus giving the meaning adult female person. Waepman was
the male equivalent, meaning adult male person."
over time the male version was droped and the term that began as sex-less
took on to mean male first, female second. the female version remained
and took on the connatation of being the exception. a very effective method
of changing thought would be to reverse the trend of our ansestors and
reinstate a sex-less term such as humankind, using plural to denote unknown
gender peoples and other similar words... even if their use violates current
grammatical rules. with time, they will also change.
even though this has nothing to do with muds explictly, it does have a lot
to do with everyong who reads this group. flame me for being off topic if
it would make you feel better, but it will do no good. this is a topic i
feel strongly about and will interject my thoughts whenever i think they
are needed, and if even one person reads this and thinks about it, then my
time was not wasted. thanks..
-dana
Jay Herlihy
>"Woman if from Old English wifman, formed on wif, meaning woman, and man(n),
>meaning humankind, thus giving the meaning adult female person. Waepman was
>the male equivalent, meaning adult male person."
>
>over time the male version was droped and the term that began as sex-less
>took on to mean male first, female second. the female version remained
>and took on the connatation of being the exception. a very effective method
>of changing thought would be to reverse the trend of our ansestors and
>reinstate a sex-less term such as humankind, using plural to denote unknown
>gender peoples and other similar words... even if their use violates current
>grammatical rules. with time, they will also change.
>
>even though this has nothing to do with muds explictly, it does have a lot
>to do with everyong who reads this group. flame me for being off topic if
>it would make you feel better, but it will do no good. this is a topic i
>feel strongly about and will interject my thoughts whenever i think they
>are needed, and if even one person reads this and thinks about it, then my
>time was not wasted. thanks..
>
>-dana
Oh please...whiny politically correct feminazi beliefs are
really not needed here. Go elsewhere...
--
From the often twisted & deviant mind of: j_he...@oz.plymouth.edu
-Axl @)-->--- http://oz.plymouth.edu/~j_herlih/ j...@wiz.plymouth.edu
"In Christianity neither morality nor a...@csos.orst.edu
religion comes into contact with reality at any point." - Nietzsche
Jay Herlihy
^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^
24th September `94
This file can also be found thru http. See below for address.
Total = 93
-----
Name Address Port Code Base #lvs #class #race
---- ------- ---- --------- ---- ------ -----
AbsolutMUD b63740.cwru.edu 4000 Circle 50 4 --
129.22.284.252
AbyssII 129.89.68.89 4000 original 20 4 5
?
AlexMUD mud.stacken.kth.se 4000 original 20 4 --
130.237.234.17
Apocalypse IV sapphire.geo.wvu.edu 4000 original 40 10 7
157.182.168.20
Arctic hobbes.linfield.edu 2700 base 30 8 8
192.147.171.2
Armageddon % thrash.isca.uiowa.edu 4444 original -- 10/12 5
134.48.4.162
Austin aufs.imv.aau.dk 4000 original 70 4 --
129.142.28.2
Carnage ocrist.digital.ufl.edu 4000 original 60 -- 6
128.227.133.214
ChaosMud chaos.bga.com 4000 original 35 8/10 8(16)
198.3.118.12
Chomestoru mccool.cbi.msstate.edu 4000 ? 13
130.18.104.2
Copper 3 scooter.denver.colorado.edu 4000 base <temp closed>
132.194.30.9
Conch Mud aann.tyrell.net 4000 Merc 60 4 --
198.175.8.3
Dark Castle jive.rahul.net 6666 original 50 8 6
192.160.13.4
Dark Shadow jericho.connected.com 2550 original 20 7/10 8
162.148.251.252
Death's Domain eros.ece.miami.edu 9000 original 25 4(8) 12
192.88.124.27
Diku II mud.stacken.kth.se 4242 Diku II 100 4 5
130.237.234.17
D.L.L. trident.ee.fit.edu 9000 Merc 50 4 4
163.118.30.14
DragonMUD 2 eve.assumption.edu 5000 ROM 4 6
192.80.61.5
Dutch Mountains jurix.rechten.rug.nl 9000 Merc 40 7
129.125.134.4
Edge of Darkness edge.uccs.edu 2001 Sequent 50 5 8
128.198.1.70
Empire einstein.physics.drexel.edu 4000 original 30 5 5/12
129.25.1.120
Ensem Mud watt.ensem.u-nancy.fr 4000 Circle 30 5(7) 5
?
Farside farside.atinc.com 3000 ?
198.138.35.199
FieryMud mud.eushc.org 4000 Copper 99 8 --
163.246.5.109
Final Challenge mud.indirect.com 4000 Merc 30 4~ 10
165.247.1.5
Forbidden Lands queen.mcs.drexel.edu 4000 Silly 50 8 6
129.25.7.100
FredMUD fred.indstate.edu 2150 original 78 --
139.102.12.14
Generic MUD matrix.mit.edu 4000 original 30 4~ --
18.80.1.97
G.O.D. Mud cyberspace.com 4000 Circle 30 3
199.2.48.11
GrimneMUD gytje.pvv.unit.no 4000 original 50 4 --
129.241.36.226
HEFTmud muleshoe.cs.utexas.edu 2150 original 40 4 6
128.83.138.120
HelgaMUD helga13.acc.virginia.edu 4000
128.143.24.23
Hercules MUD sunshine.eushc.org 3000 Copper 40 4 --
163.246.32.110
HexOnyx Mud marble.bu.edu 4000 Circle 70 4~ 10
128.197.10.75
Hidden Worlds cns.cscns.com 4000 Merc 30 4 --
192.156.196.1
Highlands jedi.cis.temple.edu 9001 Merc 4
129.32.32.70
HOLOmud photobooks.gatech.edu 7777 Circle 36 0 4
128.61.44.21
HypeNet falcon.depaul.edu 4000 original 30 4 --
140.192.1.10
Infinity 4000 Circle 30 10
144.35.74.70
Imperial supergirl.cs.hut.fi 6969 original 50 4 5
130.233.40.52
JediMUD <site pending> 4000 original 30 9 --
Jedi 2 seahag.jpl.nasa.gov 4000 original 30 9 --
?
KallistiMud mud.csos.orst.edu 4000 original 50 4/6 7
128.193.40.23
KAOS sg25.aud.temple.edu 4000 Silly 50 32 --
129.32.66.7
Last Outpost kimiyo.summer.hawaii.edu 4000 original 20 4~ 5
128.171.137.195
LegendMUD moraff.austin.com 9999 original 50 * 1
198.3.118.108
Legends of Winds ccsun44.csie.nctu.edu.tw 4040 Merc 30 5 7
140.113.17.168
MUME lbdsun4.epfl.ch 4242 original 100 4~ 6
128.178.77.5
Mayhem thrash.isca.uiowa.edu 1234 ? 50 7 9
134.48.4.162
Meat Mud sneezy.cc.utexas.edu 2800 Merc 50 4 --
128.83.135.8
Medievia intense.netaxs.com 4000 Merc 140 4 --
192.204.4.36
MooseHead Sled mud.eskimo.com 4000 ROM 60 4~ 5
162.148.13.44
Mozart % mud.mcs.com 4500 original 100 22 8
192.60.127.90
Mud Dry eichstatt.cs.csbsju.edu 4000 Circle 30 4 --
152.65.167.12
Mud Lite next1.haas.berkeley.edu 4001 Merc 30 4 --
128.32.162.100
Mudde Pathetique flysex.berkeley.edu 2999 original 20 4 --
128.32.128.36
Mystic Adventure miniac.etu.gel.ulaval.ca 4000 Merc 100 16 8
132.203.14.100
NA-Viemud mud.cs.odu.edu 4000 original 30 4~/8 --/7
128.82.6.145
NexusMUD didec3.epfl.ch 4000
128.178.164.5
N. Crossroads ugsparc13.eecg.utoronto.ca 9000 original 50 4~ 6
128.100.13.63
OpalMUD opal.cs.virginia.edu 4000
128.143.60.14
Perilous Realms pr.mese.com 23 original 500 33 12
155.229.1.4
Phantazm dopey.fpa.com 4000 Circle 30 4 --
198.242.217.1
PKmud kennedy.ecn.uoknor.edu 5000 original -- 10 --
129.15.24.14
PsychoMUD chaos.bsu.edu 4355 original ?
147.226.53.28
QUEST! steinmetz.ee.utulsa.edu 1701 original 30 4 5
129.244.59.34
Realms of Despair mud.compulink.com 4000 Merc 50 6 5
199.166.254.1
Realm of Magic p107.informatik.uni-bremen.de Circle 40 4 --
134.102.216.8 4000
Realm of Seduction eden.rutgers.edu 1234 Merc ?
128.6.7.209
Renegade Outpost outpost.hsc.unt.edu 9999 Silly 50 8~ 6
129.120.104.19
Rip's Quest kennedy.ecn.uoknor.edu 5500 original 30 10 8/16
129.15.24.14
RockyMud hermes.dna.mci.com 4000 Silly 50 6~ 5
166.41.48.146
RoninMUD ronin.bcsh.uh.edu 5000 ? 30 10 --
129.7.2.127
Shadowdale dale.hsc.unt.edu 7777 Silly 50 10~ 10
129.120.107.70
Silicon Realms sampan.ee.fit.edu 4000 ?
163.119.30.9
SillyMud stone.cis.ufl.edu 4000 base 50 6~ 14
128.227.100.197
Sloth MUD mercury.cs.ukans.edu 6101 original 40 4~ --
129.237.80.13
SneezyMUD sprinkle.cray.com 7900 Silly 50 8~ 6
128.162.84.19
Sojourn (beta) sojourn.cem.msu.edu 9999 Sequent 50 16 11
35.8.25.23
StackMUD mud.stacken.kth.se 8000 Merc 30 4 7
130.237.234.17
Stick in the MUD ugsparc11.eecg.toronto.edu 9000 Merc 50 4(10) 6(10)
128.100.13.61
StrangeMUD sleepy.cc.utexas.edu 9332 Circle
128.83.135.5
StrikeNet falcon.depaul.edu 4000 ? 30 4 --
140.192.1.7
Tazmania ukko.rowan.edu 5000 Circle ?
