Cleve Blakemore's (Grimoire Creator) Views on Women
Steve Page
Hmmmmm. Interesting...............
Not once did anyone consider asking what a women might think.
Are you all such experts on the femal gender?
I have a faint suspicion that when it comes to the opposite sex most of
you haven't a clue.
Natasha Sands.
Carlos DaSilva wrote:
> Cleve has not shown much more aptitude that a comatose hippo and as such can
> not be relied on for uttering anything more complex than "uh, me be Derek
> Smart one day"
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see Derek posting in the future as Derek
> Blakemore. Together they might actually make half a game!
>
> CJD
David Thompson
Right now these newsgroups are seeing a resurgence of Cleve
Blakemore's words of wisdom with regards to the human experience. I
thought I'd fill people in some of his more...outlandish perspectives
on the female sex, especially since some women might be interested in
purchasing a copy of his game.
<-------------Article Excerpt Follows---------->
Subject: Re: Wizardry VIII Ad, Where?
From: cl...@ans.com.au
Date: 1997/09/13
Message-Id: <8741924...@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
In article <5vcjrh$362$1...@news.fm.intel.com>,
> BTW, why is it only the rare male who can see what is wrong with the world?
> Can't women be lone voices in the wilderness too? What about some of the
> famous fighters for women's suffrage? Didn't they recognize something wrong
> with the world despite the opinion of the "masses"?
Sorry, but there is now overwhelming and reproducible physiological
evidence that testosterone is directly responsible for almost every
noble, ambitious, self-sacrificing, creative, honest, sexy, truthful,
kind and tolerant impulse that human beings have. If a woman displays
these traits to a degree some men do, you can bet she must have a deep
voice and hair on her lip like Ayn Rand, because estrogen compels
people
to conform, reside in strict hierarchies without complaining, submit
to authority figures and believe group standards are superior to one's
own as well as to be content with whatever situation one is in.
Testosterone compels a person to cut new trails, assert oneself and to
create beautiful and singular things and if necessary to be a
destroyer of old value systems. Estrogen compels one to make like a
fly in a beam of sunlight and think happy and uninspired thoughts.
This is the reason men tend to be achievers and excel in science,
philosophy and business ... not "the evil male patriarchy" as the
misguided feminist asserts. If you set a group of boys and girls loose
in a room with computers, the boys don't attack the machines like they
are invading Poland because of "social conditioning."
You have to figure people like Ayn Rand and Nietszche must have
practically had pure testosterone in their bloodstream congealed as
thick as butter.
Read the FBI reports on the early fighters for woman's suffrage.
Notice
how almost all of them had the same traits - deep voices and hair on
their lips? To such a noticeable degree that FBI agents felt compelled
to put it into their reports consistently? Think this is coincidental?
Ever meet a highly sexed woman that did not tend to disparage all
thinking in favor of conformity?
This is also why androgenous women tend to be more interesting, kind,
thoughtful and better lovers. There is also a lot of evidence that
androgenous people in general tend to be physically more robust and
hardier, likely because they have a good even blend of hormones in
their system among other things.
<-------Article Excerpt ends------->
Thanks for that insightful commentary, Cleve. Tell me, what's your
view on human mating rituals and your own place in the hierarchy?
<-------Article Excerpt Follows------->
Subject: Re: Wizardry VIII Ad, Where?
From: cl...@ans.com.au
Date: 1997/09/11
Message-Id: <8740293...@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
[More Headers]
In article <34184E...@ccnet.com.nospam>
Women are not particularly attracted to men who are skilled as
independent observers - this is why females almost never challenge the
group meme, rather they reinforce it and castigate males who offend it
by rejecting them sexually.
It is only once in a great and extended period, over repeated
generations, that the self-sacrificing genetic bent in the male of the
species will intermittently produce the rare male who has some
ultimate sense of relativeness compared with the whole sprawl of human
history as a whole.
This produces people like Critical Bill, and people like me. The rare
soul who can sense that something is wrong in spite of overwhelming
opinion to the contrary.
<-----Article Excerpt Ends----->
Now wasn't that a wonderfully progressive collection? I think
Cleve's the perfect New Age man.
____________________________________________
'Give me back the Berlin Wall,
Give me Stalin or Saint Paul.
I've seen the future, baby,
It is murder.'
- Leonard Cohen, "The Future"
To email me, remove the capital letters from my address.
