The Censorous Bastard From Harvard Law School
Rachel Meredith Kadel
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
> I quoted Matt Bruce stating on the usenet in
>news.admin.net-abuse.misc that he intended to cancel
>by forgery other users posts because he objected to
>more than x number of groups in the Newsgroups line
>(x being 3 I believe).
Here follow the criteria he posted:
"Effective immediately I may cancel (by hand) some messages that fit
EACH of the following descriptions:
1. Crossposted to 3 or more unrelated destinations, if one of them is a
newsgroup I happen to read
[ECP - valid reason to cancel]
2. Invalid "From" or "Reply-To" address
[Forgery - also valid reason to cancel]
3. Demonstrably off-topic."
In other words, if you or I posted something with a valid return
address, or if it weren't crossposted, or if it were on topic, it would not
fit Matt's criteria.
Also note that he hasn't actually *done* anything.
> From what I understand Mr. Bruce remains at
>Harvard. Questions regarding course requirements
>covering ethics, etc. have gone unanswered. It appears
>graduations standards are rather low and forgery
>acceptable behavior.
Of course he's still here. He *didn't* *do* *anything*.
There are programs on standards of academic honesty which all freshmen
are required to attend. Matt has done nothing against the standards put
forward in those programs.
If graduation standards are so fucking low, why am I sitting here trying
to write this fucking voice recognition program?
Rachel
"That leaves: shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker mother-fucker and tits (you
have to say it with *rhythm*). We could all just add these to our .sigs."
- Marco Simons on net censorship
Stephen Boursy
Rachel Meredith Kadel <rka...@scunix4.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:
>In article <Dpv0w...@world.std.com>,
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>> I quoted Matt Bruce stating on the usenet in
>>news.admin.net-abuse.misc that he intended to cancel
>>by forgery other users posts because he objected to
>>more than x number of groups in the Newsgroups line
>>(x being 3 I believe).
>
>Here follow the criteria he posted:
>"Effective immediately I may cancel (by hand) some messages that fit
>EACH of the following descriptions:
>
>1. Crossposted to 3 or more unrelated destinations, if one of them is a
>newsgroup I happen to read
> [ECP - valid reason to cancel]
Not by a long shot and there is no valid reason to forge the
email identify of another poster which is what Matt Bruce stated he
would do.
>Also note that he hasn't actually *done* anything.
Yes--you agree his intent to forge was present and stated
but that he could not figure it out!
>
>> From what I understand Mr. Bruce remains at
>>Harvard. Questions regarding course requirements
>>covering ethics, etc. have gone unanswered. It appears
>>graduations standards are rather low and forgery
>>acceptable behavior.
>
>Of course he's still here. He *didn't* *do* *anything*.
Sort of like someone who screws up a bank robbery huh?
>
>There are programs on standards of academic honesty which all freshmen
>are required to attend. Matt has done nothing against the standards put
>forward in those programs.
>
Because he couldn't figure it out??
>If graduation standards are so fucking low, why am I sitting here trying
>to write this fucking voice recognition program?
I rest my case.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
>
> Rachel
>
>"That leaves: shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker mother-fucker and tits (you
>have to say it with *rhythm*). We could all just add these to our .sigs."
> - Marco Simons on net censorship
>
>
Impressive .sig Rachel.
Stewart King
: Well I'd guess I'd like to no more about the Ethics course--what
: it covers--who teaches it.
There are several, on different topics, which meet the requirement.
Moral Reasoning 13: Realism and Moralism - mostly "is it reasonable to be
moral" sorts of things; MR 19: Moderation and Extremism - the doctrine of
the mean in Western thought; MR 22: Justice, etc.
My personal favorite is
MR 33: Issues in Ethics
Catalog Number: 5909
Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr.
Half course (fall term), Tu.,Th. at 9, and a weekly section to be arranged.
EXAM GROUP: 11
Is pleasure the only ultimate good? Are individuals' preferences the
only basis for assessing the quality of their lives? What makes acts of
Usenet forgery wrong? Is moral blame applicable only to agents who have
free will? Should we accept moral relativism? Readings mainly from
contemporary philosophers.
By the way, if I may be snide and subtly snub your verbal skills for a
second time, we also have English courses. Well, it was subtle when I
started. Now I'm just pretty much calling you a hack writer who wouldn't
no proper English if it was cancelled by UUNet. Oh, this is getting
terrible, I should stop.
: So what are your personal opinions on this matter Dave. As you
: know Matt Bruce clearly stated he intended to forge others email addresses
: to cancel their posts and the only excuse that has been offered is that
: he couldn't figure it out.