150.250.10.216
Tempered Steel rush.cc.edu 4000 ?
140.104.4.169
Tiac Mud ?
199.0.65.25 9999 or 4321
Torment torment.isca.uiowa.edu 4000 original 50 ~ 6
128.255.21.235
The Final Level huey.ee.cua.edu 7777 ? 30 10 13
136.242.140.31
The Land nora.gih.no 4000 original 25 5 5
128.39.140.150
The Two Kingdoms soma.salk.edu 4000 ?
192.31.153.157
ThunderDome tdome.montana.com 5555 Circle 30 9 --
199.2.139.3
VegoMud screech.alfred.edu 4000 Merc ?
149.84.33.3
notes:
-----
If you get a 'connection refused' sometimes you can connect to
the port above or below the listed one. Not all muds do this, but
hey, it's worth a shot. :)
- A % denotes a mud you need to have your character approved by
the admin (some are online, some off) before you may play there.
- A ~ denotes a mud that allows multi-classing.
- A ? is unknown info. A -- means zero or none.
- A * denotes a mud with no character classes.
'base' - all of these are based off of the first gamma0.0
release, but have had so much rewriting/redoing that it's now exists
by iteslf. Current ones recognized are: Copper, Sequent, Merc, Silly,
Circle, ROM, and DikuII. I'll use 'original' (I can't think of anything
better) to denote a mud that modified the original code for itself
only.
A 5/7 under the class or race column would mean that the mud
has 5 working classes or races, and will have another 2 soon
implemented.
A 5(10) would mean the mud has 5 classes available to new
players, and another 5 special classes available later on.
This is titled the "InComplete" list because I do not claim to
list all the Dikus out there. Some don't want to be listed, others I
do not know of. If you have anything to contribute...new muds, want
yours taken off, corrections, suggestions, etc...mail to me directly.
If you can 'fill in the blanks' on this list that'd be great. :)
Joan Harvey
: >"Woman if from Old English wifman, formed on wif, meaning woman, and man(n),
: >meaning humankind, thus giving the meaning adult female person. Waepman was
: >the male equivalent, meaning adult male person."
: >
: >over time the male version was droped and the term that began as sex-less
: >took on to mean male first, female second. the female version remained
: >and took on the connatation of being the exception. a very effective method
: >of changing thought would be to reverse the trend of our ansestors and
: >reinstate a sex-less term such as humankind, using plural to denote unknown
: >gender peoples and other similar words... even if their use violates current
: >grammatical rules. with time, they will also change.
: >
: >even though this has nothing to do with muds explictly, it does have a lot
: >to do with everyong who reads this group. flame me for being off topic if
: >it would make you feel better, but it will do no good. this is a topic i
: >feel strongly about and will interject my thoughts whenever i think they
: >are needed, and if even one person reads this and thinks about it, then my
: >time was not wasted. thanks..
: >
: >-dana
: Oh please...whiny politically correct feminazi beliefs are
: really not needed here. Go elsewhere...
Oh, be quiet, Limbaugh boy.
BTW, 'they' is not acceptable to use as a singular genderless
person. It's plural, despite the way people frequently use it.
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| jxh...@pitt.edu jxh...@pitt.edu jxh...@pitt.edu |
| "With great power comes great responsibility."-Peter Parker |
| "The biggest fool is the one who thinks he knows it all."-Piers Anthony|
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
George Reese
: Oh please...whiny politically correct feminazi beliefs are
: really not needed here. Go elsewhere...
Err, do you have a mind or is that some nasty reflex you have there?
Dana gave a very reasoned a thoughtful post. Agree with it or not,
she did nothing more than that. Your post was just a pile of crap.
Kristenlee Sadowski
1) Culture. In many cultures, the masculine is dominant not because the
woman is weak but merely because...well because it's a primarily 'male'
culture - while I like to think that Europe has the same opportunities
as America for minorities, the responses I see from those in Finland, at
least, show that women aren't thought all that highly of. If you can't
get someone to respect the person - you certainly aren't get them to use
correct language.
2) The new trend, I see, is using "she" as the typical "joe example".
It's all very nice, saying, "The wizard would normally cast a fireball
if she had it memorized." but I fail to see how this will rectify the
point. Now we've just gone in the opposite direction, and it's all
"she" instead of he. Effective? I don't know about that. While
I'm sure only my generation will blink when they see "she" and assume
it's in reference to a particular female even though it's an example
(due to our previous usage of "he" as an example), future generations
won't.
Instead, they'll be used to seeing "she" in all the examples. I don't
see how this makes things better or worse.
And for goodness sake, anyone who thinks that switching on and off
between he and she in examples rectifies the gender question is
making a horrible mistake, and giving their readers a headache.
Mike
Hall, Dana L. (st...@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
: if you are one of those people who cannot stand to read off topic posts,
Niilo Neuvo
> Some points to keep in mind:
>
> 1) Culture. In many cultures, the masculine is dominant not because the
> woman is weak but merely because...well because it's a primarily 'male'
> culture - while I like to think that Europe has the same opportunities
> as America for minorities, the responses I see from those in Finland, at
> least, show that women aren't thought all that highly of.
The finnish language does not have masculine or feminine words (there
is no he/she, just one word for it 'hän', there also aren't any
suffixes/prefixes to words that would indicate the gender). There is
no way you can figure out if a person is female or male. This goes
for speech and written text.
Naturally there are some words that have the word meaning 'man' in it,
as in 'workman'. But this is a very common problem with every
language that I have studied.
I would like to see your study about sexual unequality in Finland. I
have always thought that Finland has always been way ahead of most
other countries in the world in this matter (second country in the
world to allow women to wote, etc).
++Anipa
Leon Quiding
t...@franck.Princeton.EDU (Tim Hollebeek) wrote:
> Wow. Someone who quotes Nietzsche accusing someone else of being a
> Nazi. What rich irony.
>
> -Beek
Not strictly true depending on your stance towards Nietzsche is
there are people who can argue convincingly that the young german had
idealistic dreams about what the nazi party proported to be .In fact the
good of the system as shown in earily south american history. Not
awareee of the people behind the machine .
THE MACHINE LIVES
______________________________________________________________________________
JamesWebb,10WillowAveBirkenheadAuckland,NZ.Ph+64941817413.UniversityOfAuckland
:Ph+6493737599x7466,7693....@cs.aukuni.ac.nz,http://cs.aukuni.ac.nz/~jweb01
Jamieson Norrish
ksad...@csws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Kristenlee Sadowski) writes:
1) Culture. In many cultures, the masculine is dominant not
because the woman is weak but merely because...well because it's a
primarily 'male' culture - while I like to think that Europe has
the same opportunities as America for minorities...
Hold on here. Firstly, women are not a minority. Secondly, surely a
good way of changing attitudes is by kicking up a fuss and making
people at least realise that there is an issue here at all. Then
things will change for the better.
2) The new trend, I see, is using "she" as the typical "joe
example".
This is certainly not universal, and I think it should be avoided.
There are other, better solutions, which do not involve any
gender-specific language/words.
Jamie
George Reese
: In article <1994Sep28.0...@Princeton.EDU>,
: t...@franck.Princeton.EDU (Tim Hollebeek) wrote:
: > Wow. Someone who quotes Nietzsche accusing someone else of being a
: > Nazi. What rich irony.
: >
: > -Beek
: Not strictly true depending on your stance towards Nietzsche is
: there are people who can argue convincingly that the young german had
: idealistic dreams about what the nazi party proported to be .In fact the
: good of the system as shown in earily south american history. Not
: awareee of the people behind the machine .
: THE MACHINE LIVES
Err, what exactly do you think you are saying? Nietzsche pre-dated
the Nazi party by about 30 years... And that is being generous (dated
from time of death to the formation of the party), Nietzsche did not
know what a Nazi was. Neverthless he was extremely anti-semetic and
extremely mysoginistic.
He has some interesting points on religion as a whole, and about
society. However when he gets into specifics, he shows his complete
lack of touch with reality and how sick his mind really was.
Mark Grant
>know what a Nazi was. Neverthless he was extremely anti-semetic and
Really ? I'm not meaning to imply that you're wrong, as I've only read a
couple of his books, but there's at least one place in "Beyond Good
and Evil" where he not only claims that anti-semitism is stupid, but
claims that there should be far more interbreeding between Germans
and Jews in order to improve the Germans.... In any case, he was a
man of his time, and in those days for many people the issue of "race"
was much more important than it is today.
In my opinion, the Nazis were precisely the kind of mass-movement
that he most feared. I think he'd have found the way they used his
writings to justify their actions either extremely funny or extremely
offensive.
>extremely mysoginistic.
Well, if I remember correctly by the time he wrote most of his books
he hadn't got laid for several decades. That might make you kind of
cranky too... 8-)
>He has some interesting points on religion as a whole, and about
>society. However when he gets into specifics, he shows his complete
>lack of touch with reality and how sick his mind really was.
Personally, I found him to be very funny. If he was alive today he
could have a comedy show on TV slagging off all the other philosophers...
He wrote a lot of nonsense, but he wrote a lot of interesting stuff
too. I'd hardly claim he was sick (except in the clinical sense 8-)).
Mark
Jason V Robertson
>I agree strongly with all your statements. Male oriented language needs to
>stop. I am tired of being a male, and being associated with sexist males.
>Unfortunately most of the people I know are sexist to some degree or other,
>and don't even realize it, statements like "Girls always think like that!",
>or "Women drivers", even some titles like "The Psychology of Women", its
>bullshit... I think most of it was brought on by the church and the bible.
>
>I'm really sick of seeing how women are treated in society, then going to
>see my girlfriend knowing what she has to put up with..