Ray Schroder
Apparently Cleve is a good programmer (at least some on the rpg newsgroup
think so and of course Cleve claims to be one of the best). However that's
where his expertise seems to stop. He has some extremely limited ideas
concerning numerous subjects. He may be well educated (unknown), appears
fairly intelligent except for twisting the truth (as people tend to do to
support their ideas), but is sorely lacking in logic and common sense. We
all have shortfalls, but most of us are smart enough to try and keep them
private. These views on women are extremely short sighted and untrue and
should be an embarrassment to all intelligent people, male and female. I
had hoped someone of his (supposed) intelligence and talent would have
refrained from making such remarks.
--
Support the anti-Spam Amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Ray Schroder
Email: rcschroder (at) worldnet.att.net
David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
<342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
Carlos DaSilva
David Thompson wrote in article <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> Now wasn't that a wonderfully progressive collection? I think
>Cleve's the perfect New Age man.
And that Age would be the Dark Ages... :)
HS Simpson
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:02:22 GMT, meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM (David
Thompson) had these pearls of wisdom to dispense:
Thanks, David, for these interesting excerpts. I must have missed
them from earlier (or fallen asleep reading one of his posts).
[to Cleve]
>This produces people like Critical Bill, and people like me. The rare
>soul who can sense that something is wrong in spite of overwhelming
>opinion to the contrary.
Sorry, Cleve. I _know_ Critical Bill. Critical Bill is a friend of
mine. And you sir are nothing like Critical Bill.
To reply via e-mail, be sure to remove the NOSPAM from the e-mail address.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Game Drek -- your definitive guide to Gaming Grossness<tm>!
http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
* NEW! Game Drek Exclusive! Nippolena...The Drek Interview!
* Web-Exclusive! Nai-Chi Lee's BC3K FAQ!
* Newly-revised & Expanded Game Company Listings
* Desslock's Diablo Information Guide v2.3...get it now...at Game Drek!
Adam G. Unikowsky
(Big snip of Cleve's delightful comments about women)
I think that what all this proves is that Cleve has never actually had
a woman in his life...
-Adam
Cmdr Krud
David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
<342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
>
>
> Subject: Re: Wizardry VIII Ad, Where?
> From: cl...@ans.com.au
> Date: 1997/09/13
> Message-Id: <8741924...@dejanews.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
> In article <5vcjrh$362$1...@news.fm.intel.com>,
>
> > BTW, why is it only the rare male who can see what is wrong with the
world?
> > Can't women be lone voices in the wilderness too? What about some of
the
> > famous fighters for women's suffrage? Didn't they recognize something
wrong
> > with the world despite the opinion of the "masses"?
SNIP............. (the most amazing thing I've seen on the internet since
the Arian Nation Home Page)
Wow, I can't wait to see his game. It will probably have only white, male,
non-American and non-Canadian characters.
-Krud
David Thompson
I was actually hoping a female reader might respond; that was one
of the main reasons I posted the excerpts from Cleve's ramblings. That
and to let everyone know what a delightful fellow Mr. Blakemore truly
is.
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:53:11 +0100, Steve Page <ab...@dial.pipex.com>
wrote:
>Hmmmmm. Interesting...............
>Not once did anyone consider asking what a women might think.
>Are you all such experts on the femal gender?
>I have a faint suspicion that when it comes to the opposite sex most of
>you haven't a clue.
>
>Natasha Sands.
>
>
____________________________________________
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <01bccb40$9e7f0040$c174...@primenet.primenet.com>,
"Cmdr Krud" <au...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
> <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> world?
> > > Can't women be lone voices in the wilderness too? What about some of
> the
> > > famous fighters for women's suffrage? Didn't they recognize something
> wrong
> > > with the world despite the opinion of the "masses"?
>
> SNIP............. (the most amazing thing I've seen on the internet since
> the Arian Nation Home Page)
>
> Wow, I can't wait to see his game. It will probably have only white, male,
> non-American and non-Canadian characters.
>
Pretty nasty thing to say considering you snipped the quote from me,
guess people will just have to take your word for it that I am somehow
connected with white supremacy movements. What if I decided to connect
you with crack dealing terrorists who deal in child pornography? [SNIP]
you'll just have to take my word on it!
What you mean is, you have not read anything about advances in genetic
science printed since 1925. That's good. We need more people in the world
who think all genetic determinism is "sum kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin
heah, Ah thenk alla dis here bizniss about DNA and whoremones iz sum
kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin. Wot wee need iz ta gat bak to basics, Ah
meen ah reely thenk sew-sie-etty iz to blame, yeah."
Hey look! It is almost 6 pm, pull up a chair, it's time for the Family
Feud! Don't worry about the modern world and unpleasant and unappealing
reality, you can catch up someday before you die! Then again, you've been
left so far behind by now, what is the use of even trying at this point?
