New Virus
Sanford M. Manley
virus/worm in the last hour.
It is unidentified and I submitted it to
AVERT.
Watch out folks.
It is coming in as the famous Microsoft
update attachment with very nice graphics.
--
Sanford M. Manley - Now With 30 Percent More Humor!!
http://www.tfn.net/~smanley/index.html
Sanford M. Manley
"Sanford M. Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> I have received 8 or 9 copies of a new
> virus/worm in the last hour.
>
> It is unidentified and I submitted it to
> AVERT.
>
> Watch out folks.
>
> It is coming in as the famous Microsoft
> update attachment with very nice graphics.
http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=100662
This is it. Its accelerating very quickly. One copy this morning,
ten this afternoon!
Messer Xin
(in message <bMoab.4041$9u3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
> I have received 8 or 9 copies of a new
> virus/worm in the last hour.
>
> It is unidentified and I submitted it to
> AVERT.
>
> Watch out folks.
>
> It is coming in as the famous Microsoft
> update attachment with very nice graphics.
I'm always suspicious of MS updates to me. Especially as I run a Mac. Noting
that it originated at Cox.Net, Then did I with exceeding great righteousness
send it to <ab...@cox.net>. I fear that the malignant code is replicating
itself in computers with MS products, so that may have been pointless. I was
just hoping that it was a scam to plant spyware and skim CC numbers.
---Weasel Tracks
--
"yet, another attempt at feigning inscrutable oriental
wisdom -- better get back ta stringing yer beads,
yu tired 0ld burned out Old hippie" ----Cupcake
dt
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:43:08 -0400, Sanford M. Manley wrote
> (in message <bMoab.4041$9u3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>):
>
>
>>I have received 8 or 9 copies of a new
>>virus/worm in the last hour.
>>
>>It is unidentified and I submitted it to
>>AVERT.
>>
>>Watch out folks.
>>
>>It is coming in as the famous Microsoft
>>update attachment with very nice graphics.
>
>
> I'm always suspicious of MS updates to me. Especially as I run a Mac. Noting
> that it originated at Cox.Net, Then did I with exceeding great righteousness
> send it to <ab...@cox.net>. I fear that the malignant code is replicating
> itself in computers with MS products, so that may have been pointless. I was
> just hoping that it was a scam to plant spyware and skim CC numbers.
>
> ---Weasel Tracks
This has been happening off and on for months, one and two at a time.
However, I got 16 in the last twelve hours.
DT
NeoLazarusx
news:bkfcqj$fg4$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
pikers!
My yahoo account has gotten over 120 messages with the new viri attached and
that's just since yesterday afternoon!
-NL
NAX
Kirsten Bayes
"NeoLazarusx" <neola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vmml28f...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> My yahoo account has gotten over 120 messages with the new viri attached
and
> that's just since yesterday afternoon!
>
> -NL
> NAX
The curse of spam merchants...my publicly exposed e-mail addresses are
getting lots of virus junk, but strangely I am not getting any from "real"
people at my private address.
These e-mail viruses are being developed by spammers to spamvertise better
to you.
Best wishes
Kirsten
Ned Ludd
I've got 134 in my mailbox now, and deleted about 100 earlier
this morning.
Ned
Sanford M. Manley
>>
>
> pikers!
>
> My yahoo account has gotten over 120 messages with the
> new viri attached and that's just since yesterday
> afternoon!
I bet I have gotten 50-60 just today.
Pete Watters
> "NeoLazarusx" <neola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vmml28f...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > My yahoo account has gotten over 120 messages with the new viri attached
> and
> > that's just since yesterday afternoon!
> >
> > -NL
> > NAX
>
> The curse of spam merchants...my publicly exposed e-mail addresses are
> getting lots of virus junk, but strangely I am not getting any from "real"
> people at my private address.
Ditto here.
> These e-mail viruses are being developed by spammers to spamvertise better
> to you.
Odd that my %*^%#& ISP can't filter on what seems to be a fairly easy to
spot executable.
Pete
William Hursthouse
wrote:
I got two (in tow days) , even tho my (real) email is posted on heaps
of web pages.....how come?
william
Ned Ludd
William Hursthouse <wil...@stupaDOTORG.nz> wrote in message
news:thnpmvkt2u0n1ocfu...@4ax.com...
>
>> I've got 134 in my mailbox now, and deleted about 100 earlier
>> this morning.
>
> heaps of web pages.....how come?
> william
>
Because you are more pure and have better karma than I.
Ned
Messer Xin
(in message <absfg-27F5BA....@news.west.cox.net>):
>
> Odd that my %*^%#& ISP can't filter on what seems to be a fairly easy to
> spot executable.
But Pete . . . they don't want to run the risk of blocking legitimate spam
from MS.
---Messer Xin
--
"Cretans always lie." Epimenides the Cretan
Love
(wil...@stupaDOTORG.nz) wrote...
The virus propagates by email, yes, but also by exploiting
the DCOM vulberability in NT4 and up. So once one
machine in a LAN, even behind a firewall, is compromised,
all the machines could be, even without any email
attachments getting to them. Ned probably has his addy
in someone's LAN and a LAN that got compromised. You
are probably not that unlucky. You also spoil your
usenet addy, which Ned does not do.
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Love - to email me replace fixthis with addr dawt komm
Love
(rokt...@iipmail.net) wrote...
>
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:16:21 GMT, lo...@kwanseum.fixthis (Love)
wrote:
no the squirrels have their own private net
William Hursthouse
>>> I've got 134 in my mailbox now, and deleted about 100 earlier
>>>this morning.
>>>
>>> Ned
>>>
>>>
>>I got two (in tow days) , even tho my (real) email is posted on heaps
>>of web pages.....how come?
>>william
>
>The virus propagates by email, yes, but also by exploiting
>the DCOM vulberability in NT4 and up. So once one
>machine in a LAN, even behind a firewall, is compromised,
>all the machines could be, even without any email
>attachments getting to them. Ned probably has his addy
>in someone's LAN and a LAN that got compromised. You
>are probably not that unlucky. You also spoil your
>usenet addy, which Ned does not do.
"spoil", I like that. I've been called spoiled more than once - long
ago, as a child, and now, just old......
William Hursthouse
wrote:
>
LOL yeah, right
I think it must be related to beer -since I don't like it and you do,
apart from that there is no difference........
william
Ned Ludd
William Hursthouse <wil...@stupaDOTORG.nz> wrote in message
>
>>> I got two (in tow days) , even tho my (real) email is posted
>>> on heaps of web pages.....how come?
>>> william
>>
>> Because you are more pure and have better karma than I.
>
> LOL yeah, right
> I think it must be related to beer -since I don't like it and
> you do, apart from that there is no difference........
> william
>
No, it's karma. But correct me if I'm wrong, all of you, as
I attempt to establish a proof of that.
At least two people here, maybe Love and that 'Satan' guy,
claimed that this virus is different than previous ones in that
it reads your Usenet cache (in addition to your address book)
to find usernames to send to.
I post a fair amount to Usenet. My friend Mary has not posted
to Usenet in over a year and has gotten NO viral spams from this
Swen/Gibe worm, and she is also on Earthlink, like me. But every
morning since last Thurs. I have between 115-135 spam viruses in
my mailbox, and I get at least 80 more during the day. (I've been
blocking them using Sandy's technique with a 100K filter - and I
will have to remember to remove that filter when this subsides -
but for now it's a vast timesaver - Many thanks, Sandy!)
One of the 'sins' of Buddhism, at least in the Zen variety of
it, is called "outflows". Outflows are bad, bad, bad, and you
(as a good Zennie) are instructed to minimize them, with the goal
of ultimately eliminating them entirely.