This is not the only excuse that has been offered. It is the only excuse
which you have as yet grasp, which is a different matter subcutaneously.
He has also realized that cancelling articles is a bad idea.
: Do you believe Bruce should graduate and why?
That depends on how his classes are going. I'd say the odds are about
even right now.
--
Stewart King -=-=-=-=-=-=- http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~slking/
^
sex
Stephen Boursy
Stewart King <slk...@scws35.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Stephen Boursy (bou...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>: Well I'd guess I'd like to no more about the Ethics course--what
>: it covers--who teaches it.
>
>There are several, on different topics, which meet the requirement.
>Moral Reasoning 13: Realism and Moralism - mostly "is it reasonable to be
>moral" sorts of things; MR 19: Moderation and Extremism - the doctrine of
>the mean in Western thought; MR 22: Justice, etc.
>
>My personal favorite is
>MR 33: Issues in Ethics
>Catalog Number: 5909
>Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr.
>Half course (fall term), Tu.,Th. at 9, and a weekly section to be arranged.
>EXAM GROUP: 11
>Is pleasure the only ultimate good? Are individuals' preferences the
>only basis for assessing the quality of their lives? What makes acts of
>Usenet forgery wrong? Is moral blame applicable only to agents who have
>free will? Should we accept moral relativism? Readings mainly from
>contemporary philosophers.
Thank you very much--appreciate it. Usenet forgery would make
an excellent subject for class discussion. Did you realize that many
sys admins knowingly accept forgery? Some are quite well known and
notorious--Chris Lewis, Jan Isley, etc. The forge others daily.
>
>By the way, if I may be snide and subtly snub your verbal skills for a
>second time, we also have English courses. Well, it was subtle when I
>started. Now I'm just pretty much calling you a hack writer who wouldn't
>no proper English if it was cancelled by UUNet. Oh, this is getting
>terrible, I should stop.
Oh not at all. My grammer skills are terrible and my speling
even worse. But that is the way of the usenet--they call those who
correct others 'red pencils'--it's a way of deflecting debate from the
subject at hand. I even have contempt for spel checkers by the way.
>
>: So what are your personal opinions on this matter Dave. As you
>: know Matt Bruce clearly stated he intended to forge others email addresses
>: to cancel their posts and the only excuse that has been offered is that
>: he couldn't figure it out.
>
>
>This is not the only excuse that has been offered. It is the only excuse
>which you have as yet grasp, which is a different matter subcutaneously.
>He has also realized that cancelling articles is a bad idea.
>
Well if that's the case perhaps a retraction is in order. I
haven't seen one. If he now feels that forging anothers email identity
is a bad idea (for reasons of ethics--not fear of punishment) he should
state so publically and the matter would be closed as as far as I'm
concerned.
>: Do you believe Bruce should graduate and why?
>
>That depends on how his classes are going. I'd say the odds are about
>even right now.
>
Hasn't taken the required ethics course right?
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Chuck Truesdell
[in reference to Matt Bruce, the persecution of whose malicious
*thoughts* are now making the entire harvard.general community sick]
: >: Do you believe Bruce should graduate and why? : >
: >That depends on how his classes are going. I'd say the odds are about
: >even right now.
: Hasn't taken the required ethics course right?
Matt completed Moral Reasoning 32: "Reason and Evaluation," taught by
Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr. Its rather interesting description is:
Can moral judgments and other forms of evaluation be defended on rational
and objective grounds? Do they need to be? Considers various positive
and negative answers to these questions and examines the ways in which
these answers are supported by differing views of the nature of persons
and of the will. Readings include works by Aristotle, Hume, Kant,
Nietzsche, and some contemporary writers.
Now, I'm not sure what kind of a grade Matt received, but he *did* pass.
Now, Steve, be a good boy, shut the fuck up, and leave us alone, or
<gasp!> some of us might *think* about doing things even more
unethical, immoral, and illegal than the things Matt *thought* about doing.
--
/\___/\
/ o o \
( == ^ == )
> - <
( )
(_(__)_(__)_)
Stephen Boursy
Chuck Truesdell <true...@scunix4.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Stephen Boursy (bou...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>[in reference to Matt Bruce, the persecution of whose malicious
>*thoughts* are now making the entire harvard.general community sick]
>
>: >: Do you believe Bruce should graduate and why? : >
>: >That depends on how his classes are going. I'd say the odds are about
>: >even right now.