Watch plenty of wholesome TV and pretend it is 1945, it works for me!!
I would not expect any less from a guy calling himself "Commander Krud."
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Shadow Dweller
In article <01bccb40$9e7f0040$c174...@primenet.primenet.com>,
"Cmdr Krud" <au...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
> <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> >
> the Arian Nation Home Page)
Yeah, maybe Steve is sexist...SO WHAT?
> Wow, I can't wait to see his game. It will probably have only white, male,
> non-American and non-Canadian characters.
And what's wrong with it? Oh yes, the abusing of Holy Church of Political
Correctness..::chuckle::
Besides, I have some problems imagining americans or canadians in fantasy
role-playing game...::smirk::
Ghaaroth,
white, male, aryan.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>,
meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM (David Thompson) wrote:
>
>
> Right now these newsgroups are seeing a resurgence of Cleve
> Blakemore's words of wisdom with regards to the human experience. I
> thought I'd fill people in some of his more...outlandish perspectives
> on the female sex, especially since some women might be interested in
> purchasing a copy of his game.
>
You're very politically correct in that you don't refute any of my
conclusions - how could you? It is all plain vanilla genetic science no
farther away than the nearest book store.
Instead, you hold the author up and say "This person is saying something
strange and unpleasant. We all know this to be true, but as a group we
also know that these things are to never be said aloud. This person has
said things that nobody ever says on talk shows or on sitcoms. Part of
the pathology that is postindustrial society is that it involves constant
and neverending denial about the most basic elements in the real world
around us ... our physical bodies, our hormones, our cells, our actual
molecular makeup. To suggest these things determine what we are is
hereticism and blaspemy against the group as a whole. We may no longer be
Christians, but by god we still cling steadfast in our subconscious minds
to Gnosticism irregardless and we despise anybody who dares to say we are
anything more than blank slates at birth. This individual has committed a
crime against us all in two instances. One, they have engaged in
independent reading and thinking. Two, they have refused to accept the
straightforward and simple memes for reality encoded in the words of
public figures like, for example, Oprah Winfrey. To sin against
Oprah-reality is to sin against us all."
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <60hcpc$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Apparently Cleve is a good programmer (at least some on the rpg newsgroup
> think so and of course Cleve claims to be one of the best). However that's
> where his expertise seems to stop.
It is good it stops somewhere - we all know the goal of western society
is to create specialists in narrow fields with as little intertrafficking
in ideas as is humanly possible. I don't want to be antisocial by being a
generalist.
> He has some extremely limited ideas
> concerning numerous subjects.
It is because I have wasted my life reading, thinking and using my
judgement while others of higher moral fibre watched professional
wrestling and played "pull my finger" over beers with friends for most of
their adult lives. It is to be expected. If I had only known to put down
that book and watch a few of the funniest episodes of Gilligan's Island I
would be much more normal today. Reading and thinking are diseases and
they are not good for the human brain. Pull my finger!!
> He may be well educated (unknown), appears
"Educated" - implies that knowledge has been injected into the brain from
the outside like some sort of voodoo essence transfer by an external
force. Impossible, so I guess I must not be "educated."
> fairly intelligent except for twisting the truth (as people tend to do to
> support their ideas), but is sorely lacking in logic and common sense.
It is true - I refuse to see the common sense that men and women are born
genetically identical and that it is social interaction which
differentiates them. We all know this to be the publicly acceptable
notion - why bother with genetics science, when it can only cause an
upset of our incorrect convictions about ourselves? I am obviously
lacking in common sense to refuse to accept common fallacies.
> We
> all have shortfalls, but most of us are smart enough to try and keep them
> private. These views on women are extremely short sighted and untrue and
> should be an embarrassment to all intelligent people, male and female.
Of course - short-sighted and untrue. The overwhelming enormous body of
research evidence and recorded observation gathered over the past three
hundred years of history to the contrary is obviously faked, much like
that of the "The Bell Curve."
All the lab technicians were mistaken. All the scientists and genetic
theorists were patriarchal white males out to establish preconceived
notions and shore them up. All the objective evidence misinterpreted. The
hormonal samples contaminated, the results faked, the double-blinds were
rigged and the participants handpicked to engineer the results. The final
graphs used funny math weightings, the notebooks were rewritten, the
final papers reworked to support the author's viewpoint and in fact, let
us just say this ... THE EMPIRICAL TRADITION and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
itself is a 2000 year old product of patriarchal white males and
therefore cannot be trusted.