Now, what is a posting to Usenet? It is an 'outflow'. It's
like piss, or crap, or come, or words, or sneezes, or even that
subtle 'reaching out' that your mind does - under the influence
of desire or attachment - to all the things of the universe.
And that's where the karma comes in. My postings to Usenet
create traces in the Akashic record of everybody's Usenet cache
who reads absfg: There is my little karmic baby, my repulsive
little outflow that could not be contained. Just sitting waiting
for Swen, the scourge of God (or at least the right arm of karma)
to come along and return to me one-hundred-fold my terrible
disturbance to the universe.
So, do you buy it? Is that QED?
Ned
Love
(ned...@ix.netcom.com) wrote...
Well until you do another chart covering the time period
of the outbreak we'll never know if there's a correlation
to your outpouring, will we?
Could be just your karma for posting to alt.zen...
Sanford M. Manley
> William Hursthouse <wil...@stupaDOTORG.nz> wrote in
> I post a fair amount to Usenet. My friend Mary has not
> posted to Usenet in over a year and has gotten NO viral
> spams from this Swen/Gibe worm, and she is also on
> Earthlink, like me. But every morning since last Thurs.
> I have between 115-135 spam viruses in my mailbox, and I
> get at least 80 more during the day. (I've been blocking
> them using Sandy's technique with a 100K filter - and I
> will have to remember to remove that filter when this
> subsides - but for now it's a vast timesaver - Many
> thanks, Sandy!)
Now if anyone sends me a picture, it will be deleted, but
I don't get many pix and even fewer over 100K.
All of this is only possible because people are stupid.
They don't update their software, they do not run a
virus scanner and they do not run a firewall. This one
does NOT need you to click on the message, it runs
itself on unpatched machines.
Love
Manley (manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
Well that's not exactly true. In most email
programs you have to do more than merely receive
or click on the message. You have to actually
open the attachment itself. So add the number one
exposure to that stupidity list "they use Outlook
Express".
Ooops, sorry, I wrote that very insensitive thing
before I read your headers... ;)
Pete Watters
What's not to buy? If you don't wipe your ass correctly, it will itch.
No need to drag the Akashic record of toilet paper into it.
This doesn't explain, however, why I've gotten as many of the virus
messages to one of my non-Usenet addresses as to this one. And why my
primary personal address, which several of my Usenet acquaintances have
and use, hasn't received a single one.
Go figger.
Pete
William Hursthouse
wrote:
well, ned, I was all convinced til pete wrote this - kinda destroy's
yer theory, doesn't it? Since posting the last message, I have
received three more - in two or three days. So why don't you spoil
your usenet return email like bonfils and so many others?
william (I know, cos you can't come up with a way that's as clever as
his "remove your underpants". I love that one.)
Messer Xin
from Ned (in message <3d20nvc09lucpfp4m...@4ax.com>):
>>> I've been
>>> blocking them using Sandy's technique with a 100K filter - and I
>>> will have to remember to remove that filter when this subsides -
>>> but for now it's a vast timesaver - Many thanks, Sandy!
If you don't tell the server to delete this vermin, they may fester and build
up on the mail server until your account reaches bloat limit. Happened to me.
Couldn't get any mail until I took the limit off and let all the garbage
download, since I had long deleted the headers and had no handle by which to
send the delete command.
---Messer Xin
--
Nick Mancuso's character "Stingray" said it best when he was asked
by a stranger in need, "Why are you helping me?"
His response, "Because all we have are each other."
And that's the gospel truth. ---Bernie Cozier
Love
wrote...
Perhaps it only attacks people who spew in the temple
on the sabbath.
Ned Ludd
William Hursthouse <wil...@stupaDOTORG.nz> wrote in message
>
Ned:
> And that's where the karma comes in. My postings to Usenet
> create traces in the Akashic record of everybody's Usenet cache
> who reads absfg: There is my little karmic baby, my repulsive
> little outflow that could not be contained. Just sitting waiting
> for Swen, the scourge of God (or at least the right arm of karma)
> to come along and return to me one-hundred-fold my terrible
> disturbance to the universe.
> So, do you buy it? Is that QED?
Pete:
> What's not to buy? If you don't wipe your ass correctly, it will
> itch. No need to drag the Akashic record of toilet paper into it.
>
If you disparage the Akashic record of toilet paper, I'm sure
Stavros will have a bone to pick with you.
> This doesn't explain, however, why I've gotten as many of the virus
> messages to one of my non-Usenet addresses as to this one. And why
> my primary personal address, which several of my Usenet acquaintances
> have and use, hasn't received a single one.
> Go figger.
> Pete
William:
> well, ned, I was all convinced til pete wrote this - kinda destroy's
> yer theory, doesn't it? Since posting the last message, I have
> received three more - in two or three days. So why don't you spoil
> your usenet return email like bonfils and so many others?
> william (I know, cos you can't come up with a way that's as clever
> as his "remove your underpants". I love that one.)
>
It's still a deluge. 125 this morning on my ISP, 52 more now
when I logged on three hours later, and at work I'm up to 100 per
day of 'normal' spam (they filter out anything with a virus or
suspect attachment).
As for the 'spoiling'... It's really throwing in the towel and
conceding the field to the powers of darkness. There might be an
alternative...
I'd much rather have a delegation of the disaffected track down
the perp or perps (probably a young man in Pakistan or Pittsburgh)
and cut off his fingers and bash in the left side of his head -
enough to render him a vegetable, or unable to use his mind.
Televise it, of course, and then every six months or year, come
back to wherever he is kept (his mother's house, or an institution)
and televise a small segment nationally, showing him slumped in a
chair and drooling in his lap. Maybe make up some posters of him
in that position, and distribute them to colleges and Comp. Sci.
schools, to put on the walls for future hackers and virus-creators
to contemplate.
Now, I know you're probably going to find some fault with this.
But consider the time and expense that hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions, of people have gone to, as a result of this
deliberate sabotage. Today I got my first email, at work, from
someone who had sent something to my ISP and wondered if I had
changed my username, because he got a bounce-back on the email.
So I sent him an 8-line reply, mentioning Swen/Gibe and the
100K filter I'm using, etc. etc.
Now multiply that by a million.
So, it's a tough choice... Spoil my username, or track down the
perps and cut of their fingers and bash their heads in.
Just can't pick and choose here.
Ned
Ned Ludd
Messer Xin <x...@woc.com.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB95B973...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 4:54:10 -0400, William Hursthouse brought us this
quote
> from Ned (in message <3d20nvc09lucpfp4m...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> I've been
> >>> blocking them using Sandy's technique with a 100K filter - and I
> >>> will have to remember to remove that filter when this subsides -
> >>> but for now it's a vast timesaver - Many thanks, Sandy!
>
> If you don't tell the server to delete this vermin, they may fester
> and build up on the mail server until your account reaches bloat
> limit. Happened to me.
>
Oh absolutely. Happened to me the first day I used it. Blew the
10 meg. limit.
You MUST check the right box. (Delete from Server, not just Delete.)
Ned
William Hursthouse
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 4:54:10 -0400, William Hursthouse brought us this quote
>from Ned (in message <3d20nvc09lucpfp4m...@4ax.com>):
>
>>>> I've been
>>>> blocking them using Sandy's technique with a 100K filter - and I
>>>> will have to remember to remove that filter when this subsides -
>>>> but for now it's a vast timesaver - Many thanks, Sandy!
>
>If you don't tell the server to delete this vermin, they may fester and build
>up on the mail server until your account reaches bloat limit. Happened to me.
>Couldn't get any mail until I took the limit off and let all the garbage
>download, since I had long deleted the headers and had no handle by which to
>send the delete command.
