[Your Name Here] Not Arrested For Sodomy
Gary Farber
post, for each post that someone sends out with a header saying [x]
Arrested For Sodomy. It occurs to me that it might offer a clue as to
how the sender would feel if people were unthinkingly sending out such a
header over and over and over.
But I'm holding off for now.
Still, it amazes me that people will send out such a message so,
apparently, unthinkingly, and cruelly. I don't get it.
[Clue-stick: latest offender: initials KFL. Please never "defend" me in
this fashion, huh?]
--
Gary Farber New York
gfa...@panix.com 2000
garyf...@juno.com
gfa...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Locke
> I'm strongly tempted to fill in the name there, and send out such a
> post, for each post that someone sends out with a header saying [x]
> Arrested For Sodomy. It occurs to me that it might offer a clue as to
> how the sender would feel if people were unthinkingly sending out such a
> header over and over and over.
>
> But I'm holding off for now.
>
> Still, it amazes me that people will send out such a message so,
> apparently, unthinkingly, and cruelly. I don't get it.
>
> [Clue-stick: latest offender: initials KFL. Please never "defend" me in
> this fashion, huh?]
Sometimes you go too far, Gary ("All movements go too far." Bertrand
Russell).
The subject header was *correct* (he *was* arrested), whether you or
I or anyone else wants to read drawbacks into the use of it.
It's one thing to make a suggestion and discuss what might or might
not be considered proper, and I tend to agree with you in this
specific regard. It's another to take it upon yourself to try and
enforce it by threats of retribution.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | Caveat Lector
Gary Farber
> > post, for each post that someone sends out with a header saying [x]
> > Arrested For Sodomy. It occurs to me that it might offer a clue as
> > to
> > how the sender would feel if people were unthinkingly sending out
> > such a
> > header over and over and over.
> >
> > But I'm holding off for now.
> >
> > Still, it amazes me that people will send out such a message so,
> > apparently, unthinkingly, and cruelly. I don't get it.
> >
> > [Clue-stick: latest offender: initials KFL. Please never "defend"
> > me in
> > this fashion, huh?]
>
> Russell).
Robin Morgan _Going Too Far_, essay collection.
I mayhaps indeed "go too far" from time to time. If I've done so here,
yet, please explain how?
> The subject header was *correct* (he *was* arrested), whether you or
> I or anyone else wants to read drawbacks into the use of it.
Yes, and I didn't object to posts under it for the first several days.
But now that it's been posted a good forty or so times, over many days,
nothing is served by resending it, over and over and over, save to
perpetuate the blackening of the name of someone whose state of guilt is
completely unknown, and whom I, at least, will decently treat as
innocent until given reason not to.
It's particularly ridiculous for people to think they are *defending*
the person involved with such a post. That's just clueless with a
capital "C," isn't it?
> It's one thing to make a suggestion and discuss what might or might
> not be considered proper, and I tend to agree with you in this
> specific regard. It's another to take it upon yourself to try and
> enforce it by threats of retribution.
I'm sorry, but how is it a threat of "retribution" to mention the
temptation to do something more innocuous than what the person is doing?
Either it is right, or wrong, to send out new posts with a header --
read by a *vastly* greater number of people than will ever read the
message attached -- that says "X Puts Pickles Up His Nose." If it is
right, there certainly can be nothing wrong with sending out a post
whose header says "Y Does Not Put Pickles Up His Nose."
If it is wrong, then posting that "Y Does Not Put Pickles Up His Nose"
is still merely assuring people that Y doesn't do that thing, and it is
far less than turnabout being fair play.
And to mention that one is tempted is simply harmless, is it not?
However, thank you for at least noticing, and for caring.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <j0ugss0hp22uk8n9r...@4ax.com>,
> Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> wrote:
>> Gary Farber cast forth electrons:
>> > I'm strongly tempted to fill in the name there, and send out such a
>> > post, for each post that someone sends out with a header saying [x]
>> > Arrested For Sodomy. It occurs to me that it might offer a clue as
>> > to
>> > how the sender would feel if people were unthinkingly sending out
>> > such a
>> > header over and over and over.
>> >
>> > But I'm holding off for now.
>> >
>> > Still, it amazes me that people will send out such a message so,
>> > apparently, unthinkingly, and cruelly. I don't get it.
>> >
>> > [Clue-stick: latest offender: initials KFL. Please never "defend"
>> > me in
>> > this fashion, huh?]
>>
>> Sometimes you go too far, Gary ("All movements go too far." Bertrand
>> Russell).
>
>Robin Morgan _Going Too Far_, essay collection.
>
>I mayhaps indeed "go too far" from time to time. If I've done so here,
>yet, please explain how?
><snip>
>> It's one thing to make a suggestion and discuss what might or might
>> not be considered proper, and I tend to agree with you in this
>> specific regard. It's another to take it upon yourself to try and
>> enforce it by threats of retribution.
>
>I'm sorry, but how is it a threat of "retribution" to mention the
>temptation to do something more innocuous than what the person is doing?
Clue: there's a difference between making a mistake and deliberately
taking an action.
What you have suggested is that the next time someone makes that
mistake--and it could *easily* be someone who is trying to catch
up on the newsgroup--you will send out a message to give them an
idea of how it feels.
We could all waste a lot of time publicly correcting everyone else
for each careless mistake they make.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Gary Farber cast forth electrons:
>
>> I'm strongly tempted to fill in the name there, and send out such a
>> post, for each post that someone sends out with a header saying [x]
>> Arrested For Sodomy. It occurs to me that it might offer a clue as to
>> how the sender would feel if people were unthinkingly sending out such a
>> header over and over and over.