>
Well, I for one can't stand it when the idealism of an observer clouds his
perception of reality.
If I were to say that "women are more appearance obsessive" I'm sure you
would complain. But from what I see every day, day in, day out I have come
to the conclusion that they _are_ more concerned with their appearance. To
the point where males who are overly concerned with their looks are (to me)
feminine.
Now you can give me all the "it's out society that does this" crap you want.
I really don't care. We are all products of society. Who cares? Are we
supposed to free the criminals because "we made them"? (I am definitely
not saying obsessing about looks is criminal or bad for a woman, I am just
making a loose comparison!).
The same can be said about many stereotypes. Of course, many of them are also
completely bogus.
So I don't know about no steenking Church or Bible, or about what all these
damned P.C. people tell me. I value what I experience. What I learn.
--
Email: jrob...@uiuc.edu
Ph or finger jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu for PGP public key.
(Like I actually need one).
Don't bother telling me. I know I am an idiot, but I am good at it.
George Reese
: >Nietzsche did not
: >know what a Nazi was. Neverthless he was extremely anti-semetic and
: Really ? I'm not meaning to imply that you're wrong, as I've only read a
: couple of his books, but there's at least one place in "Beyond Good
: and Evil" where he not only claims that anti-semitism is stupid, but
: claims that there should be far more interbreeding between Germans
: and Jews in order to improve the Germans.... In any case, he was a
: man of his time, and in those days for many people the issue of "race"
: was much more important than it is today.
: In my opinion, the Nazis were precisely the kind of mass-movement
: that he most feared. I think he'd have found the way they used his
: writings to justify their actions either extremely funny or extremely
: offensive.
Err, try reading what I said, not imagining things. I said he was not
a Nazi nor could he have any concept of what a Nazi was. I said he
was extremely anti-semetic and mysoginistic. If you have not seen
that in his writings, then you have either not read a lot by him, or
you have not read it well. The only author I have ever read with more
vemon in the pen directed at women is Schoepenhauer.
As far as anti-semetic goes, Nazi != anti-semetic. He would have
hated the cattle mentality of the Nazi movement. Yippee, the point
was that his writings show a total mistrust towards Jews as well as a
serious hatred. In his mind, Jews are responsible for the supremacy
of the weak in Western culture. Through their oppression they created
a moral system in which oppressing the weak is bad. That morality
became the predominent Western morality, reflected in Christian
morality. But Christians inherited the morality. Jews created it.
It is from this belief that he derives his contempt for Jews.
: Well, if I remember correctly by the time he wrote most of his books
: he hadn't got laid for several decades. That might make you kind of
: cranky too... 8-)
This comment is soooo funny. Too bad I didn't laugh.
: >He has some interesting points on religion as a whole, and about
: >society. However when he gets into specifics, he shows his complete
: >lack of touch with reality and how sick his mind really was.
: Personally, I found him to be very funny. If he was alive today he
: could have a comedy show on TV slagging off all the other philosophers...
: He wrote a lot of nonsense, but he wrote a lot of interesting stuff
: too. I'd hardly claim he was sick (except in the clinical sense 8-)).
You really need to read more of him or read more closely. Nietzsche
was a reclusive, suspicious, and hate-filled man. Certainly, he was a
genius, but he was also very disturbed. And in the last decade or so
of his writings, he was quite literally insane due to suffering from
syphilis. In his writings, his genius does show through as it
naturally would, however, it is tainted with reflections of his dementia.
Mike Mc Gaughey
>ksad...@csws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Kristenlee Sadowski) writes:
>> culture - while I like to think that Europe has the same opportunities
>> as America for minorities, the responses I see from those in Finland, at
>> least, show that women aren't thought all that highly of.
*snort*
Scandanavian countries are some of the most progressive in the world
with respect to women's rights, gay laws, drug laws, social & community
support for ex-convict rehabilitation, etc, etc. America doesn't
come close.
>I would like to see your study about sexual unequality in Finland. I
>have always thought that Finland has always been way ahead of most
>other countries in the world in this matter (second country in the
>world to allow women to wote, etc).
Yeah, that was 2 years after Australia. But we speak English, usually
things like "Hows about coming down the pub and groping a few sheilas,
mate?".
Cheers,
Mike.
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mm...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
"Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest" - Milton.
cra...@ids.net
> thought. the following passage is quoted without permission from
> _Womanwords: A Dicionary of Words About Women_ be Jane Mills published
> by Henery Holt and Company. <IBSN# 0-8050-2609-6>
>
> "Woman if from Old English wifman, formed on wif, meaning woman, and man(n),
> meaning humankind, thus giving the meaning adult female person. Waepman was
> the male equivalent, meaning adult male person."
>
> over time the male version was droped and the term that began as sex-less
> took on to mean male first, female second. the female version remained
> and took on the connatation of being the exception. a very effective method
> of changing thought would be to reverse the trend of our ansestors and
> reinstate a sex-less term such as humankind, using plural to denote unknown
> gender peoples and other similar words... even if their use violates current
> grammatical rules. with time, they will also change.
>
> even though this has nothing to do with muds explictly, it does have a lot
> to do with everyong who reads this group. flame me for being off topic if
> it would make you feel better, but it will do no good. this is a topic i
> feel strongly about and will interject my thoughts whenever i think they
> are needed, and if even one person reads this and thinks about it, then my
> time was not wasted. thanks..
>
> -dana
I agree strongly with all your statements. Male oriented language needs to
stop. I am tired of being a male, and being associated with sexist males.
Unfortunately most of the people I know are sexist to some degree or other,
and don't even realize it, statements like "Girls always think like that!",
or "Women drivers", even some titles like "The Psychology of Women", its
bullshit... I think most of it was brought on by the church and the bible.
I'm really sick of seeing how women are treated in society, then going to
see my girlfriend knowing what she has to put up with..
Craig a Male Feminist.
Joern Rennecke
>hmmm, let me give you an example of how changing the language has changed
>thought. the following passage is quoted without permission from
>_Womanwords: A Dicionary of Words About Women_ be Jane Mills published
>by Henery Holt and Company. <IBSN# 0-8050-2609-6>
>"Woman if from Old English wifman, formed on wif, meaning woman, and man(n),
>meaning humankind, thus giving the meaning adult female person. Waepman was
>the male equivalent, meaning adult male person."
>over time the male version was droped and the term that began as sex-less
>took on to mean male first, female second. the female version remained
>and took on the connatation of being the exception. a very effective method
>of changing thought would be to reverse the trend of our ansestors and
>reinstate a sex-less term such as humankind, using plural to denote unknown
>gender peoples and other similar words... even if their use violates current
>grammatical rules. with time, they will also change.
Hmm, much less words would have to be changed if you actually did a literal
reversal of the trend and use again a unique word for a male adult.
Coming to think if it, is it rude to call a definite male person
a man, insinuating he is a neuter? :-)
Jamieson Norrish
Robertson) writes:
If I were to say that "women are more appearance obsessive" I'm
sure you would complain.
I don't speak for anyone else, but I would "complain" that that was a
massive generalisation.
As for all of us being products of our society, that is quite true -
within limits, of course. So what? That does not mean that the
products of society are good, nor that we should not try to improve
society so that the products of that society are "better". Just as a
lot of work could and should be done so as to make the causes of crime
disappear, so could and should a lot of work be done so as to make
women an equal part in the society, with as many options and freedoms
as men.
What is your problem with that?
Jamie
David Bennett
>Well, I for one can't stand it when the idealism of an observer clouds his
>perception of reality.
>If I were to say that "women are more appearance obsessive" I'm sure you
>would complain. But from what I see every day, day in, day out I have come
>to the conclusion that they _are_ more concerned with their appearance. To
>the point where males who are overly concerned with their looks are (to me)
>feminine.
The idea of fashion, high heels, beaty, the fact that women are
supposed to look like sticks is all part of male backlash. Do you
realise how bad high heals are for your back? Do you realise that
men run the fashion industy? They also run most of the tv shows
and make 99% of the adds pn tv. How are you getting this so
called unbiased view then?
Quick example of why this view is probabnly wrong. Look at the gay
community. Male homosexuals are notoriously picky about their
looks. Everyon in the male gay community dresses very verery well. Males
care a lot about how the person looks and much less about who they are.
Lesbians on the other hand, care a lot less about how the other person
dress's/looks. Its only the hextrosexual and male gay field that such
an emphasis is put on clothes and dressing. What do they have
in common? Men! Gosh. How do I know these facts? Well, I look
I listen and I know a lot of gay people.
>Now you can give me all the "it's out society that does this" crap you want.
>I really don't care. We are all products of society. Who cares? Are we
>supposed to free the criminals because "we made them"? (I am definitely
>not saying obsessing about looks is criminal or bad for a woman, I am just
>making a loose comparison!).
Lets not go into criminality. Well, ok. Here we go. Do you honestly belive
that locking a violent person up in a cell is going to make them
fit into society any better? They get frustrated, go a bit insane. This
sort of retributuon achives very little. The only effect it has is to
assuge the publics sense of vengance. Community work and other such
punishments have been shown to be much more effective. Talking to the
people who were the recipients of the crime. The ones who get locked up
for a long time should just get stuck into a psyciatric ward...
It is society which creates them. So we need to change society. By
supporting inaction you are supporting all of the currently existing
systems. Obviously this means you are supporting the institionalised
abuse of women amognst other things.
>The same can be said about many stereotypes. Of course, many of them are also
>completely bogus.
>So I don't know about no steenking Church or Bible, or about what all these
>damned P.C. people tell me. I value what I experience. What I learn.
Then open your eyes.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
David Bennett
>In article <369oj1$m...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>
>ksad...@csws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Kristenlee Sadowski) writes:
> 1) Culture. In many cultures, the masculine is dominant not
> because the woman is weak but merely because...well because it's a
> primarily 'male' culture - while I like to think that Europe has
> the same opportunities as America for minorities...