>
> ---Messer Xin
someone here in Auckland has made a very cute little program to
encrypt the email addresses in your address book, for those mere
mortals who use MS (ak-poo) things like outlook and outlook express.
Not that there are many here :-)
if there is anyone who would like a free version, let me know, there
is a (hidden) promotional link at present, which I better not publish
william
Love
(ned...@ix.netcom.com) wrote...
>
>
> Now, I know you're probably going to find some fault with this.
>But consider the time and expense that hundreds of thousands,
>perhaps millions, of people have gone to, as a result of this
>deliberate sabotage. Today I got my first email, at work, from
>someone who had sent something to my ISP and wondered if I had
>changed my username, because he got a bounce-back on the email.
>
> So I sent him an 8-line reply, mentioning Swen/Gibe and the
>100K filter I'm using, etc. etc.
>
> Now multiply that by a million.
>
> So, it's a tough choice... Spoil my username, or track down the
>perps and cut of their fingers and bash their heads in.
>
> Just can't pick and choose here.
Oh Ned if we weren't wasting time dealing with viruses
we'd just be spending it doing our jobs. We should
thank the virus-writers for pointing out just how
utterly useless most work is. (and Bill Gates too)
Ned Ludd
Love <lo...@kwanseum.fixthis> wrote in message
news:8y3cb.16562$ZL6....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
>
Ned:
> Now, I know you're probably going to find some fault with this.
> But consider the time and expense that hundreds of thousands,
> perhaps millions, of people have gone to, as a result of this
> deliberate sabotage. Today I got my first email, at work, from
> someone who had sent something to my ISP and wondered if I had
> changed my username, because he got a bounce-back on the email.
> So I sent him an 8-line reply, mentioning Swen/Gibe and the
> 100K filter I'm using, etc. etc.
> Now multiply that by a million.
> So, it's a tough choice... Spoil my username, or track down the
> Just can't pick and choose here.
Love:
> Oh Ned if we weren't wasting time dealing with viruses
> we'd just be spending it doing our jobs. We should
> thank the virus-writers for pointing out just how
> utterly useless most work is. (and Bill Gates too)
>
Well of course. We can either cut off their fingers and bash
their heads in, or give them an honorarium in appreciation for
their help in finding the flaws, and thereby improving, the
fine products of the Microsoft Corporation, whose helm remains
in the steady hands of Mr. William Gates.
Ned
NeoLazarusx
news:xr4cb.2872$pB6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Actually I'm beginning to think that they are harvested from newsgroups and
you get one for each post you've ever sent... I figure I ought to stop
getting them sometime in the spring of 2015. Time to break the email addy
and replace it with something bogus-ey.
(and set up a new email account that is unpublished -- again)
I'm up to 437 so far... but hey -- who's counting?
-NL
NAX
cupcake
> Re: New Virus
>
> From: "NeoLazarusx" <no_ou...@bodhisattva.com>
> Reply to: [1]"NeoLazarusx"
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:40:22 -0800
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup
> References:
> [4]<bMoab.4041$9u3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
> [5]<0001HW.BB8F9BDF...@news.east.earthlink.net>
> [6]<bkfcqj$fg4$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
> [7]<Z9Lab.43587$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> [8]<thnpmvkt2u0n1ocfu...@4ax.com>
> [9]<qK5bb.46825$Aq2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> [10]<hk1tmvgscd9fvqhks...@4ax.com>
> [11]<1uEbb.52350$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> [12]<absfg-266F43....@news.west.cox.net>
> [13]<3d20nvc09lucpfp4m...@4ax.com>
> [14]<gNZbb.1>[15]news:xr4cb.2872$pB6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Love <lo...@kwanseum.fixthis> wrote in message
of spam -- yu must have enemies who are turning yer
email address over to spammers
bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
>-NL
>NAX
Pete Watters
Let's see now. What's the karmic weight of tracking down the perps and
cutting off their fingers and bashing their heads in as opposed to the
karmic weight of posting to Usenet?
And, what is the karmic weight accorded the perps of the virus?
And, what is the karmic weight of being a target for the perps' virus?
The truth is that life sucks, and when it doesn't, well, then it just
blows.
Pete
Ned Ludd
Pete Watters <ab...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:absfg-55024C....@news.west.cox.net...
>
Ned:
> Now, I know you're probably going to find some fault with this.
> But consider the time and expense that hundreds of thousands,
> perhaps millions, of people have gone to, as a result of this
> deliberate sabotage. Today I got my first email, at work, from
> someone who had sent something to my ISP and wondered if I had
> changed my username, because he got a bounce-back on the email.
> So I sent him an 8-line reply, mentioning Swen/Gibe and the
> 100K filter I'm using, etc. etc.
> Now multiply that by a million.
> So, it's a tough choice... Spoil my username, or track down the
> Just can't pick and choose here.
Pete:
> Let's see now. What's the karmic weight of tracking down the perps
> and cutting off their fingers and bashing their heads in as opposed
> to the karmic weight of posting to Usenet?
> And, what is the karmic weight accorded the perps of the virus?
> And, what is the karmic weight of being a target for the perps'
> virus?
> The truth is that life sucks, and when it doesn't, well, then it
> just blows.
>
What!? Well, you keep saying "karmic weight... karmic weight";
so, my sun-burned friend, how do we weight karma?
Is karma egalitarian? Is karma one-man-one-vote?
Is karma a Democrat? Is it (like my horoscope says of me)
"a BORN democrat"? Or did karma become a democrat over time,
after witnessing the suffering of innumerable lifetimes of
beings?
For that matter does karma have a sense of humor? Does it
appreciate irony?
OH YES, I'll bet my bottom dollar that karma appreciates irony!
Even more important, does karma know that life sucks? I always
thought Buddha was grandstanding by raising up that dharma. Who
does he think he is? Do the kids who live out their lives on
the garbage heaps outside of Delhi and Bombay think life sucks?
Ned
Pete Watters
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
LOL. Until this posting, I would have thought you'd weigh it in 100Kb
increments.
> Is karma egalitarian? Is karma one-man-one-vote?
>
> Is karma a Democrat? Is it (like my horoscope says of me)
> "a BORN democrat"? Or did karma become a democrat over time,
> after witnessing the suffering of innumerable lifetimes of
> beings?
>
> For that matter does karma have a sense of humor? Does it
> appreciate irony?
>
> OH YES, I'll bet my bottom dollar that karma appreciates irony!
Now, *that's* the Ned we've come to know and love. Victimhood doesn't
become you.
Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what we don't know
that kills us, or what we're unshakingly certain of?
> Even more important, does karma know that life sucks? I always
> thought Buddha was grandstanding by raising up that dharma. Who
> does he think he is? Do the kids who live out their lives on
> the garbage heaps outside of Delhi and Bombay think life sucks?
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. How about you?
Pete
Ned Ludd
>
Pete:
>> Let's see now. What's the karmic weight of tracking down the perps
>> and cutting off their fingers and bashing their heads in as opposed
>> to the karmic weight of posting to Usenet?
>> And, what is the karmic weight accorded the perps of the virus?
>> And, what is the karmic weight of being a target for the perps'
>> virus?
>> The truth is that life sucks, and when it doesn't, well, then it
>> just blows.
>>
> What!? Well, you keep saying "karmic weight... karmic weight";
> so, my sun-burned friend, how do we weight karma?
Pete:
> LOL. Until this posting, I would have thought you'd weigh it in
> 100Kb increments.
>
I'm sure it is weighed in the weight of photons. The smallest
possible increments. The limit of that which can be discerned.
>> Is karma egalitarian? Is karma one-man-one-vote?
>> Is karma a Democrat? Is it (like my horoscope says of me)
>> "a BORN democrat"? Or did karma become a democrat over time,
>> after witnessing the suffering of innumerable lifetimes of
>> beings?