>
>: Hasn't taken the required ethics course right?
>
>Matt completed Moral Reasoning 32: "Reason and Evaluation," taught by
>Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr. Its rather interesting description is:
>
>Can moral judgments and other forms of evaluation be defended on rational
>and objective grounds? Do they need to be? Considers various positive
>and negative answers to these questions and examines the ways in which
>these answers are supported by differing views of the nature of persons
>and of the will. Readings include works by Aristotle, Hume, Kant,
>Nietzsche, and some contemporary writers.
>
>Now, I'm not sure what kind of a grade Matt received, but he *did* pass.
Well so did that guy who stole all that charity money--hell--he
even graduated from Harvard didn't he? He took the course too right?
You know--you boys and girls are much brighter than the norm
but there is no positive coorelation between intellegence and
moral development. Even your famous James Rest committed suicide.
>
>Now, Steve, be a good boy, shut the fuck up, and leave us alone, or
><gasp!> some of us might *think* about doing things even more
>unethical, immoral, and illegal than the things Matt *thought* about doing.
>
Oh--more threats. Which ethics course did you pass?? Matt Bruce
not only *thought* about forging the email addresses of others--he
publically posted he was going to do so and his defenders have merely
stated in his defense that he could not figure it out.
>--
> /\___/\
> / o o \
> ( == ^ == )
> > - <
> ( )
> (_(__)_(__)_)
Nice .sig--I like this one much better than whats-her-names stream
of profanity.
Steve
Mark Staloff
: Oh--more threats. Which ethics course did you pass?? Matt Bruce
: not only *thought* about forging the email addresses of others--he
: publically posted he was going to do so and his defenders have merely
: stated in his defense that he could not figure it out.
This is a blatant lie. Mr. Boursy, please stop harassing Mr. Bruce
with your unsubstantiated accusations. Also, you know better than to
waste your time with responses to forged posts and e-mail such as the above.
Mark
Stewart King
: Stewart King <slk...@scws35.harvard.edu> wrote:
: But that is the way of the usenet--they call those who correct others
: 'red pencils'--it's a way of deflecting debate from the subject at
: hand. I even have contempt for spel checkers by the way.
Why? Good English = good image. People might think you're less of a
kook that way. You really should look into it, I'm perfectly serious.
: Well if that's the case perhaps a retraction is in order. I
: haven't seen one.
I doubt that he's likely to issue one on your account, because so far as I
know he thinks you're a rampaging twit and I can see where he might have
gotten the idea. But rest assured, you and the world are safe from him for
several reasons, as long as you don't meow at him in class.
Rachel Meredith Kadel
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
> So what are your personal opinions on this matter Dave. As you
>know Matt Bruce clearly stated he intended to forge others email addresses
>to cancel their posts and the only excuse that has been offered is that
>community deliberately try to misportray the matter. Do you believe
>Bruce should graduate and why?
>
Matt Bruce wrote "Nonetheless, per negative feedback the only
cancellation I will make any time soon is, ironically, of the message
that started this thread. :-)"
That means (in case you can't understand English, Stephen) that he
decided not to cancel any posts not his own because people thought it was
a bad idea. OK?
Stephen Boursy
Rachel Meredith Kadel <rka...@fas.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DpvzA...@world.std.com>,
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>> So what are your personal opinions on this matter Dave. As you
>>know Matt Bruce clearly stated he intended to forge others email addresses
>>to cancel their posts and the only excuse that has been offered is that
>>he couldn't figure it out. And we saw several others in the Harvard
>>community deliberately try to misportray the matter. Do you believe
>>Bruce should graduate and why?
>>
>In a post dated April 7th, message-id 4k7sv7$j...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU,
>Matt Bruce wrote "Nonetheless, per negative feedback the only
>cancellation I will make any time soon is, ironically, of the message
>that started this thread. :-)"
>
>That means (in case you can't understand English, Stephen) that he
>decided not to cancel any posts not his own because people thought it was
>a bad idea. OK?
>
> Rachel
>
OK. That's fine with me. What concerns me though Rachel--beyond
this--are some users at Harvard who have so openly lied about this matter
in crossposts to millions. Says something about the way things are
operating at Harvard.
Steve
Deboursif1
>From: bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:41:28 GMT
>Message-ID: <DpyGL...@world.std.com>
> OK. That's fine with me. What concerns me though Rachel--beyond
>this--are some users at Harvard who have so openly lied about this matter
>in crossposts to millions.
Translation from Boursy-speak:
And, damn it, that's _my_ job!