We would all be a lot better off if we'd quit looking to the real world
for understanding and instead turned to more palatable alternatives like
Oprah Winfrey. Besides, she is a TV star - she must know all the answers
to our questions, right? All the answers to human existence are found on
television, in between commercials. That's why it is there.
I agree wholeheartedly - let us follow the example of the Alexandrians
and burn every library on earth to the ground, destroy every archive,
erase every tape. Man has to remain a blank slate at birth like the
Gnostics believed, any ideas to the contrary are short-sighted and
untrue. We need more long-sighted views - any religious or mythological
ideas of dubious merit should be substituted for all this nasty
reasoning, we'd all be a lot better off in the end. We need to get back
to basics and jettison this entire 2oth century civilization in favor of
something more close to our roots, like cannibalism and captive torture.
> I
> had hoped someone of his (supposed) intelligence and talent would have
> refrained from making such remarks.
Indeed, to some minds even the oldest ideas are always controversial and
brand new. I'll bet that in a 100 years some people will still be acting
like these kinds of ideas are highly inflammatory - even today most
people still behave like Darwinism is a hot topic for discussion and a
real puzzler. I especially liked the newspaper headlines a few years back
... "DARWIN WAS WRONG." It is good to know we are all progressing as a
race on the same intellectual curve at the same time.
We've got ten more years for the Human Genome Project to be completed.
Hold that thought for me, alright? Get back to me in ten years.
Nightweb
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <01bccb40$9e7f0040$c174...@primenet.primenet.com>,
> "Cmdr Krud" <au...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
> > <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> > world?
> > > > Can't women be lone voices in the wilderness too? What about some of
> > the
> > > > famous fighters for women's suffrage? Didn't they recognize something
> > wrong
> > > > with the world despite the opinion of the "masses"?
> >
> > the Arian Nation Home Page)
> >
> > non-American and non-Canadian characters.
> >
>
> guess people will just have to take your word for it that I am somehow
> connected with white supremacy movements. What if I decided to connect
> you with crack dealing terrorists who deal in child pornography? [SNIP]
> you'll just have to take my word on it!
>
> What you mean is, you have not read anything about advances in genetic
> science printed since 1925. That's good. We need more people in the world
> who think all genetic determinism is "sum kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin
> heah, Ah thenk alla dis here bizniss about DNA and whoremones iz sum
> kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin. Wot wee need iz ta gat bak to basics, Ah
> meen ah reely thenk sew-sie-etty iz to blame, yeah."
>
> Hey look! It is almost 6 pm, pull up a chair, it's time for the Family
> Feud! Don't worry about the modern world and unpleasant and unappealing
> reality, you can catch up someday before you die! Then again, you've been
> left so far behind by now, what is the use of even trying at this point?
>
> Watch plenty of wholesome TV and pretend it is 1945, it works for me!!
>
> I would not expect any less from a guy calling himself "Commander Krud."
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
As far as I know, mongoloids, and people with other determined genetic
diseases where
sterilized in many countries back when. USA, England, Sweden, France,
Italy all had
a program to 'keep theese diseases out of humanity'.
Some 'unconnected' fun stuff. =P
/Anne
AWilsonGA
>Ghaaroth,
>white, male, aryan.
>
>
Anyone want to tell this guy that in REAL history, "aryans" weren't from
anywhere near white-anglo europe. Jeeez, read a book, and get your
ignorant mind out of the racist gutter. To even suggest that you're proud
to be "ayran" in the way you do smacks of neo-nazism.
-Adam Wilson
Note use of actual name.
white, male, *American*, *Human*.
--------------------------Adam Wilson
(DWil...@mindspring.com)--------------------------
"Well it's floodin' down in Texas..."
Join the Texas Flood mailing list! For Stevie Ray Vaughan fans everywhere.
texasfloo...@moss.verinet.com
David Thompson
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:33:14 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>In article <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>,
> meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM (David Thompson) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right now these newsgroups are seeing a resurgence of Cleve
>> Blakemore's words of wisdom with regards to the human experience. I
>> thought I'd fill people in some of his more...outlandish perspectives
>> on the female sex, especially since some women might be interested in
>> purchasing a copy of his game.
>>
>
>You're very politically correct in that you don't refute any of my
>conclusions - how could you? It is all plain vanilla genetic science no
>farther away than the nearest book store.
Wow, I WAS right. The thought was nagging at me that this was some
kind of elaborate joke on your part, that you didn't really believe
all that bullshit about women. But you really do. Amazing!