>> For that matter does karma have a sense of humor? Does it
>> appreciate irony?
>> OH YES, I'll bet my bottom dollar that karma appreciates irony!
>
> Now, *that's* the Ned we've come to know and love. Victimhood
> doesn't become you.
>
Only because there is no room left after the pessimism, cynicism,
nihilism, iconoclasticism, and curmudgeonism.
> Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what we don't
> know that kills us, or what we're unshakingly certain of?
>
Well, off hand I'd say knowing kills us, not knowing kills us
and indifference kills us.
I'd analyze this further, but I'm sure it still ends with "it
kills us".
>> Even more important, does karma know that life sucks? I always
>> thought Buddha was grandstanding by raising up that dharma. Who
>> does he think he is? Do the kids who live out their lives on
>> the garbage heaps outside of Delhi and Bombay think life sucks?
>
> Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. How about you?
>
The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
imagination.
Ned
Pete Watters
[snippage]
> The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
> I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
> imagination.
I recently had the privilege of working with a young man who had many
fears and a lot of anger. One of his bigger fears was that life was a
cosmic joke that he wouldn't ever appreciate. I told him to start
laughing -- even if he didn't get the joke.
If our beliefs keep us from laughing at how little we know, we're as
good as dead.
Pete
Messer Xin
(in message <absfg-53DA52....@news.west.cox.net>):
> Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what we don't know that
> kills us, or what we're unshakingly certain of?
My zt lists the klesas as "greed, hatred, and certainty."
Pete Watters
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:42:30 -0400, Pete Watters wrote
> (in message <absfg-53DA52....@news.west.cox.net>):
>
> > Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what we don't know that
> > kills us, or what we're unshakingly certain of?
>
> My zt lists the klesas as "greed, hatred, and certainty."
Hmm. A zt worth listening to, I'd warrant.
Pete (good to see you back, btw...)
Love
wrote...
>
>Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what
>we don't know that kills us, or what we're unshakingly
>certain of?
Aren't these one and the same thing?
Love
Ned Ludd (ned...@ix.netcom.com) wrote...
It's a tough decision alright, especially for me.
Not only do I believe that many people would be
far poorer or jobless if not for the make-work
provided by M$ products (and the viruses that
attack them), I can benefit directly from them
myself. If I decide that I need more money all I
have to do is report that we need a massive
upgrade in order to "keep up". Likewise if I
want to loaf-off I can always claim to be dealing
with security matters. It's really tough to
decide between virtues like honesty and best
effort vs. self-interested pandering to the
market "reality".
--
"hyperreality aspires to produce a metastable
machine...a machine that...produces all the signs
of the real but shortcutting any eventuality.
There won't be any more need to produce the real"
--Jean Baudrillard
Pete Watters
> In article <absfg-53DA52....@news.west.cox.net> Pete Watters
> (ab...@cox.net)
> wrote...
> >
> >Something I've been pondering lately: Is it really what
> >we don't know that kills us, or what we're unshakingly
> >certain of?
>
> Aren't these one and the same thing?
Hmm. More pondering.
Pete
Love
(ned...@ix.netcom.com) wrote...
>> doesn't become you.
>
> Only because there is no room left after the pessimism, cynicism,
>nihilism, iconoclasticism, and curmudgeonism.
PPWAHAHAH!
(we must get you a larger headsack because there's
27 more Marks of the Ludd out there somewhere)
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
dt
dt
> Ned writes:
>
> [snippage]
>
>
>> The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
>>I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
>>imagination.
>
>
> I recently had the privilege of working with a young man who had many
> fears and a lot of anger. One of his bigger fears was that life was a
> cosmic joke that he wouldn't ever appreciate.
Well, that would piss off anybody, wouldn't it?
> I told him to start
> laughing -- even if he didn't get the joke.
>
> If our beliefs keep us from laughing at how little we know, we're as
> good as dead.
There's a small subset of people (including me) who have pretty much
staked our sanity on following Rule 62. (12&12, 4th Trad.) Every time
I violate it, I get nuts.
DT
Pete Watters
Oh, count me in fer sure. And if I ever tell anybody I've got it all
figgered out, please, please whack me up alongside my head with a large
plank. It'll do me and whomever I'm talking to a great favor. That said,
I'll risk the side of my head by offering another rule to live by
(non-approved, but it's kept me on an even keel for a long time): If
you're not enjoying life, you're probably not doing it right.
Pete
NeoLazarusx
well, it's yahoo's problem now... so I couldn't care less.
-NL
NAX
Kirsten Bayes
>
> The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
> I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
> imagination.
>
> Ned
I have seen this for myself. They are there alright. They wear both rubbish
bags and fly them as kites.
Best wishes
Kirsten
Ned Ludd
Kirsten Bayes <KirstenB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3f76b1ae$0$259$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
Pete:
>> The truth is that life sucks, and when it doesn't, well, then it
>> just blows.
Ned:
>> Even more important, does karma know that life sucks? I always
>> thought Buddha was grandstanding by raising up that dharma. Who
>> does he think he is? Do the kids who live out their lives on
>> the garbage heaps outside of Delhi and Bombay think life sucks?
>
Pete:
>> Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. How about you?
>
Ned:
> The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
> I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
> imagination.
Kirsten:
> I have seen this for myself. They are there alright. They wear
> both rubbish bags and fly them as kites.
>
And I bet they haven't heard of Buddha.
Ned
Lazarhat
Heard of him? They are him already.
--
to email me, remove the 'burnt_crusty_bits' from the email addy
Messer Xin
(in message <tLJdb.36373$ai7....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
> Ned:
> And I bet they haven't heard of Buddha.
Xin:
So, would taking one, or a dozen, and feeding, clothing, and educating them
at one's own expense, and then exposing them to the Dharma, be true
compassion, or just meddling?
Lazarhat
Yes.
Actually here's a better answer: try it sometime and find out for
yourself...
Ned Ludd
> I have seen this for myself. They are there alright. They wear
> both rubbish bags and fly them as kites.
Ned:
> And I bet they haven't heard of Buddha.
Xin:
> So, would taking one, or a dozen, and feeding, clothing, and
> educating them at one's own expense, and then exposing them
> to the Dharma, be true compassion, or just meddling?
>
Oh it's definitely meddling. Even interfering with the baby
and the broken glass is meddling. But if you did it right, you
followed your gut, and you can at least blame it on your gut.
Maybe if the baby had played with the broken glass it would have
gone to the hospital, but instead it was still sitting by the
sidewalk and got eaten by the neighbor's pit bull. Or maybe the
glass would have killed the baby, but the baby would have grown
up to be another Hitler.
If you can't help yourself from helping the kids on the garbage
dump, then help them. Otherwise, I'm very suspicious of your
motives. I agree with another poster, that it's best to just do
it and see what happens. (Ferchrissakes, Xin, have you never
had your good deeds blow up in your face??)
Ned
Messer Xin
(in message <gUWdb.33436$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
> Ferchrissakes, Xin, have you never had your good deeds blow up in your face??
Thus my question.
Learning to avoid that is life-long. I seem to be getting better at it. But
essentially, it's still what Rasa Gustaitis (or was it Dom Aelred Graham?)
quoted Gary Snyder as saying, "Let the shit fly!"
I think a big underappreciated facet of Buddhism is the act of will to take
responsibility for the consequences, foreseen or not, for one's choices.
---Messer Xin
--
"yet, another attempt at feigning inscrutable oriental
wisdom -- better get back ta stringing yer beads,
yu tired 0ld burned out Old hippie" ----Cupcake
Lazarhat
compassion arises of its own accord and thus we act accordingly,
consequences be damned.