>>
>> But I'm holding off for now.
>>
>> Still, it amazes me that people will send out such a message so,
>> apparently, unthinkingly, and cruelly. I don't get it.
>>
>> [Clue-stick: latest offender: initials KFL. Please never "defend" me in
>> this fashion, huh?]
>
>Sometimes you go too far, Gary ("All movements go too far." Bertrand
>Russell).
>
>The subject header was *correct* (he *was* arrested), whether you or
>I or anyone else wants to read drawbacks into the use of it.
>
>It's one thing to make a suggestion and discuss what might or might
>not be considered proper, and I tend to agree with you in this
>specific regard. It's another to take it upon yourself to try and
>enforce it by threats of retribution.
>
For what it's worth, I agree with Gary. And I don't know any of
the people involved.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Keith F. Lynch
Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
> Yes, and I didn't object to posts under it for the first several
> days. But now that it's been posted a good forty or so times, over
Subject lines tend to get preserved in followups. It's not like each
poster is gleefully typing it in again.
> ... someone whose state of guilt is completely unknown, and whom I,
> at least, will decently treat as innocent until given reason not to.
> It's particularly ridiculous for people to think they are
> *defending* the person involved with such a post. That's just
> clueless with a capital "C," isn't it?
I too regard him as innocent. And will continue to do so in the
absence of overwhelming evidence otherwise. In fact, I would be
willing to bet money at ten to one odds on his innocence, if there
were any surefire way to resolve the question. (Where is Halperin's
_Truth Machine_ when we need it?)
I have more first-hand experience than most people here with how easy
it is to be falsely arrested -- and convicted -- of a serious crime.
As such, I never regarded the subject line as implying anything about
anyone's guilt. Any more than the accurate subject line "Keith Lynch
was once arrested for burglary" would imply that I was ever a thief.
But since you feel strongly about it, I will refrain from perpetuating
the disagreeable subject line.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Gary Farber
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> In article <8qatic$5hu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Yes, and I didn't object to posts under it for the first several
> > days. But now that it's been posted a good forty or so times, over
> > many days, nothing is served by resending it, over and over ...
>
> Subject lines tend to get preserved in followups.
This is a terrific example of the way the use of the passive is used to
avoid responsibility.
Giant mutant ant-eaters do not, to my knowledge, come into people's
homes and offices, and preserve subject lines. It's "people" who
actively send them out, thinkingly, or unthinkingly. People who are
responsible for their actions.
> It's not like each
> poster is gleefully typing it in again.
Acting without thinking doesn't change the damage. If someone is
thoughtlessly bashing my knee with a hammer, I'm really not interested
in whether it's with glee, or out of stupid obliviousness: I just want
the pain to stop.
[. . .]
> I have more first-hand experience than most people here with how easy
> it is to be falsely arrested -- and convicted -- of a serious crime.
Yes, I'm very aware of this.
> As such, I never regarded the subject line as implying anything about
> anyone's guilt. Any more than the accurate subject line "Keith Lynch
> was once arrested for burglary" would imply that I was ever a thief.
>
> But since you feel strongly about it, I will refrain from perpetuating
> the disagreeable subject line.
That's all I ask. Thank you.
I'm completely indifferent to whom we're talking about, here. I'm no
friend of Ed Kramer's: the closest we've come to meeting is that he
walked past me at the Baltimore Worldcon, in a hurry; we've exchanged a
couple of impersonal e-mails, and posted to the same newsgroup; that's
it. I'd react precisely the same, attitudinally, towards anyone in this
situation.
[. . . .]
Kip Williams
>
> In article <8qc47m$gnc$1...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > In article <8qatic$5hu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, and I didn't object to posts under it for the first several
> > > days. But now that it's been posted a good forty or so times, over
> > > many days, nothing is served by resending it, over and over ...
> >
> > Subject lines tend to get preserved in followups.
>
> This is a terrific example of the way the use of the passive is used to
> avoid responsibility.
>
> Giant mutant ant-eaters do not, to my knowledge, come into people's
> homes and offices, and preserve subject lines. It's "people" who
> actively send them out, thinkingly, or unthinkingly. People who are
> responsible for their actions.
"Gnus don't change headers..."
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Erik V. Olson
>"Gnus don't change headers..."
...until you use the proper ESC key sequence.
--
Erik V. Olson: er...@mo.net : http://walden.mo.net/~eriko/
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> > In article <8qc47m$gnc$1...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > > In article <8qatic$5hu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, and I didn't object to posts under it for the first several
> > > > days. But now that it's been posted a good forty or so times, over
> > > > many days, nothing is served by resending it, over and over ...
> > >
> > > Subject lines tend to get preserved in followups.
> >
> > This is a terrific example of the way the use of the passive is used to
> > avoid responsibility.
> >
> > Giant mutant ant-eaters do not, to my knowledge, come into people's
> > homes and offices, and preserve subject lines. It's "people" who
> > actively send them out, thinkingly, or unthinkingly. People who are
> > responsible for their actions.
>
> "Gnus don't change headers..."
>
As with any emacs application, it'll do far more things than any one
person wants.
This is posted using gnus 5.8.3
73, doug
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:10:21 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gnus don't change headers..."
>
> ...until you use the proper ESC key sequence.
>
Not true. This header was changed, and no ESC keys were used in the
process (and properly speaking, it's the META key).
73, doug