>
>Instead, you hold the author up and say "This person is saying something
>strange and unpleasant. We all know this to be true, but as a group we
>also know that these things are to never be said aloud. This person has
>said things that nobody ever says on talk shows or on sitcoms. Part of
>the pathology that is postindustrial society is that it involves constant
>and neverending denial about the most basic elements in the real world
>around us ... our physical bodies, our hormones, our cells, our actual
>molecular makeup. To suggest these things determine what we are is
>hereticism and blaspemy against the group as a whole. We may no longer be
>Christians, but by god we still cling steadfast in our subconscious minds
>to Gnosticism irregardless and we despise anybody who dares to say we are
>anything more than blank slates at birth. This individual has committed a
>crime against us all in two instances. One, they have engaged in
>independent reading and thinking. Two, they have refused to accept the
>straightforward and simple memes for reality encoded in the words of
>public figures like, for example, Oprah Winfrey. To sin against
>Oprah-reality is to sin against us all."
>
You're a truly skilled bullshitter, Cleve. You draw in all these
completely irrelevant references to Gnosticism, genetic vs.
environmental development, etc. You seem to be hoping to draw people
off into some kind of sideline debate. Doesn't work with me, dude.
The fact is, what you've said is that women are predisposed to
conform within a social structure, to be passive sheep who serve no
other purpose than to breed and produce more children (hopefully male
ones); "to make like a fly in a beam of sunlight and think happy and
uninspired thoughts", as you put it. Men are the warriors and the
thinkers and the source of all that is good and noble in us; any
female who seems to have these characteristics was born with an
abnormal amount of testosterone.
In other words, you're truly fucked up.
Daniel Rutter
(cc-by-mailed)
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 21:11:31 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>It is true - I refuse to see the common sense that men and women are born
>genetically identical and that it is social interaction which
>differentiates them. We all know this to be the publicly acceptable
>notion - why bother with genetics science, when it can only cause an
>upset of our incorrect convictions about ourselves? I am obviously
>lacking in common sense to refuse to accept common fallacies.
(snip)
>All the lab technicians were mistaken. All the scientists and genetic
>theorists were patriarchal white males out to establish preconceived
>notions and shore them up. All the objective evidence misinterpreted. The
>hormonal samples contaminated, the results faked, the double-blinds were
>rigged and the participants handpicked to engineer the results. The final
>graphs used funny math weightings, the notebooks were rewritten, the
>final papers reworked to support the author's viewpoint and in fact, let
>us just say this ... THE EMPIRICAL TRADITION and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
>itself is a 2000 year old product of patriarchal white males and
>therefore cannot be trusted.
So what you're saying here is that there's solid scientific evidence
to support the idea that nature, as opposed to nurture, is the
predominant force in determining the relative mental proclivities and
abilities of men versus women, right? And, to be exact, those without
testosterone coursing through their veins in sufficient amounts are
strongly and inherently predisposed against being "noble, ambitious,
self-sacrificing, creative, honest, sexy, truthful, kind and
tolerant"?
This is news to me, but I'm no expert. It would seem difficult to
determine the source of patterns of behaviour and ability, not to
mention the continuing problem of determining whether "innate ability"
is in fact a measurable entity at all. Fortunately, your self-admitted
expertise in this area will save us all from laboriously searching for
the plethora of scientific studies to which you refer above; please
post some references, so we can learn more.
>Indeed, to some minds even the oldest ideas are always controversial and
"The oldest ideas" include flat-earthism, sympathetic magic,
astrology, phlogiston and, indeed, religion. Since, as you state in
this very post, people tend to believe the easy answers, trivially
disprovable ideas can survive forever, provided they are palatable to
a sufficient proportion of the population. The notion that males are
inherently superior mentally is palatable to roughly 50% of the
population, who also happen to be physically stronger and firmly
stated to be The Bosses in every half-assed religious ideology, which
two attributes by themselves, it would seem, are sufficient to keep us
penised people at the top of the social ladder in most societies.
To quote the late Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown."
The idea that popular rejection of a time-honoured concept implies
that this concept is, in fact, correct, leads to the conclusion that
only things that very few people believe can be true. This, itself, is
a popular worldview among conspiracy theorists, various small
religions and an amusing panoply of other, ah, differently reasoning
individuals, but I choose not to abandon logic and adopt it.
>We've got ten more years for the Human Genome Project to be completed.
And the mapping of human DNA will tell us what, exactly, about subtle
and elusive points of intellectual development?