Messer Xin
(in message <vngnetj...@corp.supernews.com>):
No, you'll be damned if you ignore the consideration of consequences.
Unmindful compassion can breed terrible effects. Take, for one example, the
spoiled brat.
---Messer Xin
Lazarhat
thus 'we act accordingly'... that doesn't mean we act without contemplating
the results of any action... it also includes within it that 'no action' is
also a possibility when one contemplates the possible results of any
action -- that's what is meant by 'act accordingly'.
Lazarhat
news:vngrhb7...@corp.supernews.com...
I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and disheveled homeless
person begging for money for food and because you can obviously smell
alcohol, it is most likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol than
on the food they truly need... which is the more compassionate act -- giving
them money or not giving them money?
At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
Perhaps the most compassionate act would be to give them food.
Pete Watters
[snippage]
> I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and disheveled homeless
> person begging for money for food and because you can obviously smell
> alcohol, it is most likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol than
> on the food they truly need... which is the more compassionate act -- giving
> them money or not giving them money?
>
> At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
Ah, spoken like a person who hasn't been homeless and in need of booze.
> Perhaps the most compassionate act would be to give them food.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Pete (who gives what he can when he can because he may want...)
Lazarhat
> Lazarhat writes:
>
> [snippage]
>
> > I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and disheveled
homeless
> > person begging for money for food and because you can obviously smell
> > alcohol, it is most likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol
than
> > on the food they truly need... which is the more compassionate act --
giving
> > them money or not giving them money?
> >
> > At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
>
> Ah, spoken like a person who hasn't been homeless and in need of booze.
not hardcore homeless -- always been gainfully employed with no history of
mental illness... and I don't really like the taste of beer or alcohol.
>
> > Perhaps the most compassionate act would be to give them food.
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Understood. What is the most expedient means to help ease or end their
suffering? Damn! Perhaps giving them the money for the booze... ah this is
soooo complicated when one stops to THINK about it instead of just acting
out of insight or instinct.
>
> Pete (who gives what he can when he can because he may want...)
whatever the case, the action is without thought of any merit.
Lazarhat
Love
(x...@woc.com.org) wrote...
>
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:29:19 -0400, Lazarhat wrote
>(in message <vngnetj...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
>> "Messer Xin" <x...@woc.com.org> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.BB9DC833...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 9:58:36 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote
>>> (in message <gUWdb.33436$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
>>>
>>>> Ferchrissakes, Xin, have you never had your good deeds blow up in your
>> face??
>>>
>>> Thus my question.
>>>
>>> Learning to avoid that is life-long. I seem to be getting better at it.
>> But
>>> essentially, it's still what Rasa Gustaitis (or was it Dom Aelred Graham?)
>>> quoted Gary Snyder as saying, "Let the shit fly!"
>>>
>>> I think a big underappreciated facet of Buddhism is the act of will to
>> take
>>> responsibility for the consequences, foreseen or not, for one's choices.
>>>
>>
>> consequences be damned.
>
>No, you'll be damned if you ignore the consideration of consequences.
>Unmindful compassion can breed terrible effects. Take, for one example, the
>spoiled brat.
Consideration of consequences is part of "acting accordingly".
"Consequences be damned" therefore must mean "unforeseeable
consequences be damned."
Love
(x...@woc.com.org) wrote...
>
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 9:58:36 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote
>(in message <gUWdb.33436$pP6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
>
>> Ferchrissakes, Xin, have you never had your good deeds blow up in your face??
>
>Thus my question.
>
>Learning to avoid that is life-long. I seem to be getting better at it. But
>essentially, it's still what Rasa Gustaitis (or was it Dom Aelred Graham?)
>quoted Gary Snyder as saying, "Let the shit fly!"
>
>I think a big underappreciated facet of Buddhism is the act of will to take
>responsibility for the consequences, foreseen or not, for one's choices.
Hmm, "act of will to take responsibility"? Still
sounds too contrived to me. As long as there is
a trace of guilt in one's thoughts one is dancing
with delusion, IMO. Guilt is a salve we use to
prevent ourselves from feeling the full depth of
our actions. We make guilty selves to hate and
punish with it so that we can separate ourselves
from our actions.
Lazarhat
'zackly, Daryl. Thank You.
Love
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>
>"Pete Watters" <ab...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:absfg-22831B....@news.west.cox.net...
>> Lazarhat writes:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>> > I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and disheveled
>homeless
>> > person begging for money for food and because you can obviously smell
>> > alcohol, it is most likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol
>than
>> > on the food they truly need... which is the more compassionate act --
>giving
>> > them money or not giving them money?
>> >
>> > At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
>>
>> Ah, spoken like a person who hasn't been homeless and in need of booze.
>
>not hardcore homeless -- always been gainfully employed with no history of
>mental illness... and I don't really like the taste of beer or alcohol.
>
>>
>> > Perhaps the most compassionate act would be to give them food.
>>
>> Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
>
>Understood. What is the most expedient means to help ease or end their
>suffering? Damn! Perhaps giving them the money for the booze... ah this is
>soooo complicated when one stops to THINK about it instead of just acting
>out of insight or instinct.
My reasoning often goes "I can't tell which is the
greater or lesser harm to them, but in one case I
keep my money and in the other I don't."
Sanford Manley
<lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com> commented:
> I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and
> disheveled homeless person begging for money for food and
> because you can obviously smell alcohol, it is most
> likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol than
> on the food they truly need... which is the more
> compassionate act -- giving them money or not giving them
> money?
>
> At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
>
> Perhaps the most compassionate act would be to give them
> food.
I have done this. I came back and brought some Lunchables
brand snacks to some guys begging at the gas station.
I gave when asked and I made sure they did not just get booze.
Works for me.
--
Sanford M. Manley - Now With 30 Percent More Humor!!
http://www.tfn.net/~smanley/index.html
Sanford Manley
> Lazarhat writes:
>
> [snippage]
>
>> I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and
>> disheveled homeless person begging for money for food
>> and because you can obviously smell alcohol, it is most
>> likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol than
>> on the food they truly need... which is the more
>> compassionate act -- giving them money or not giving
>> them money?
>>
>> At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
>
> Ah, spoken like a person who hasn't been homeless and in
> need of booze.
If you would die from lack of booze, then you need a
hospital stay and detox, not booze.
Having said that, when I was nursing my tobacco
addiction, I never refused anyone a cigarette when
asked, unless underage.
Over 180 days now and still no smokes.
Lazarhat
so then it becomes an issue of YOUR suffering... how would this come in to
play when considering how best to approach lessening someone else's
suffering? I mean the obvious answer would be that you're not going to take
an action that would increase your suffering by giving away all your money
and then ending up in the same situation as the one you initially were
'trying to help'... so where's the happy medium wherein neither you nor they
have any increase of suffering? Does one take the Tang position and just
ignore the other person completely (by using the reasoning that to do
anything whether perceived as good or not will add to the suffering of both
parties)?
Damnit! This is a lot easier when you don't try to reason it out and just
act without worrying about any personal considerations.
Lazarhat
news:2P2eb.4367$md5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Good for you!
My answer was much the same, I wouldn't refuse unless they were underage,
but with a twist: you had to roll it yourself... "I'm not cigarette making
machine buddy... sure I can roll my own and get my own spit on them, but if
you want one, you'll be needing to learn to roll right now..." -- then I'd
proceed to demonstrate... then I'd smoke the one I just finished rolling and
hold out the pouch for them to try. I'd say only about 50% of the people
attempted it, and only about 10% of those could actually roll one that was
smokeable!"
Pete Watters
A little explanation?
I'm not omniscient, but I do know when I can spare some cash and when I
can't. And I have known drunks who need help finding their bottom --
that's for them, not for me to determine -- if they want to spend the
money on booze, well, who am I to judge?