>Hold on here. Firstly, women are not a minority. Secondly, surely a
>good way of changing attitudes is by kicking up a fuss and making
>people at least realise that there is an issue here at all. Then
>things will change for the better.
Women are a minority politcally speaking. They do not
have as much power as a lot of male dominated groups. Like
the gun lobby...
I agree with you about gender inspecific language.
Jason V Robertson
>jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson) writes:
>
>>Well, I for one can't stand it when the idealism of an observer clouds his
>>perception of reality.
>>If I were to say that "women are more appearance obsessive" I'm sure you
>>would complain. But from what I see every day, day in, day out I have come
>>to the conclusion that they _are_ more concerned with their appearance. To
>>the point where males who are overly concerned with their looks are (to me)
>>feminine.
>
>The idea of fashion, high heels, beaty, the fact that women are
>supposed to look like sticks is all part of male backlash. Do you
>realise how bad high heals are for your back? Do you realise that
>men run the fashion industy? They also run most of the tv shows
>and make 99% of the adds pn tv. How are you getting this so
>called unbiased view then?
>
So are women our cattle, then? They just do what men want them to? I haven't
heard of any enslaved models. It's a male dominated world, face it. It is
and it always will be. I'm not saying women are inferior (they are probably
superior - more stable and less violent by nature), but that they will never
have the place in society that men have had for 60,000 years.
>Quick example of why this view is probabnly wrong. Look at the gay
>community. Male homosexuals are notoriously picky about their
>looks. Everyon in the male gay community dresses very verery well. Males
>care a lot about how the person looks and much less about who they are.
>Lesbians on the other hand, care a lot less about how the other person
>dress's/looks. Its only the hextrosexual and male gay field that such
>an emphasis is put on clothes and dressing. What do they have
>in common? Men! Gosh. How do I know these facts? Well, I look
>I listen and I know a lot of gay people.
>
Like I said, most appearance-conscious men are feminine. I already said that.
They take a passive role, so they have to _attract_ their mate (or anal-
infiltrator in the case of queens).
>>Now you can give me all the "it's out society that does this" crap you want.
>>I really don't care. We are all products of society. Who cares? Are we
>>supposed to free the criminals because "we made them"? (I am definitely
>>not saying obsessing about looks is criminal or bad for a woman, I am just
>>making a loose comparison!).
>
>Lets not go into criminality. Well, ok. Here we go. Do you honestly belive
>that locking a violent person up in a cell is going to make them
>fit into society any better? They get frustrated, go a bit insane. This
>sort of retributuon achives very little. The only effect it has is to
>assuge the publics sense of vengance. Community work and other such
>punishments have been shown to be much more effective. Talking to the
>people who were the recipients of the crime. The ones who get locked up
>for a long time should just get stuck into a psyciatric ward...
>
>It is society which creates them. So we need to change society. By
>supporting inaction you are supporting all of the currently existing
>systems. Obviously this means you are supporting the institionalised
>abuse of women amognst other things.
No. I don't support any type of violent crime. I think women beaters are one
of the most cowardly, snivelling, worthless groups of men there are. And you
are just so wrong about prison.
If anything, we are too easy on criminals. The real reason we lock them up
is so they aren't on the street terrorizing us. These violent criminals
should be put away for a _long_ time. They don't deserve to live, much less
be free.
Our system is totally screwed, though. Violent offenders are
treated in the same way as non-violent offenders. A bad check writer can go
to prison for 5 years, while somebody who randomly attacks somebody walking
down the street can get a warning and just have probation. This is why this
country is going down the tubes _fast_. The justice system is the creation
of a bunch of fucking morons.
I hear a bunch of whining "liberals" (I hate that word but it fits, here)
complaining about how white collar, rich criminals (say, tax evaders or
inside traders) don't get enough punishment for their crimes. This is
sickening. It is a NONVIOLENT crime. They probably get too much punishment,
as it is. But the rapists, murderers, and general thugs? They want to coddle
the trash that makes half of us afraid to go out at night. "Put them in a
program! Teach them! Educate them". Blah. Fucking kill the criminal
scum.
Joseph S. Bui
In a previous article, jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson) says:
>So are women our cattle, then? They just do what men want them to? I haven't
>heard of any enslaved models. It's a male dominated world, face it. It is
>and it always will be. I'm not saying women are inferior (they are probably
>superior - more stable and less violent by nature), but that they will never
>have the place in society that men have had for 60,000 years.
60,000 years. It depends on which culture you examine. As for women being
lessviolent by nature, I don't personally believe that at all. Most women I
know are just as violent as most men I know, and the number of "violent"
men I know is equal to the number of "violent" women, roughly. (I've never
counted, nor defined a "violent" person, but I know I expect men and women
to react to me equally violently, or non-violently as I would hope.)
>Like I said, most appearance-conscious men are feminine. I already said that.
>They take a passive role, so they have to _attract_ their mate (or anal-
>infiltrator in the case of queens).
I see you are a very tolerant person. I'd like to note that someone
(David someone, with the words: "pink" and "fish" in his sig) said
something I find equally distrubing: Homosexuals are ALL concerned about
their personal appearence. I think you are both being a little general in
your statements.
>If anything, we are too easy on criminals. The real reason we lock them up
>is so they aren't on the street terrorizing us. These violent criminals
>should be put away for a _long_ time. They don't deserve to live, much less
>be free.
So, once a person is "violent" they no longer have the right to
live. I guess I can understand that opinion, but doesn't it seem a trifle
too absolute to be just?
>I hear a bunch of whining "liberals" (I hate that word but it fits, here)
>complaining about how white collar, rich criminals (say, tax evaders or
>inside traders) don't get enough punishment for their crimes. This is
>sickening. It is a NONVIOLENT crime. They probably get too much punishment,
>as it is. But the rapists, murderers, and general thugs? They want to coddle
>the trash that makes half of us afraid to go out at night.
It seems to me that the rich are the ones who cause crime.
Personally, I'm quite well off. I also know that because I'm well off, I am
depriving some other people of thing that they might need. I don't feel bad
about it, but I also don't fault them for reacting to my depriving them by
attempting to deprive me of what is "rightfully" mine. Of course, I want to
protect my possessions and my life, but it is important to realize that
someon who embezzles $1,000,000 is probably responsible for 5000 infants dying
shortly after birth from malnutrician, 10 crack babies, 1000 children who
needed vaccines, but couldn't afford them, 200 people who died from cholera
and/or severe dysentary, 150 people who are now amputees because of land
mines that were manufactured to be sold for profit to third world guerilla
armies, and lots and lots of other suffering.
I don't feel particularly guilty about this. If I owned stock in
DuPont or any other "evil" company, I wouldn't feel guilty about it. This
is a choice between me and someone I don't know, but if you are going to go
moralizing about who is more criminal: a poor person who kills another
because she has no means to get what she wants, or a rich man who steal
$00.000001 from every person in the world, I'd have to say it is about
equal.
>Fucking kill the criminal scum.
Yeah. Kill 'em all, let God sort them out. No wait, I'm playing
God... I don't want to do all that work, so just kill 'em all!
-Joe
Jason V Robertson
>
>In a previous article, jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson) says:
>>So are women our cattle, then? They just do what men want them to? I haven't
>>heard of any enslaved models. It's a male dominated world, face it. It is
>>and it always will be. I'm not saying women are inferior (they are probably
>>superior - more stable and less violent by nature), but that they will never
>>have the place in society that men have had for 60,000 years.
> Actually, men haven't necessarily been in charge for the last
>60,000 years. It depends on which culture you examine. As for women being
>lessviolent by nature, I don't personally believe that at all. Most women I
>know are just as violent as most men I know, and the number of "violent"
>men I know is equal to the number of "violent" women, roughly. (I've never
>counted, nor defined a "violent" person, but I know I expect men and women
>to react to me equally violently, or non-violently as I would hope.)
I think most anthropologists would tell you differently. I don't think there
has ever been a female dominated society. And if there were any they weren't
very successful. You know, the mythical Amazon women. (I think they are
mythical?). Having a Matriarchy does _not_ mean a society is not dominated
by men. The queen is there by "divine right", but all the positions that run
the society are controlled by men. (I mean in the past, this is changing now).
And your personal experiences don't count. Men are chemically more aggressive
(and potentially violent) than females. I suppose you will next tell me that
women are as physically able as men, too?
(I won't try to claim that men are smarter, because I doubt it is true).
Many of the arguments about math (male) vs. language (female) seem to point
to areas of specialization, but these could be learned.
>
>attempting to deprive me of what is "rightfully" mine. Of course, I want to
>protect my possessions and my life, but it is important to realize that
>someon who embezzles $1,000,000 is probably responsible for 5000 infants dying
>shortly after birth from malnutrician, 10 crack babies, 1000 children who
>needed vaccines, but couldn't afford them, 200 people who died from cholera
>and/or severe dysentary, 150 people who are now amputees because of land
>mines that were manufactured to be sold for profit to third world guerilla
>armies, and lots and lots of other suffering.
How did you come up with this? The embezzelers aren't robbing money from
the bank accounts of people who are starving. _They_ don't even have accounts.
If you are on the bottom of the pole you aren't going to be that affected by
somebody bilking money at the top. In this country there really isn't much
of a nutrition problem. People mention it every once in a while, but it is
extremely small potatos. And drugs are there whether rich steal or not.
Peter Register
> It seems to me that the rich are the ones who cause crime.
>Personally, I'm quite well off. I also know that because I'm well off, I am
>depriving some other people of thing that they might need. I don't feel bad
>about it, but I also don't fault them for reacting to my depriving them by
>attempting to deprive me of what is "rightfully" mine. Of course, I want to
>protect my possessions and my life, but it is important to realize that
>someon who embezzles $1,000,000 is probably responsible for 5000 infants dying
>shortly after birth from malnutrician, 10 crack babies, 1000 children who
>needed vaccines, but couldn't afford them, 200 people who died from cholera
>and/or severe dysentary, 150 people who are now amputees because of land
>mines that were manufactured to be sold for profit to third world guerilla
>armies, and lots and lots of other suffering.