--
Daniel Rutter
Ray Schroder
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8754075...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bccb40$9e7f0040$c174...@primenet.primenet.com>,
> "Cmdr Krud" <au...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
> > <342c1f72...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> > > > BTW, why is it only the rare male who can see what is wrong with
the
> > world?
Because only a select few males are named Cleve!
> > > > Can't women be lone voices in the wilderness too? What about some
of
> > the
> > > > famous fighters for women's suffrage? Didn't they recognize
something
> > wrong
> > > > with the world despite the opinion of the "masses"?
> >
> > SNIP............. (the most amazing thing I've seen on the internet
since
> > the Arian Nation Home Page)
> >
> > Wow, I can't wait to see his game. It will probably have only white,
male,
> > non-American and non-Canadian characters.
> >
>
> Pretty nasty thing to say considering you snipped the quote from me,
> guess people will just have to take your word for it that I am somehow
> connected with white supremacy movements. What if I decided to connect
> you with crack dealing terrorists who deal in child pornography? [SNIP]
> you'll just have to take my word on it!
>
> What you mean is, you have not read anything about advances in genetic
> science printed since 1925.
OK Cleve... I suppose you're going to enlighten us (again) with your
profound knowledge of every subject in the universe...
That's good. We need more people in the world
> who think all genetic determinism is "sum kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin
> heah, Ah thenk alla dis here bizniss about DNA and whoremones iz sum
> kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin. Wot wee need iz ta gat bak to basics, Ah
> meen ah reely thenk sew-sie-etty iz to blame, yeah."
That's what I like about you Cleve, you're a man who reveals his mental
superiority by his writing style.
>
> Hey look! It is almost 6 pm, pull up a chair, it's time for the Family
> Feud!
Pretty nasty thing to say Cleve, considering he might not own a T.V.!
Don't worry about the modern world and unpleasant and unappealing
> reality, you can catch up someday before you die!
Nice going Cleve, show 'em how you can correct someone while being arrogant
and demeaning at the same time. I'm sure you're win his friendship and
respect (and the respect of everyone else in the world you despise).
Then again, you've been
> left so far behind by now, what is the use of even trying at this point?
That's oh so true Cleve... the whole world is so far behind you... why even
bother talking to us? As a matter of fact Cleve, just do yourself a
tremendous favor and stop talking to any of us. Just because the guy made a
mistake doesn't mean you were elected to play Judge and Jury... lighten up
Cleve and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
>
> Watch plenty of wholesome TV and pretend it is 1945, it works for me!!
>
> I would not expect any less from a guy calling himself "Commander Krud."
But we would expect more from you Cleve, a grown and supposedly well read
"mature" adult!
Support the anti-Spam Amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Ray Schroder
Email: rcschroder (at) worldnet.att.net
>
Ray Schroder
Please, please give Cleve a break. He's the smartest person in the entire
world. His ONLY fault is that he knows everything and isn't afraid to admit
it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Cleve, Cleve, Cleve. What a sad, lonely puppy you must be today. We know
why you "came to town" after being gone for a while... your game is going
to be released and you want any publicity you can get. The trouble is that
while you might get away with talking allot of shit on the CRPG newsgroup,
the people here see right through that garbage of half-baked idiotic
Clevlogic. Sometimes you're good for a laugh, but most of the time it's
pathetic mussing.
--
Support the anti-Spam Amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Ray Schroder
Email: rcschroder (at) worldnet.att.net
David Thompson <meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM> wrote in article
<342eb984....@nntp.netcom.ca>...
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <01bccbc8$b4507240$647a92cf@pentium-200>,
"Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Oh Cleve, Cleve, Cleve. What a sad, lonely puppy you must be today. We know
> why you "came to town" after being gone for a while... your game is going
> to be released and you want any publicity you can get. The trouble is that
> while you might get away with talking allot of shit on the CRPG newsgroup,
> the people here see right through that garbage of half-baked idiotic
> Clevlogic. Sometimes you're good for a laugh, but most of the time it's
> pathetic mussing.
As I understand it, Richard Dawkins gets similar mail all the time.
"Dawkins, your half-baked idiotic garbage ... spawn of anti-christ ...
son of the devil ... hated and despised ... ridiculous and absurd
conclusions lacking in common sense ..." etc. etc.
THAT IS Richard Dawkins the geneticist, not the host of Family Feud.
Read "The Blind Watchmaker" and you will go from 1921 (where you are now)
to 1997 in the interim it takes you to complete the book. If you have
sufficient strength to endure the rapid time travel.