One of my larger character defects is thinking I know what's better for
the world at large than the world at large does. Such presumption is a
failing, even when one's motives are unimpeachable.
A not-so-pleasant fer'instance: I may not give a man a dollar, thinking
he'll spend it on booze. When he finally can stand his pain no longer,
he takes whatever change he has and finds he has just enough to buy a
bottle of generic hairspray, which he drinks (yeppers; I can vouch for
this possibility firsthand). Now, which do you think is better for his
health: a $3.59 bottle of vodka or a $2.39 bottle of hairspray?
Compassion arises from the middle way. I'll let the world at large let
me know after the fact if my action was "right" or "wrong." Far worse
not to act at all.
Pete
Beth
> (Ferchrissakes, Xin, have you never
> had your good deeds blow up in your face??)
>
"Virtue is its own punishment." anon.
--
Beth
(remove the, uh, "knot" to send me e-mail !-)
Lazarhat
news:Mn4eb.639401$uu5.101693@sccrnsc04...
"No good deed goes unpunished..." - unknown
Sanford Manley
commented:
>
> "No good deed goes unpunished..." - unknown
"Time wounds all heals."
Lazarhat
'Every good boy deserves fudge...' - unknown
Love
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
Yep. It's a tough one. At least some things are nearly
certain though. For one, Tong is full of shit. For
another, no two situations are ever exactly identical.
For a third, any situation has many hiddens, some far
more than others. I do what we can within my own limits
of self-interest. I avoid judgement of myself or the
recipients of my attention or inattention. I think
that's the best thing you can do. Remain unclouded.
dt
> The Honorable Pete Watters <ab...@cox.net> commented:
>
>>Lazarhat writes:
>>
>>[snippage]
>>
>>
>>>I also meant to give an example: consider a dirty and
>>>disheveled homeless person begging for money for food
>>>and because you can obviously smell alcohol, it is most
>>>likely that they will just spend it on more alcohol than
>>>on the food they truly need... which is the more
>>>compassionate act -- giving them money or not giving
>>>them money?
>>>
>>>At this moment, I would have to say 'NOT'.
>>
>>Ah, spoken like a person who hasn't been homeless and in
>>need of booze.
>
>
> If you would die from lack of booze, then you need a
> hospital stay and detox, not booze.
"Your debutante just knows what you need, but I know what you want." If
you're not gonna take 'em to detox, they *may* need that drink. Or they
may just want it. Hard to tell, sometimes. (And if you're plannin' on
takin' 'em to detox, *you* may need handcuffs and a stungun.)
> Having said that, when I was nursing my tobacco
> addiction, I never refused anyone a cigarette when
> asked, unless underage.
>
> Over 180 days now and still no smokes.
Congratulations, sir! We're proud of ya!
DT
dt
> The Honorable Lazarhat
> commented:
>
>>"No good deed goes unpunished..." - unknown
>
>
> "Time wounds all heals."
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
Love
wrote...
It's for you to determine whether you help them do
it. Are you bottomless and without self-interest?
We will send you all the drunks that need such help
if you are, then we will crucify you.
Note, there's no way you can tell if the alcoholic
beggar is "finding his bottom" or just perpetuating
a lifelong habit, in the 5 second encounter on the
street corner. I have known more than one of each
type too. So you only choose to toss a coin, not to
"help", when you give money to one of them.
Mathematically you lose because in the absence of
any way to know, the odds of you helping equal the
odds of you hurting, but you lose your change each
time.
Knowing this you must be aware that you are giving
your money to them only to feed your own habit. I
am quite aware of that when I do (rarely) give
change to one of them. I think "what the heck I'd
rather die numbed to unfeeling than shivering under
a bridge."
To do something really useful rather than just
indulge your habits, you might give to the local
shelter or the Sally Anne. I have witnessed enough
there to think their odds of helping are better
than mine.
> -- if they want to spend the
>money on booze, well, who am I to judge?
You're the guy with the change. You judge (or assess)
no matter which choice you make. The only question is
"what basis are you making your assessments on?"
>One of my larger character defects is thinking I know what's better for
>the world at large than the world at large does. Such presumption is a
>failing, even when one's motives are unimpeachable.
Motives shmotives. Who cares if they are impeachable
or not? Ya can't run everything through the "will
others think my motives were good" filter. Well, sure,
ya could...
Even thinking "the world at large knows what's good for
it better than I do" is making a decision about what's
better for the world at large. Ya just play your part
and be done with it, and that includes imposing your
will upon the rest of the world just as every bit of
the world imposes its will upon you. Try to do it
with wisdom. Try to cultivate wisdom and compassion.
>A not-so-pleasant fer'instance: I may not give a man a dollar, thinking
>he'll spend it on booze. When he finally can stand his pain no longer,
>he takes whatever change he has and finds he has just enough to buy a
>bottle of generic hairspray, which he drinks (yeppers; I can vouch for
>this possibility firsthand). Now, which do you think is better for his
>health: a $3.59 bottle of vodka or a $2.39 bottle of hairspray?
Well, your change may also just make the difference between
a muffin and a coffee, and a bottle of hairspray. There's
no saying you make a positive difference on that account
unless you give at least enough to buy the cheapest bottle
of real booze each time you give, and then you must be
aware that you are definitely enabling the destructive
habit.
>Compassion arises from the middle way. I'll let the world at large let
>me know after the fact if my action was "right" or "wrong." Far worse
>not to act at all.
With all respect, that sounds like rationalizing away
responsibility with good intentions.
Pete Watters
[snippage]
> To do something really useful rather than just
> indulge your habits, you might give to the local
> shelter or the Sally Anne. I have witnessed enough
> there to think their odds of helping are better
> than mine.
Come to Phoenix, my friend, and I'll show you firsthand what I do that's
useful. Maybe even introduce you to some former hairspray-drinking
friends of mine. Then you can judge me all you want.
It's one thing to talk detox; it's another to walk the walk. :-)
Pete
fredrock
Choke 'em if they can't take a fuck.
fredrock
news:tLJdb.36373$ai7....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Kirsten Bayes <KirstenB...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3f76b1ae$0$259$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> Pete:
> >> The truth is that life sucks, and when it doesn't, well, then it
> >> just blows.
>
> Ned:
> >> Even more important, does karma know that life sucks? I always
> >> thought Buddha was grandstanding by raising up that dharma. Who
> >> does he think he is? Do the kids who live out their lives on
> >> the garbage heaps outside of Delhi and Bombay think life sucks?
> >
> Pete:
> >> Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. How about you?
> >
> Ned:
> > The kids on the garbage heap redeem my life from suckitude.
> > I would be terribly disappointed if they were a figment of my
> > imagination.
>
> Kirsten:
> > I have seen this for myself. They are there alright. They wear
> > both rubbish bags and fly them as kites.
> >
>
> And I bet they haven't heard of Buddha.
>
> Ned
Given the choice of buddha-nature or a biscuit,
is there any doubt which one a dog would choose?
--Scot Carpenter (from the absfg faq)
also, just for good measure:
I imagine that someone who is enlightened is more like a lighthouse in
the distance, rather than a net cast about you.
--John Morton (absfg faq)
Fred
Ned Ludd
fredrock <fke...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:ZKieb.164807$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>Kirsten:
>> I have seen this for myself. They are there alright. They wear
>> both rubbish bags and fly them as kites.
>
>> And I bet they haven't heard of Buddha.
Fredrock:
> Given the choice of buddha-nature or a biscuit,
> is there any doubt which one a dog would choose?
> --Scot Carpenter (from the absfg faq)
>
> also, just for good measure:
> I imagine that someone who is enlightened is more like a
> lighthouse in the distance, rather than a net cast about you.