> I don't feel particularly guilty about this. If I owned stock in
>DuPont or any other "evil" company, I wouldn't feel guilty about it. This
>is a choice between me and someone I don't know, but if you are going to go
>moralizing about who is more criminal: a poor person who kills another
>because she has no means to get what she wants, or a rich man who steal
>$00.000001 from every person in the world, I'd have to say it is about
>equal.
But how does being a "have" imply that you are depriving someone else
causing them to become a "have-not"? This only works if you believe that
everyone is entitled to an equal share of some collective "stuff" be it
money, food, or what have you. Because you own stock in Dupont and have
a lot of money does NOT mean you are stealing $00.000001 from every
person in the world. There is no equity. I don't think that you simply
being wealthy is in any way equivilent to a poor person killing someone
to get what she wants. Who is the more criminal? The murderer.
-peter
>-Joe
--
Peter Register mur...@winternet.com
<Please insert your own cute quote here>
David Bennett
>60,000 years. It depends on which culture you examine. As for women being
>lessviolent by nature, I don't personally believe that at all. Most women I
>know are just as violent as most men I know, and the number of "violent"
>men I know is equal to the number of "violent" women, roughly. (I've never
>counted, nor defined a "violent" person, but I know I expect men and women
>to react to me equally violently, or non-violently as I would hope.)
95% of all violent crime is commited by men.
> I see you are a very tolerant person. I'd like to note that someone
>(David someone, with the words: "pink" and "fish" in his sig) said
>something I find equally distrubing: Homosexuals are ALL concerned about
>their personal appearence. I think you are both being a little general in
>your statements.
Dats me. HYesm, there are exceptions to any rule of course. But, in general
from what I have seen. These rules apply.
Bright blue with pink polka dots,
David Bennett
>So are women our cattle, then? They just do what men want them to? I haven't
>heard of any enslaved models. It's a male dominated world, face it. It is
>and it always will be. I'm not saying women are inferior (they are probably
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I really hope not. Most of the difference between men and women can be
traced to upbringing. If you want to really do something about the violenmt in the
world. Fix the casues. Fix the poverty. Fix the Macho bullshgit
on all the TV programs and movies. Until these things atsrt to change
for the better and they seem to have been going the other way. You
will never be safe on the streets.
>superior - more stable and less violent by nature), but that they will never
>have the place in society that men have had for 60,000 years.
There have been societys (few and far between) where men and women were either
equal or women were highly regarded and in some case more hjighly
regarded. These societys did exist for quite some time. It is not
in the nature of humans to be this way. Just because something has been
one way for a long time does not mean we should not try to change it.
>Like I said, most appearance-conscious men are feminine. I already said that.
>They take a passive role, so they have to _attract_ their mate (or anal-
>infiltrator in the case of queens).
In places where females relate to females, appearence
has less importance. In places where males relate to females, appearance
has more importance. In places where males relate to males appearance
has more importance.
Lets see. Males are the common point in both the ones where appearence
has a lot of importance. Not just 'femine' malkes who are gay worry about
their appearance. All of them do.
Ok, think about this then. How much time tdo you spend getting
ready to go out with a women? How much time does and average women spend
to go out with a man? Why does a women do this? The man is more fussy.
They care signifcantly more about appearance and looks so they have
to get dressed up or they will not get a partner at all. Why don't men?
Because women don't care as much. They have to put up with less
due to the way society is handles interpersonal relations. If women wwere
as picky as men. They would never find a man to go out with.
Another point. What sort of clothes would you rather your date wore on
a date? Short shirt, high heeals, what? Most men would prefer and
in fact would compliment the women on her short shirt, her makeup
all those stupid things you just said men don't care about. They
do care, they care sooooo much.
>No. I don't support any type of violent crime. I think women beaters are one
>of the most cowardly, snivelling, worthless groups of men there are. And you
>are just so wrong about prison.
I am? Have you ever been locked up? Well, neither have I, but I have seen
some psycological studies and seen evidence of alternative schemes.
>If anything, we are too easy on criminals. The real reason we lock them up
>is so they aren't on the street terrorizing us. These violent criminals
>should be put away for a _long_ time. They don't deserve to live, much less
>be free.
We should not be completly blaming the individuals. We should be finding
solutions as tyo why they are violent in the first place. Why does
society create so many violent people? The best way to fix and
effect is to remove the cause.
>Our system is totally screwed, though. Violent offenders are
>treated in the same way as non-violent offenders. A bad check writer can go
>to prison for 5 years, while somebody who randomly attacks somebody walking
>down the street can get a warning and just have probation. This is why this
>country is going down the tubes _fast_. The justice system is the creation
>of a bunch of fucking morons.
Its not the only reason. The other reaons sorround the fcat that people
are in more poverty now than they have been for qwuite some time. And the
people in these bad circumstances can get hold of guns and other objects
which make violent crime rather easier to commit.
I do agree that in a system such as we have people who are charged with violent
crimes should get a high er pentaly than people who make crimes against
money. But crimes against money are just as bad. Think how many poor
people must have compeltly destroyed by a rich bastard to get as much
money as they have.
>I hear a bunch of whining "liberals" (I hate that word but it fits, here)
>complaining about how white collar, rich criminals (say, tax evaders or
>inside traders) don't get enough punishment for their crimes. This is
>sickening. It is a NONVIOLENT crime. They probably get too much punishment,
>as it is. But the rapists, murderers, and general thugs? They want to coddle
>the trash that makes half of us afraid to go out at night. "Put them in a
>program! Teach them! Educate them". Blah. Fucking kill the criminal
>scum.
I don't know what you mean by liberal in this case. You are saying I
think that this is a left wing view and then using a right wing
conservative argument for it.
Bing,
Your Name
bo...@winternet.com (George Reese) writes:
> Err, what exactly do you think you are saying? Nietzsche pre-dated
> the Nazi party by about 30 years... And that is being generous (dated
> from time of death to the formation of the party), Nietzsche did not
> know what a Nazi was. Neverthless he was extremely anti-semetic and
> extremely mysoginistic.
Not true. It was actually his sister who was quite the anti-semite.
Ol Fred just got tarred with the same brush, so to speak. I can't
remember anything about FN being a mysogyne, and lack the interest to
find out. Not that any of this has the slightest thing to do with
muds, anyway.
Do Everything Myself.
: > hmmm, let me give you an example of how changing the language has changed
Hmm, getting religeous here, i'd watch that. Don't push your athiestic religeon here
It seems that you have jumped in and spoken without thinking about the topic at
all. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and translated into OLD ENGLISH
and english when 'man' meant both males and females equally in that context.
When many paople say 'he' or 'man' they are simply using a gendered lanuage
but still may be referring to people of either sex EQUALLY.
If you think that saying 'man' is anti women and that will become the way you
think then you have a _BIG_ problem, women are equal and DESERVE to be treated
at LEAST as well as men (in the context of male).
: I'm really sick of seeing how women are treated in society, then going to
: see my girlfriend knowing what she has to put up with..
:
: Craig a Male Feminist.
There is a simple answer to this, treat females with repect and understanding,
believe it or not, they may even treat you the same back!! Changing your
lanuage from saying 'man' to saying huMANkind isn't going to help here,it is
a change of ATTITUDE that is needed.
I play RealmsMud (when it FINALLY comes back up :) ) and i sometimes say 'man'
to mean either sex but I have never been flamed for that but have seen players
in trouble for sexual harasment and in the 'hate list' of many players and
without using politacally incorect lanuage anywhere NEAR the extent that I do!
(DEM)
-- The Lonely Monster <== I was a Bard to!! AND I am
a Christian and don't like
by beliefs flamed!!
Your Name
js...@po.CWRU.Edu (Joseph S. Bui) writes:
> I don't feel particularly guilty about this. If I owned stock in
> DuPont or any other "evil" company, I wouldn't feel guilty about it. This
> is a choice between me and someone I don't know, but if you are going to go
> moralizing about who is more criminal: a poor person who kills another
> because she has no means to get what she wants, or a rich man who steal
> $00.000001 from every person in the world, I'd have to say it is about
> equal.
Your example about the $1 mil embezzeler is so incredibly warped it's
hard to believe you really feel that way. If I, for example, embezzle
$1 mil from my company, it isn't going to malnourish anyone, it isn't
going to kill anyone, it's not going to cause crack babies (need I
remind you that crack babies result from only one thing: the mother
using crack? *boggle*). It's going to cause a rather large dent in my
company's profit or increase its loss. It might result in no raises
for some people, or all. It might cause layoffs. At worst, the
company goes out of business. Guess what. Those people can go out and
get new jobs and get on with their lives. Embezzling is a crime and
I'm not defending it, but realize that if someone embezzles from your
boss and costs you your job, you can recover. If they kill you, that's
it. End of story.
Additionally, where do you get off assuming that people who are well
off don't have a right to it? If I'm a doctor, I perform a very
important service and should be paid commesurately. If I'm a patient,
I want the career of a physican to be an attractive one since I want
GOOD doctors, not someone who had planned to sell hot dogs in a
stadium, but switched over. If I start a company which employs 10000
people and I make $1 mil a year, who are you to say that's wrong? It's
my company, if you don't like it, leave. If you're valuable to me,
I'll see it your way. Sure, you can argue that I'm taking $100 from
each of my employees, but what would they have without me? (Yes, a
different job, they always have that option).
I'm sorry, but anyone that can claim there is no difference between
theft and murder is just completely off.
I'll make you a deal. Since you seem to believe that, let's make a
little deal. I'll let you steal from me if you let me kill you. Fair
enough?
*boggle* Welcome to the decline and fall of the Western Hemisphere.
Jamieson Norrish
d...@myhost.subdomain.domain (Do Everything Myself.) writes:
It seems that you have jumped in and spoken without thinking about
the topic at all. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and
translated into OLD ENGLISH and english when 'man' meant both males
and females equally in that context.