IF you'll read "The Blind Watchmaker," you'll see immediately I am just
another bog-standard Dawkins reader and that most of these ideas have
been a done deal since the early 1960's. It is like being amazed to
discover the sun rises in the east and sets in the west on your part.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342eb984....@nntp.netcom.ca>,
meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM (David Thompson) wrote:
>
> You're a truly skilled bullshitter, Cleve. You draw in all these
> completely irrelevant references to Gnosticism, genetic vs.
> environmental development, etc.
Oh yeah, they're irrelevant, alright.
> You seem to be hoping to draw people
> off into some kind of sideline debate. Doesn't work with me, dude.
Of course not, you're a moron. How in the hell are you going to post a
counter-argument when the sum total of your experience and knowledge
could be written on a postage stamp?
> The fact is, what you've said is that women are predisposed to
> conform within a social structure, to be passive sheep who serve no
> other purpose than to breed and produce more children (hopefully male
I actually did not say any of this ... being a completely incurable moron
your mind is racing like a badly tuned clock into ideas and words that
never even crossed my mind.
Women are predisposed to conform, as for being passive sheep, women are
anything but. As for being mere "breeders," nothing could be farther from
the truth. Without the counterbalancing instinct for social order,
intelligence and stability to counteract the wild genetic crapshoot that
is the male, human civilization would not last a fortnight. Women
exercise strict genetic control over the destiny of mankind by choosing
males, not the other way around. If anybody is a mere "one-shot"
(literally) breeding implement, it is the average adult male. They are
good for little else.
The pattern of sexual identification is simple in humans. Males posture,
scream, dance, fight and carry on ... discerning women look at the lineup
and try to pick males that may reliably be counted on to father children
who are close to the genetic average and will be good fathers to children
(but not too close, selection favors variation). The myth of the male
sexual aggressor is just that. Women make all the decisions, males read
body language and approach when they get the proper signals. This is why
the crime of rape is pathological indeed - these males have violated all
primate protocol and are spreading their genes through force which
contradicts all healthy impulse to wait on the female for a decision.
The really important thing I have said (that you did not get of course)
is that the hormone testosterone is responsible for nearly all the noble
impulses in human beings, both men and women. This hormone exists in both
sexes - but the unreliability of it's function is immediately apparent.
Look at the vast herd of males who are nothing more than slobbering,
vicious, hieriarchial cretins devoid of any desire outside of sex, status
and power. This is an example of where the hormone takes the low road, to
say the least.
> ones); "to make like a fly in a beam of sunlight and think happy and
> uninspired thoughts", as you put it. Men are the warriors and the
> thinkers and the source of all that is good and noble in us; any
> female who seems to have these characteristics was born with an
> abnormal amount of testosterone.
OH WOW!!!!!
MAN SAYS SEX PREDISPOSES PEOPLE TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!
MY GOD WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH!!!!!!
WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!
WHAT OBSCURE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL DID HE DIG THIS UP FROM?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
> In other words, you're truly fucked up.
>
Your beef is not with me - it is with Mother Nature and the past 60
million years of evolution, you should take it up with her.
"This simply isn't permitted, Ms. Nature, it won't do at all. You're
going to have to change your whole approach to reality and make it
conform to the misunderstandings of your progeny."
"A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <60i040$7...@chile.earthlink.net>,
"Carlos DaSilva" <cdas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see Derek posting in the future as Derek
> Blakemore. Together they might actually make half a game!
>
> CJD
Carlos I spoke to your own mother long-distance in New York City and she
said you are a lazy shiftless good-for-nothing SOB and she wants you out
of the house. I also talked to your service provider and they said if you
ever post copyrighted material again your ass is out. I don't know where
you went for the past five months but you should go back there. Try the
Jobs newsgroup, you might surprise yourself.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <34316427...@news.zippo.com>,
gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
>
> Sorry, Cleve. I _know_ Critical Bill. Critical Bill is a friend of
> mine. And you sir are nothing like Critical Bill.
>
Could you do me a favor? Get a huge snow shovel and put a big batch of
that rotting flesh eating virus and ship it over here to Australia -
somebody accidentally tipped over a pail of PineSol at a public hospital
and we lost our starter culture. Apparently a public health service
employee fell asleep standing up and crashed into a shelf piled high with
disinfectant, it broke on the floor and inadvertently killed some golden
staph germs as well.
Could you do that for me?
While you're at it, could you get me a quote on a vasectomy? I'd like to
have my penis mistakenly removed at some time in the near future. Jesus
god, why do these radical eccentrics keep disparaging people's right to
free health care?