> --John Morton (absfg faq)
>
That's the best argument I've seen yet for redesigning the FAQ.
Ned
Sanford Manley
>>
> Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke...
> Choke 'em if they can't take a fuck.
That last one could get you in big trouble.
No means no! (Even if you have been
thrusting for the last five minutes according
to the most stringent types) Sex can and
should be terminated upon request any time
during the process without hesitation.
My response would be to comply and
sometime in the near future get said person
in the car and decide about five miles
from the nearest habitation that I am
terminating transportation at my discretion.
Love
(ab...@cox.net) wrote...
>
>Love apoplexes:
heh heh
>[snippage]
>
>> To do something really useful rather than just
>> indulge your habits, you might give to the local
>> shelter or the Sally Anne. I have witnessed enough
>> there to think their odds of helping are better
>> than mine.
>
>Come to Phoenix, my friend, and I'll show you firsthand what I do that's
>useful. Maybe even introduce you to some former hairspray-drinking
>friends of mine. Then you can judge me all you want.
Judge smudge.
You are taking this outside the context of the street
beggar and the decision of whether to give up 50 cents
on the spot. I have been speaking strictly in that
context. You don't need to prove your compassion or
wisdom to me. I never had any doubt of either. I was
using "you" in the sense of "one". My mistake.
(actually I blame dar and my writer's handbook for
calling the use of "one" "more formal")
>It's one thing to talk detox; it's another to walk the walk. :-)
The same applies to any addiction.
I'm glad that there are people around who can
actually help those that need it. I don't count
people like me handing someone with an alcohol
problem 50 cents or a dollar on the street-corner
among them.
Now, if you can convince me that doing that would
actually not be a 50/50 toin-coss but an overall
benefit, I will reconsider that.
Love
(manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
>
>The Honorable fredrock <fke...@NOSPAMatt.net> commented:
>>>
>> Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke...
>> Choke 'em if they can't take a fuck.
>
>That last one could get you in big trouble.
>
>No means no! (Even if you have been
>thrusting for the last five minutes according
>to the most stringent types) Sex can and
>should be terminated upon request any time
>during the process without hesitation.
>
>My response would be to comply and
>sometime in the near future get said person
>in the car and decide about five miles
>from the nearest habitation that I am
>terminating transportation at my discretion.
...and let them out of the trunk.
Pete Watters
> In article <absfg-63838B....@news.west.cox.net> Pete Watters
> (ab...@cox.net) wrote...
> >
> >Love apoplexes:
>
> heh heh
>
>
> >[snippage]
> >
> >> To do something really useful rather than just
> >> indulge your habits, you might give to the local
> >> shelter or the Sally Anne. I have witnessed enough
> >> there to think their odds of helping are better
> >> than mine.
> >
> >Come to Phoenix, my friend, and I'll show you firsthand what I do that's
> >useful. Maybe even introduce you to some former hairspray-drinking
> >friends of mine. Then you can judge me all you want.
>
> Judge smudge.
Heh.
> You are taking this outside the context of the street
> beggar and the decision of whether to give up 50 cents
> on the spot. I have been speaking strictly in that
> context. You don't need to prove your compassion or
> wisdom to me. I never had any doubt of either. I was
> using "you" in the sense of "one". My mistake.
> (actually I blame dar and my writer's handbook for
> calling the use of "one" "more formal")
>
>
> >It's one thing to talk detox; it's another to walk the walk. :-)
>
> The same applies to any addiction.
>
> I'm glad that there are people around who can
> actually help those that need it. I don't count
> people like me handing someone with an alcohol
> problem 50 cents or a dollar on the street-corner
> among them.
>
> Now, if you can convince me that doing that would
> actually not be a 50/50 toin-coss but an overall
> benefit, I will reconsider that.
All I'm saying is:
1) You can't be sure they have an alcohol problem (appearances can be
deceiving, after all).
B) Sometimes, their getting a little alcohol is better than their not
getting a little alcohol.
and
4) Although you've probably never experienced it, it's absolutely
priceless when you carry a meeting into a detox center and one of the
admittees recognizes you as the guy who gave 'em a buck a few weeks back
no matter what they did with it. (They'll actually listen to you.)
Want to learn about compassion? Let your beard go for a day or so, put
on your weekend "kick around" clothes, and wander into any large U.S.
downtown. Stop strangers on the sidewalk and tell 'em you need change
for the bus. You'll treat everyone differently after that -- I guarantee
it.
Pete
Pete Watters
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Pete
Sanford Manley
> day or so, put on your weekend "kick around" clothes, and
> wander into any large U.S. downtown. Stop strangers on
> the sidewalk and tell 'em you need change for the bus.
> You'll treat everyone differently after that -- I
> guarantee it.
What are your conclusions? That he will be mistreated?
Let me ask you this, why did you first require that he make
himself look unkempt in some way.
It would be interesting to take the same person and
have him ask the same way, but each time have him dress
in a different style.
In any event, look deeply into this. Might it be that people
are afraid of some of the people asking for money? Could
it be that they have had a bad experience? Perhaps they are
concerned that this person might somehow be violent.
It may be based upon fear and mindless speculation, but
people make decisions based on these sort of things.
Pete Watters
I don't know. My experience involved looking slightly disheveled, which
for me is damned easy.
Those interested in such experiments should Google "street retreats."
The name Bernie Glassman should come up occasionally. :-)
Pete (who is definitely not Bernie...)
Love
(ab...@cox.net) preaches...
Agreed. Nonetheless I'd wager my estimates are accurate at
least 90% of the time. Most of the beggars I encounter are
from the neighbourhood in which I work, so I have seen them
in various states, heard their conversations, and seen their
interactions with others. I have also known enough drunks,
my father being one of them. The beggars I DO give money to
are generally folks who apparently have different problems.
I even give to "squeegees" from time to time although theirs
is an activity I don't really want to encourage.
>B) Sometimes, their getting a little alcohol is better than
>their not getting a little alcohol.
Yes, true, and I am aware of that. Doesn't change the math
of the street encounter. You do seem to be projecting some
kind of moral judgement into my math, and attempting to
disabuse me of that delusion. I truly appreciate the
effort Pete, although it's misplaced.
One of my closer buddies had a vicious alcohol problem
when he was younger. His SO enlisted the help of his
non-enabling friends to first convince him that he needed
to deal with it, and then support him with friendships
that were not part of the same old patterns. No problem
for me; all I had to change was to let him know how I
actually felt about him (unmanly as that is) and drink
with him or not as usual. (that was back when I still
drank) Once my cards were on the table he knew that I
wouldn't judge him for drinking but at the same time
wasn't expecting our relationship to be defined by
wild binges -- a contrast to his enabling buddies. I
watched him try AA, which was of limited usefulness, and
was supportive of his conclusion that total abstinence
was giving the booze as much power over him as total
indulgence was. Basically, he learned to choose when
to drink a little, when to drink a lot, and when not to
drink at all. I think he benefitted from my trust (and
that of others) in that process. I think that trust
acted as a positive expectation to live up to in his
case, whereas for some others it might be nothing more
than permission or low expectations; a signal that no
one else cared so why should they?
There's lots more to that story but I guess the point
of it is that no two are exactly alike, and what
"worked" in that particular case hinged on some pretty
deep intimacy, intimacy that I cannot have (and yes,
choose not to have) with the alcoholic street beggars
I encounter.
>and
>4) Although you've probably never experienced it, it's absolutely
>priceless when you carry a meeting into a detox center and one of the
>admittees recognizes you as the guy who gave 'em a buck a few weeks back
>no matter what they did with it. (They'll actually listen to you.)
Yes, I have never experienced that exact scenario.