Whatever the language of the Bible, the Bible and the Catholic church
together have maintained a strong grip on social attitudes for quite
some time now. Those attitudes include a view of women which is not
one of equality with men. It may well have been this that the previous
poster was referring to.
When many paople say 'he' or 'man' they are simply using a gendered
lanuage but still may be referring to people of either sex EQUALLY.
So? Take a look at a book by K. Millar, entitled "Words and Women". In
it there are reports on studies on how children perceive the use of
"man" in words such as "fireman" and "policeman". The people who ran
the study found that the results were "rather convincing evidence that
when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and
tend not to think female."
Jamie
Dana Love
about Nietzsche....
Anyway, Nietszche's philosophy, specifically as outlined in The Genealogy of
Morals, was the primary text used by the Nazi Party to create its' polemic
(lit. fighting words). The concept of the Master Race, as crafted by Ol Fred,
should be chillingly familiar to those who have studied the Second World War.
Further, Nietzsche's hatred of all things Judeo-Christian, and his blatent
anti-semetic comments in Genealogy tell us loudly and quite clearly that he was
in fact possessed of an intense hatred of Jews.
Lastly, In another of his texts, titled Ecce Homo, he (again blatently) bashes
women as barely belonging in his Mater Race.
you're right, though. This has not a thing to do with MUD's.......
:)
Dana Love
love...@urvax.urich.edu
University of Richmond in sunny Virginia
Chemistry/Physics Dual Major
Reads lousy philosophy in his spare time :)
George Reese
: In article <36cv3o$d...@blackice.winternet.com>
: bo...@winternet.com (George Reese) writes:
Try posting on subjects on which you have a clue. I know on the
internet it is hard, but please try...
Next time, READ. His writings are quite clear.
Your Name
cra...@ids.net writes:
> I agree strongly with all your statements. Male oriented language needs to
> stop. I am tired of being a male, and being associated with sexist males.
> Unfortunately most of the people I know are sexist to some degree or other,
> and don't even realize it, statements like "Girls always think like that!",
> or "Women drivers", even some titles like "The Psychology of Women", its
> bullshit... I think most of it was brought on by the church and the bible.
>
> I'm really sick of seeing how women are treated in society, then going to
> see my girlfriend knowing what she has to put up with..
>
> Craig a Male Feminist.
I'm really sick of hearing so-called male feminists spout off like
this. "Male language needs to stop" *puke* When will people realize
that it is JUST A CONVENTION OF LANGUAGE!!! Mankind refers to male AND
female. There's nothing wrong with having a female chairMAN in a
company. (Besides, chairperson sounds awkward). Newsflash, Craig, men
and women ARE in fact, different. The psychology of women? You doubt
that's a valid title? It's every bit as valid as the psychology of
men. (Those of you who are in disagrement with the statement that men
and women are different, pls remember that
testosterone/progesterone/estrogen do in fact alter behavior. Men and
women have radically different levels of those hormones). Oh, and
don't worry about your GF, Craig, you'll spend the rest of your life
tripping over yourself trying to right all the imagined wrongs against
women (not that there aren't real wrongs, but there are quite a few
made up, like this lame language issue) that she's got it made.
IMHO, as soon as you realize that no matter what the sex of a person
is, they're a person, you're fine. If you blind yourself to the
differences, you're setting yourself up for problems. If you worry
about trivial issues like language use, you've already blown it.
Me, the guy who thinks it's pretty pathetic to be a feminist or
masculinist (Yeah, love to see someone come on and call themselves that
and get away with it. :P)
Flame away.
Or not, since I'm gonna kill the whole thread anyway. :P
Robert Berryhill
here, take it to alt.arguments.feminist.chauvenist.bullshit!
+=================================================================+
| ind...@metronet.com "If I only had a brain!" |
| Robert Berryhill - Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz|
| Plano, Tx or was that Congress? |
+=================================================================+
Your Name
>
> How do I know these facts? Well, I look
> I listen and I know a lot of gay people.
>
Nice of you to establish that your facts are nothing of the kind.
They're called opinions. Do some *real* research into the subject
(which means a social/geographical/economic/etc cross section of the
entire population you want to make claims about. None of this "Well, I
know a lot of X." Irrelevant. There are estimated to be millions of
homosexuals in the US and unless you *personally* know many hundreds,
at least, preferably a few K, your personal observations aren't
relevant. Too small a sample, ya know.
> Lets not go into criminality. Well, ok. Here we go. Do you honestly belive
> that locking a violent person up in a cell is going to make them
> fit into society any better? They get frustrated, go a bit insane. This
> sort of retributuon achives very little. The only effect it has is to
> assuge the publics sense of vengance. Community work and other such
> punishments have been shown to be much more effective. Talking to the
> people who were the recipients of the crime. The ones who get locked up
> for a long time should just get stuck into a psyciatric ward...
>
Ahem. Attention all you liberal prison reform people. Prison is not
to reform people. Never has been, never will be. It is meant as a
deterrent.
You did something bad, so you'll go to jail now [wrong]
I don't want to go to jail, so I won't break into someone's house.
[right]
That's the whole point of it. That's why prisons exist. When your
parents sent you to your room for punching your brother in the nose,
why did they do it? So you wouldn't do it again (unless of course, you
like to be sent to your room, in which case they use something else).
The other side to it is this:
CriminalGuy goes out and stabs a buncha people.
CriminalGuy is dangerous [brilliant societal deduction, eh]
Society chases and catches CriminalGuy.
CriminalGuy is put away where he can't harm other members of society.
IMHO, if a person isn't willing to respect the rights of others (REAL
rights, not this BS rights stuff everyone always claims they have...)
then they WILL be removed.
> It is society which creates them. So we need to change society. By
> supporting inaction you are supporting all of the currently existing
> systems. Obviously this means you are supporting the institionalised
> abuse of women amognst other things.
>
Yeah! Way to put words in his mouth! How bout letting people speak
for themselves. Most of us are quite capable in that regard.
> >So I don't know about no steenking Church or Bible, or about what all these
> >damned P.C. people tell me. I value what I experience. What I learn.
>
> Then open your eyes.
>
> David.
> [DDT] Pink fish forever.
May I suggest the same to you, my friend. Look around and realize the
consequences of a world as you think you'd like it. Trust me, if I
commit a crime and you slap me on the wrist or send me to some
"sensitivity training" (which I'll totally ignore, of course) I'll
commit another. And another...
Me.
Peter Register
>Can we please take this thread *OUT* of this newsgroup, it does *NOT* belong
>here, take it to alt.arguments.feminist.chauvenist.bullshit!
Oh, yeah. This is a very good way to get the thread to die. Stoke the
flames again, pal.
-peter
Your Name
bo...@winternet.com (George Reese) writes:
> Try posting on subjects on which you have a clue. I know on the
> internet it is hard, but please try...
>
> Next time, READ. His writings are quite clear.
>
> --
> George Reese
> Descartes of Borg
> bo...@icicle.winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~borg/
> phone/fax: (612) 829-5495 ftp://nightmare.winternet.com/
I do. My opinion is based on what I have read of his, and lit.
criticisms of his works by people who, I am sure, have spent one hell
of a lot more time on him than you have. Btw, to claim that "his
writings are quite clear" when people can't agree on their meaning is a
little off. Obviously, they are nothing of the kind. Incidentally, if
the only purpose of your post is to tell me, personally, that you think
I'm wrong. That's what email is for. Try it sometime.
Your Name
love...@urvax.urich.edu (Dana Love) writes:
>
> As my first comment on this newsgroup, I'm rather sorry I find myself talking
> about Nietzsche....
>
> Anyway, Nietszche's philosophy, specifically as outlined in The Genealogy of
> Morals, was the primary text used by the Nazi Party to create its' polemic
> (lit. fighting words). The concept of the Master Race, as crafted by Ol Fred,
> should be chillingly familiar to those who have studied the Second World War.
>
> Further, Nietzsche's hatred of all things Judeo-Christian, and his blatent
> anti-semetic comments in Genealogy tell us loudly and quite clearly that he was
> in fact possessed of an intense hatred of Jews.
First, just because someone's works are used to create something "bad"
doesn't imply that the work itself is "bad". Marx, for example, has
some nice ideas, in theory, they just don't work in practice (human
desire for power gets in the way). Does that mean Marx was an evil,
cruel, oppressive man? No, not necessarily. I've read Gen. and I did
not interpret his comments as anti-semitic. I also found myself in
agreement with his logic. Do I hate Christians or Jews? No. Do I
hate "things judeo-Christian"? No. I think it's nothing short of
ridiculous to hate people for something that happened 1) long ago and
2) far too gradually to attribute to any one person or generation.
I'll go back and read the book sometime over the next week and see if
anything is clearly anti-semitic. Incidentally, a persons writings are
only one clue about his philosophy. If you want to know what he
thinks, you have to study the man as well as the book. (Which I
haven't done. As I said, my opinion is based, in part, on info from
those who have studied Nietzsche as well as his writings.)
George Reese
: ind...@metronet.com (Robert Berryhill) writes:
Come on, this is one of the few posts where bringing up the term Nazi
has in fact breathed new life into the discussion. This is really
cool. Very little has actually not been discussed. It has discussed:
mud admins
sexist language
Nietzsche
Nazis
politcal correctness
and much more!
--
George Reese
Descartes of Borg
bo...@icicle.winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~borg/
phone/fax: (612) 829-5495 ftp://nightmare.winternet.com/
"No one ever conquered Wyoming from the left or from the right."
-Camper Van Beethoven
Your Name
d...@iinet.com.au (David Bennett) writes:
> Think how many poor
> people must have compeltly destroyed by a rich bastard to get as much
> money as they have.
Sorry, I missed this little bit.
Get a clue.
The rich do not go out and pull money out of peoples pockets to gain
their wealth. That is called taxation and is only permitted to certain
governments. Think how many once poor people that "rich bastard" hired
and employed to get as much money as they have. Completely destroyed?
*puke* Don't you realize that in a market economy the LAST thing you
want is poor customers? Then they can't buy anything and you become
poor yourself. *boggle* What kind of economics are we teaching these
days?
Your Name
ind...@metronet.com (Robert Berryhill) writes:
I agree, but ideas like these are causing great harm to our society.
They need to be fought where they appear. If you don't like the
thread, please ignore it.
Me.
Your Name
> Its not the only reason. The other reaons sorround the fcat that people
> are in more poverty now than they have been for qwuite some time. And the
> people in these bad circumstances can get hold of guns and other objects
> which make violent crime rather easier to commit.
Oh yeah. Right. People are in more poverty now. Sure. In a world
which produces more goods/food/services than EVER before, in a world
where idiots have enacted laws to PAY people for sitting on their
a$$es. Get off it. You want to see poverty? Back up a few
generations. Of a few more. All the way back through history. If you
really think people commit crimes because their needs aren't met, you
are just so so so soooo wrong. People commit crimes because they WANT
what someone else HAS. The problem is morality, not poverty. Yes, I
may have a nice TV and a nice car, but that will NEVER justify you
taking it because you don't have one. Want one? Get a job and buy
your own.
As for guns, they're a tool. Only an idiot will blame crime on guns.
Crime is caused by...er...dare I be un PC and say it? CRIMINALS!
*boggle* Imagine that. If you don't want to be victimized by a gun
wielding criminal, carry your own. If you think you can get rid of
them, you're insane. Then you'll force everyone into a situation where
the criminals are armed and the citizens are not. Real fair.
Brilliant idea. Again, check history. What happens when you ban
something? A. It goes away and no one has it. B. Black markets
form, prices go up, and some people become very rich as a result. Did
you say B? No? I'm not surprised. (It is B). Accept the fact that
criminals will always have effective weapons. You can't change that.
If you aren't willing to defend yourself, fine. Leave those of us who
are not violating others rights with the ability to defend ourselves
from those who are intent on violating our rights.
Laws exist to protect the populace, not reform criminals. If you
commit a crime, you will "go away" for a while so you can't commit
another. If you commit a severe enough crime, you won't come back.
Don't like that idea? Well, I guess you better not commit a crime, eh?
(That IS the idea...)
*boggle* What do these people think? Do these people think?
Jamieson Norrish
Name) writes:
Yes, I may have a nice TV and a nice car, but that will NEVER
justify you taking it because you don't have one. Want one? Get a
job and buy your own.
And for all the people in the world who don't have jobs, and who can't
get them because they aren't there, they haven't had an education (for
whatever reason), or whatever. That doesn't justify them stealing, but
it certainly gives a reason for it.
As for guns, they're a tool. Only an idiot will blame crime on
guns.
I don't think anyone was. However, easy access to guns make violent
crimes much more likely. The gun laws in the States (and may I remind
you that not everyone on the Internet lives there) are ridiculous -
semi-automatic weapons allowed for personal defence? Give me a break.
Crime is caused by...er...dare I be un PC and say it? CRIMINALS!
What a fantastic analysis of the problem. Really cuts to the heart of
the problem.
[Lots of stuff about matching armed criminals with armed citizens - as
if criminals aren't citizens.]
Oh yes, another brilliant solution. It hasn't worked in the US, and it
never will. It just raises the level of violence.
Laws exist to protect the populace, not reform criminals. If you
commit a crime, you will "go away" for a while so you can't commit
another. If you commit a severe enough crime, you won't come back.
Don't like that idea? Well, I guess you better not commit a crime,
eh? (That IS the idea...)
Again, it obviously isn't working very well. Maybe trying to solve
some of the problems is a better idea than just treating the symptoms,
as I said before.
Jamie
Damon Chetson
Do Everything Myself. <d...@myhost.subdomain.domain> wrote:
>cra...@ids.net wrote:
>: dana wrote:
>: > to do with everyong who reads this group. flame me for being off topic if
>: > it would make you feel better, but it will do no good. this is a topic i
>: >
>: I agree strongly with all your statements. Male oriented language needs to
>: stop. I am tired of being a male, and being associated with sexist males.
yes, oh flagellate me, whip me until I'm dead, for I am a white male
heterosexual. I AM EVIL. I was born evil. I am responsible for
imperialism, slavery, racism, homophobia, sexism, discrimination, the
Holocaust, and now this.
The language I speak is rife with sexist terminology. And I'm just
ashamed of being part of a gender which OPPRESSES the other gender.
Of course none of this thread has to do with MUDS, which is why I
subscribed to this newsgroup. Dana says, "it's so important that I don't
care if I'm off topic, just so long as one person reads it." The point is
we're on USENET where you can direct certain topics to certain groups so
that people who actually want to hear Dana's misguided discussion of the
development of the English language and Craig's pathetic response can
join alt.I.wish.I.were.not.a.man.because.all.men.are.sexist and Craig can
continue his breast-beating there.
--
Hall, Dana L.
i think the point has been made. end of disscusion.
take it to email.
(which is where i should have sent my reply that i sent weeks ago.)
-dana
David Bennett
>I'm really sick of hearing so-called male feminists spout off like
>this. "Male language needs to stop" *puke* When will people realize
>that it is JUST A CONVENTION OF LANGUAGE!!!
Exactly. Its just a convention.
>Mankind refers to male AND
>female. There's nothing wrong with having a female chairMAN in a
>company. (Besides, chairperson sounds awkward).
Chairperson only sounds awkward because it is not a convention of
language. A point you so very beautifully put above.
Stuff aabout hormones deleted.
Putting down all of peoples behaviour to hormones is
a complete cop out. There are men out there who are not violent.
So I do not belive that it is just hormones that bring out
this violence in men. There are also women out there who are violent.
(Not as many I will grant you). So I doubt that violent behviour
is all do to with the testosterone that so many men are infatuated
with. Its like getting ddrunk. Why should that be an excuse for doing
something violent? You still did it didn't you?
>Oh, and
>don't worry about your GF, Craig, you'll spend the rest of your life
>tripping over yourself trying to right all the imagined wrongs against
>women (not that there aren't real wrongs, but there are quite a few
>made up, like this lame language issue) that she's got it made.
She has got it made? I doubt she coule get a high paying job like Craig
can. I doubt she will get all of the carreer opertunities Craig does.
I doubt that she will never again be sexually harrased. I doubt that having
someone that can see the inequalities for a partner will draticly reduce
their effect or their incidence.
As for 'this lame language issue'. It is not very lame. The international
psycologists association require all articles to be published
in psycological journals to be in non sexists language. It does have
an effect. They would not make a descion like this for no good reason.
>IMHO, as soon as you realize that no matter what the sex of a person
>is, they're a person, you're fine.
I notice you did not say 'they're a man' there. You have just admited that
you tyhink that man is not actually a generic.
As an example:
A man walks down the street.
The Chairman said 'blue frogs are better'.
When I se both of these statements I immediately think that both
of the people mentioned are male. If you can honestly say that you
do not think this. Great.
>Me, the guy who thinks it's pretty pathetic to be a feminist or
>masculinist (Yeah, love to see someone come on and call themselves that
>and get away with it. :P)
>Flame away.
>Or not, since I'm gonna kill the whole thread anyway. :P
There are groups of pele who say men are now the underclass and feminism
has gone too far. They are all involved in the backlash. Media
blizes.
David Bennett
>Your example about the $1 mil embezzeler is so incredibly warped it's
>hard to believe you really feel that way. If I, for example, embezzle
>$1 mil from my company, it isn't going to malnourish anyone, it isn't
>going to kill anyone, it's not going to cause crack babies
You mention it might cause lay offs. Have you looked at unemplyment
figures? Do you know how hard it is to find a job?
If you are unqualified, which a lot of people are, and they get layed
off it could quite easily cuaser them poverty and death.
Rich people cannot exist without a reference frame. Therefor rich peole need
really poor people so they cn see how good they are.
Unless the gap between the richest people and the poorest people is narrowed
this world will be a very depressing place to be quite soon. Unless
you happen to be lucky enough to be a super rich person.
Ok, Doctors. You say about paying them a lot. Would it not be better
to have somone that is interested in the job rather than someone
who is interested in the money?
David Bennett
>yes, oh flagellate me, whip me until I'm dead, for I am a white male
>heterosexual. I AM EVIL. I was born evil. I am responsible for
>imperialism, slavery, racism, homophobia, sexism, discrimination, the
>Holocaust, and now this.
Only if you do nothing atctive to prevent it from occuring.
If you see an incident of sexuaal harrassment and do nothing you
are keeping the tradtion going as much as the person doing it. You
are showing it to be a sociaal norm and nothing to be upset about.
>Of course none of this thread has to do with MUDS, which is why I
>subscribed to this newsgroup. Dana says, "it's so important that I don't
>care if I'm off topic, just so long as one person reads it." The point is
>we're on USENET where you can direct certain topics to certain groups so
>that people who actually want to hear Dana's misguided discussion of the
>development of the English language and Craig's pathetic response can
>join alt.I.wish.I.were.not.a.man.because.all.men.are.sexist and Craig can
>continue his breast-beating there.
The end of the world is nigh. Wait for judgement day.
Damon Chetson
: She has got it made? I doubt she coule get a high paying job like Craig
: can. I doubt she will get all of the carreer opertunities Craig does.
: I doubt that she will never again be sexually harrased. I doubt that having
: someone that can see the inequalities for a partner will draticly reduce
: their effect or their incidence.
Umm if you're referring to some sort of gender inequity in salary, I
suggest you look at Thomas Sowell's and Walter Williams' work on the
issue. They have proven that there exists no gender inequity which is
irrational. That is to say, employers employ women at lower salaries
because women are willing to work at lower salaries. No one forces any
woman to take a wage that she takes. If she takes a lower wage doing the
same work as a man, then she agrees to work for that labor price. It is
purely voluntary. If she does not want to work at that wage, then she
can search for a job which pays something she is willing to work for.