Alas I have been limited to such things as giving
junkies a place to sleep in my home and letting them
shoot up in my living room, and befriending speed
addicted strippers without allowing thanks in the
form of sexual favours or even viewing befriending
them as an act of charity. I have led a sheltered
suburban life in comparison to you, clearly.
>Want to learn about compassion? Let your beard go for a day or so, put
>on your weekend "kick around" clothes, and wander into any large U.S.
>downtown. Stop strangers on the sidewalk and tell 'em you need change
>for the bus. You'll treat everyone differently after that -- I guarantee
>it.
I'm sure you're using "you" just to be less formal.
Love
(ab...@cox.net) wrote...
I'll see that "BWAHAHAHAHA" and raise you a "MWAHAHAHAHA that's
the best reason I can think of for carving the FAQ on the side
of a Wisconsin cliff."
Pete Watters
Oh, yes! The Ned Cliff Record! MWAHAHAHAHA!
Pete
Love
wrote...
>
>Sanford writes:
>
>> The Honorable Pete Watters <ab...@cox.net> commented:
>> >
>> > Want to learn about compassion? Let your beard go for a
>> > day or so, put on your weekend "kick around" clothes, and
>> > wander into any large U.S. downtown. Stop strangers on
>> > the sidewalk and tell 'em you need change for the bus.
>> > You'll treat everyone differently after that -- I
>> > guarantee it.
>>
>> What are your conclusions? That he will be mistreated?
>> Let me ask you this, why did you first require that he make
>> himself look unkempt in some way.
>>
>> It would be interesting to take the same person and
>> have him ask the same way, but each time have him dress
>> in a different style.
>>
>> In any event, look deeply into this. Might it be that people
>> are afraid of some of the people asking for money? Could
>> it be that they have had a bad experience? Perhaps they are
>> concerned that this person might somehow be violent.
>> It may be based upon fear and mindless speculation, but
>> people make decisions based on these sort of things.
>
>I don't know. My experience involved looking slightly disheveled, which
>for me is damned easy.
I did something like that on my first solo trip to NYC,
not for the "street experience" but just for the
protection. At my size looking "rough" is pretty much
the same as looking like a threat. It was damned hard
to even ask people for directions. They'd cross the
street if they saw me heading for them. I can only
imagine how bad it would have been if I'd tried to ask
for money.
Hmm, come to think of it I'd have probably gotten a
LOT of money....
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path for beggars.
Love
Manley (manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
Some of the local drunks in my neighbourhood lie around
on the sidewalks shirtless then stumble up to
aggressively block the paths of women trying to cross
the street while they demand money. I'm sure that both
justified fear and unavoidable disgust are factors in
decisions to not give, and to suppress empathy. I
don't think walking a mile in another's shoes would
change that for any victims or witnesses to such
behaviours.
The intersection most populated with beggars has an
outdoor banking machine at one of the corners. Some
beggars have taken to all but blocking the machine,
in groups of two or three, then asking money of
people who use the machine (as if it machine gave
forth anything smaller than 20's).
One day while politely standing against the wall of
the building waiting for my turn at the machine a
small unwell-looking (but decently kempt) woman was
having a great deal of difficulty using it. Her
problem was mental. She couldn't remember sequence
and kept returning to her wallet with an uncertain
hand then back to the machine, coaching herself
verbally. Some other people came into line beside
me. All left before she was finished, it took her
so long to get it together.
Her hand was unsteady and her wallet in an ideal
position for a snatch and run. I determined to
stay there as nonchalantly as possible (in order to
not pressure her) as long as she was there. My
boss (at the time) came by at one point. We talked
shop for about 10 minutes and I quietly let him
know that I was there for the duration. I was
grateful that he was a Christian and that I would
not be counted as AWOL for it. Just as the woman
had gotten it together a rough-looking guy I
didn't recognize appeared from a begging spot
around the corner and called the woman by name,
asking if she was okay. She obviously recognized
him as a friend. I felt comfortable then about
using the machine rather than discretely
following her for a block or two to make sure no
aggressors took advantage of her helplessness
after witnessing her transaction.
That intersection is full of lively situations.
I had to rescue a blind guy from the middle of
traffic there once not long after that. That was
pretty exciting. No one else even clued in to
what his problem was because he was yelling like
just another crazy guy and his cane was a very
unlikely design that looked more like some crazy
guy weapon being waved about than a blind-aid.
Once others figured out what was going on from
watching and hearing me, they assisted. People
are still generally compassionate, even in the
midst of so many abuses of it.
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Love
(rokt...@hotmail.com) wrote...
>get right fuckin to it
well i'm more of an idea man. i'll leave the
menial labour^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H really
fun part to you.
--
May Shai-Hulud paint Tom Sawyer's fence.
Pete Watters
Ooooooh! Do I smell BUBCO Street Retreats ?
Pete
Sanford Manley
>
> Yes, I have never experienced that exact scenario.
> Alas I have been limited to such things as giving
> junkies a place to sleep in my home and letting them
> shoot up in my living room, and befriending speed
> addicted strippers without allowing thanks in the
> form of sexual favours or even viewing befriending
> them as an act of charity. I have led a sheltered
> suburban life in comparison to you, clearly.
You live life on the edge. I am sure that you know you
can get ripped off so bad letting people into your home.
I put up a coworker once for a couple of weeks because
I thought it was awful he was living in his car (and I live
in a single room cottage).
The first rule of security is concealment. People cannot steal
what they never see.
Sanford Manley
> I did something like that on my first solo trip to NYC,
> not for the "street experience" but just for the
> protection. At my size looking "rough" is pretty much
> the same as looking like a threat. It was damned hard
> to even ask people for directions. They'd cross the
> street if they saw me heading for them. I can only
> imagine how bad it would have been if I'd tried to ask
> for money.
>
> Hmm, come to think of it I'd have probably gotten a
> LOT of money....
Good thing they didn't see your gurn!!
You might have been shot on sight!
Love
(manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
>
>The Honorable Love <lo...@kwanseum.fixthis> commented:
>>
>> Yes, I have never experienced that exact scenario.
>> Alas I have been limited to such things as giving
>> junkies a place to sleep in my home and letting them
>> shoot up in my living room, and befriending speed
>> addicted strippers without allowing thanks in the
>> form of sexual favours or even viewing befriending
>> them as an act of charity. I have led a sheltered
>> suburban life in comparison to you, clearly.
>
>You live life on the edge. I am sure that you know you
>can get ripped off so bad letting people into your home.
>I put up a coworker once for a couple of weeks because
>I thought it was awful he was living in his car (and I live
>in a single room cottage).
>
>The first rule of security is concealment. People cannot steal
>what they never see.
Oh yeah. That was at a time that I followed the second
rule of concealment: have nothing worth stealing. And
the third rule: be plausibly so on the edge people will
be afraid to steal from you if they don't know you. :)
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Love
Manley (manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
>
>The Honorable Love <lo...@kwanseum.fixthis> commented:
>
>> I did something like that on my first solo trip to NYC,
>> not for the "street experience" but just for the
>> protection. At my size looking "rough" is pretty much
>> the same as looking like a threat. It was damned hard
>> to even ask people for directions. They'd cross the
>> street if they saw me heading for them. I can only
>> imagine how bad it would have been if I'd tried to ask
>> for money.
>>
>> Hmm, come to think of it I'd have probably gotten a
>> LOT of money....
>
>Good thing they didn't see your gurn!!
>
>You might have been shot on sight!
Quick, kill it before it multiplies! :)
Love
Watters (ab...@cox.net) wrote...
"Don't come back until you've made at least $50 dollars
selling incense while dressed only in bedsheets."
Love
(rokt...@hotmail.com) wrote...
Nah I'd have given them their cut.
--
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.