And, if all wages for women are lower than for men, it says something
about the condition of the labor market, not about any sort of supposed
discrimination. It says that either women's work is not as highly valued
by employers as men's work or it says that there are more women out there
willing to work than employers who have jobs for them. A study of
economics is important here and it's clear that this breast-beating male
has never studied it.
: As for 'this lame language issue'. It is not very lame. The international
: psycologists association require all articles to be published
: in psycological journals to be in non sexists language. It does have
Oh Jesus. And psychologists (it's spelled psychologist for you, who
claim to know something about language) are the arbiters of how we
should construct our language? The day I let the International
Association of Psychologists dictate to me how to use the English
language will never arrive, I can assure you.
: an effect. They would not make a descion like this for no good reason.
No, of course. Psychologists never do anything without good reason. Using
this nitwit's logic, Freud, the King of Psychology, was completely
correct in his theories because "psychologists would not make a decision
like this for no good reason." (Of course, few psychologists put much
stock in Freud these days).
: >IMHO, as soon as you realize that no matter what the sex of a person
: >is, they're a person, you're fine.
: I notice you did not say 'they're a man' there. You have just admited that
: you tyhink that man is not actually a generic.
No. He is talking about people in general. Not men, but people.
There's a distinction there, that we, who know the English language,
recognize.
: As an example:
: A man walks down the street.
: The Chairman said 'blue frogs are better'.
: When I se both of these statements I immediately think that both
: of the people mentioned are male. If you can honestly say that you
: do not think this. Great.
You got me there. Now, if I say "A man walks down the street," I
obviously do not mean that a woman was walking down the street. I must
admit, you're pretty quick with those biting analogies which cut straight
to the heart of the matter.
: There are groups of pele who say men are now the underclass and feminism
: has gone too far. They are all involved in the backlash. Media
: blizes.
Of course, for a man who is critiquing the content and structure of the
English language, you sure seem articulate. What, in God's name, is this
last paragraph supposed be?
Peter Register
>Ok, Doctors. You say about paying them a lot. Would it not be better
>to have somone that is interested in the job rather than someone
>who is interested in the money?
>David.
>[DDT] Pink fish forever.
Sure, and in a perfect world that is the way it would work.
Unfortunately there are not enough people who simply "care" enough to
become a doctor for simply altruistic reasons. Most people who are smart
enough and interested enough in medicine to become doctors would likely
not do so if they got paid little for the amount of schooling and
effort/stress the job takes. I do agree it would be nice if only those
who are really interested would go after the job...but I don't think that
that will ever happen.
George Reese
: In article <36t0o4$t...@classic.iinet.com.au>
: d...@iinet.com.au (David Bennett) writes:
: > Its not the only reason. The other reaons sorround the fcat that people
: > are in more poverty now than they have been for qwuite some time. And the
: > people in these bad circumstances can get hold of guns and other objects
: > which make violent crime rather easier to commit.
: Oh yeah. Right. People are in more poverty now. Sure. In a world
: which produces more goods/food/services than EVER before, in a world
: where idiots have enacted laws to PAY people for sitting on their
: a$$es. Get off it. You want to see poverty? Back up a few
: generations. Of a few more. All the way back through history. If you
: really think people commit crimes because their needs aren't met, you
: are just so so so soooo wrong. People commit crimes because they WANT
: what someone else HAS. The problem is morality, not poverty. Yes, I
: may have a nice TV and a nice car, but that will NEVER justify you
: taking it because you don't have one. Want one? Get a job and buy
: your own.
: As for guns, they're a tool. Only an idiot will blame crime on guns.
: Crime is caused by...er...dare I be un PC and say it? CRIMINALS!
: *boggle* Imagine that. If you don't want to be victimized by a gun
You are involved in a non-argument. You have not addressed anything
Pinkfish was talking about. I think Pinkfish actually meant that
there is a greater separation between the have's and have not's
(please correct me if I am misinterpreting you) and not that people
are poorer now than they ever have been.
He is not talking about someone taking your car because you have one
and they do not. He is talking about economic conditions in which
fighting for your daily existence becomes just that... fight... and
it is a fight you see all around you, and you see others who do not
have to fight that fight because they have unfair advantages, and you
see yourself as having to fight extra hard because there are unjust
road blocks preventing you from taking things in your own hand and
making something of yourself...
Given the choice of eating stolen food and starving, I would steal.
However I am begging several important questions...
Why don't I earn that food?
Well, as much as is given to the American dream, the United States
(which is definitely the most just nation I have ever visited) is not
a paradise of justice. Unfortunately, if you are born into a poor
family where your parents (assuming you have 2) must fight day in and
day out just to put food on your table, you have to be an
extraordinary person to break out of that and become successful. You
have the deck stacked against you. Finding the time to go to school,
to continue education (to be in a school system which would give you
the education and support for continuing your education), affording an
education, and getting the breaks needed to get into the real world
are immensely more difficult when you have so much else stacked
against. Hell, many upper and upper-middle class white Americans have
a hard enough time dealing with all of that.
Pinkfish's point is not that we should just pay people money for
nothing for the rest of their lives. We instead should give them an
equal shot at making something of themselves. At that point, let
their individual talent, drive, and work ethic (Pinkfish I think would
disagree with my word choice, if not me wholly at this point)
determine their success or failure. If at that point a person expects
the government to give them a cushy life, they fail. If instead theu
take their education and personal will to make something of
themselves, then let them enjoy the fruits of their labour.
George Reese
: In article <3723vg$k...@blackice.winternet.com>
: bo...@winternet.com (George Reese) writes:
: > Try posting on subjects on which you have a clue. I know on the
: > internet it is hard, but please try...
: >
: > Next time, READ. His writings are quite clear.
: >
: I do. My opinion is based on what I have read of his, and lit.
: criticisms of his works by people who, I am sure, have spent one hell
: of a lot more time on him than you have. Btw, to claim that "his
: writings are quite clear" when people can't agree on their meaning is a
: little off. Obviously, they are nothing of the kind. Incidentally, if
: the only purpose of your post is to tell me, personally, that you think
: I'm wrong. That's what email is for. Try it sometime.
I guess you took my comment out of context. His writings on Jews and
women are quite clear. His writings in general are not clear at all.
He intended them to be. The thing is, he was not going out writing
about Jews and women. His beliefs about them come out quite clearly
as a side product of the way he writes. I wish I had my stuff with me
from moving, but it is still in storage. Otherwise I could pull out a
myriad of examples of both types of his hatred. The funny thing is
that he is part Jew and lived with two women most of his life. Go
figure.
As to your comment about them having read more than I. Exactly where
do you get that? Are they Nietzsche scholars? I am a philosopher.
That is what I do for giggles. Pity me, maybe, but don't challenge my
credibility based on hear-say from friends. Challenge me on the
facts.
By the way, the only purpose of my post was to tell you that you were
wrong, however it was in the context of this forum. If you don't like
it, call the police and have them arrest me.
--
George Reese
Descartes of Borg
bo...@icicle.winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~borg/
phone/fax: (612) 829-5495 ftp://nightmare.winternet.com/
"No one ever conquered Wyoming from the left or from the right."
-Camper Van Beethoven
David Bennett
>In article <36t0o4$t...@classic.iinet.com.au>
>d...@iinet.com.au (David Bennett) writes:
>> Its not the only reason. The other reaons sorround the fcat that people
>> are in more poverty now than they have been for qwuite some time. And the
>> people in these bad circumstances can get hold of guns and other objects
>> which make violent crime rather easier to commit.
>Oh yeah. Right. People are in more poverty now. Sure. In a world
>which produces more goods/food/services than EVER before, in a world
>where idiots have enacted laws to PAY people for sitting on their
>a$$es. Get off it. You want to see poverty? Back up a few
>generations. Of a few more. All the way back through history. If you
>really think people commit crimes because their needs aren't met, you
>are just so so so soooo wrong. People commit crimes because they WANT
>what someone else HAS. The problem is morality, not poverty. Yes, I
>may have a nice TV and a nice car, but that will NEVER justify you
>taking it because you don't have one. Want one? Get a job and buy
>your own.
Anbd criume did not exist in these enlighten times you tal;k of? Come off it.
How many stories of Robin HOood have you heard? Crime still existed, it was probably
even more rampant than today. It was not a wonderful place to live, unless you
were extremely rich. Just like today.
Your argument also goes someway to prooving mine. The fact hat people don't
have what other people have got is just a sign of poverty. These days
with easy access to guns and things it is much easier for them to realise
this goal.
As for guns not being dangerous. Think about this, how would you rather kill
someoine? At long distance with a gun? Or close up by stabbing
them. There is much less emotional impact from using a gun. Much easier
to do, you just pull a trigger....
>Then you'll force everyone into a situation where
>the criminals are armed and the citizens are not. Real fair.
Have you checked the statistics on killings in the US and killings in
canada by guns?
US 20000
Canada 20
No difference there right?
(These numbers are not exact, but the differnece is quite definately that huge).
David Bennett
Rich can only exist in a state where there is ppoor. To be rich you have to have someone
to measure yourself against. It is in the rich peoples interest, and in fact
they NEED poor people.
The capitalist system was designed to have a 7% ( I think thats right,
could be 5%) unemplyment rate dto keep wages down and to make sure there
is always a labour market out there. Otherwise people won't do the horrible
jobs...
Ok, next example. Think of.... People who dash into companys
split them up and sell off the bits for a profit. Who are they
helping?
How many companys have you heard say they have to lay people off to reduce
spending and stuff? This is much more frequent than you hear
of companies who are adding staff. How many of these companies which are
laying off staff are actually loosing money?
Money just does not come from nowhere. For someone to have a lot, it means
conversely that a lot of people must have almost none.