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342dc5ff...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
dru...@curie.dialix.com.au (Daniel Rutter) wrote:
> The notion that males are
> inherently superior mentally is palatable to roughly 50% of the
> population, who also happen to be physically stronger and firmly
> stated to be The Bosses in every half-assed religious ideology, which
> two attributes by themselves, it would seem, are sufficient to keep us
> penised people at the top of the social ladder in most societies.
No one said any such thing about males being inherently superior - the
evidence shows quite the opposite - females are inherently superior
intellectually and in many other ways, it is males who are inherently
inferior intellectually.
Your problem is that your mind makes so much static and noise when you
read that you can't hear the author. Go back and look at my post. Look at
it carefully this time and instead of projecting your lack of knowledge
onto me, try to see what I really said.
I said that occasionally Nature makes males like me. But 99% of the time
she makes them like you.
Just do a search on Alta Vista and read any credible data on standardized
IQ testing, ok? No need to act like this was all a big secret being kept
in a vault somewhere.
Ray Schroder
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8754122...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <60hcpc$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Apparently Cleve is a good programmer (at least some on the rpg
newsgroup
> > think so and of course Cleve claims to be one of the best). However
that's
> > where his expertise seems to stop.
>
> is to create specialists in narrow fields with as little intertrafficking
> in ideas as is humanly possible. I don't want to be antisocial by being a
> generalist.
So Cleve just goes about merrily acting as an antisocial specialist.
>
> > He has some extremely limited ideas
> > concerning numerous subjects.
>
> It is because I have wasted my life reading, thinking and using my
> judgement while others of higher moral fibre watched professional
> wrestling and played "pull my finger" over beers with friends for most of
> their adult lives. It is to be expected. If I had only known to put down
> that book and watch a few of the funniest episodes of Gilligan's Island I
> would be much more normal today. Reading and thinking are diseases and
> they are not good for the human brain. Pull my finger!!
Right again Cleve... you're the only one in the world who reads and
thinks... You wouldn't be "more normal" if you watch Gilligan, Cleve, but
you might have developed a sense of humor or compassion for your fellow
man. Heaven forbid that the Great Cleve ever develop any traits of decency.
>
> > He may be well educated (unknown), appears
>
> "Educated" - implies that knowledge has been injected into the brain from
> the outside like some sort of voodoo essence transfer by an external
> force. Impossible, so I guess I must not be "educated."
All you need to do Cleve is look the word up in a dictionary. I didn't try
to imply anything, I said "educated" and "educated" means (not implies) to
have some formal training and/or instruction (called school). What I
implied was that your inability to discern the truth from fiction in what
you read indicates and undisciplined approach to learning/studying... in
other words Cleve, you aren't smart enough to understand the REAL meaning
in the intellectual works you have read! You continually misinterpret even
simple concepts. And anyone can find a hundred "studies" to support any
stupid idea. Most people are smart enough not to believe all of it.
>
> > fairly intelligent except for twisting the truth (as people tend to do
to
> > support their ideas), but is sorely lacking in logic and common sense.
>
> It is true - I refuse to see the common sense that men and women are born
> genetically identical and that it is social interaction which
> differentiates them.
Cleve, what I said is you don't use common sense... your refusal to "see"
common sense in others is understandable since you don't exercise any.
We all know this to be the publicly acceptable
> notion - why bother with genetics science, when it can only cause an
> upset of our incorrect convictions about ourselves? I am obviously
> lacking in common sense to refuse to accept common fallacies.
No Cleve, you're obviously lacking common sense for refusing to accept YOUR
common fallacies.
>
> > We
> > all have shortfalls, but most of us are smart enough to try and keep
them
> > private. These views on women are extremely short sighted and untrue
and
> > should be an embarrassment to all intelligent people, male and female.
>
> Of course - short-sighted and untrue. The overwhelming enormous body of
> research evidence and recorded observation gathered over the past three
> hundred years of history to the contrary is obviously faked, much like
> that of the "The Bell Curve."
The overwhelming enormous body of research evidence and recorded
observation gathered over the past three hundred years of history Cleve
doesn't support you!
>
> All the lab technicians were mistaken. All the scientists and genetic
> theorists were patriarchal white males out to establish preconceived
> notions and shore them up. All the objective evidence misinterpreted. The
> hormonal samples contaminated, the results faked, the double-blinds were
> rigged and the participants handpicked to engineer the results. The final
> graphs used funny math weightings, the notebooks were rewritten, the
> final papers reworked to support the author's viewpoint and in fact, let
> us just say this ... THE EMPIRICAL TRADITION and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> itself is a 2000 year old product of patriarchal white males and
> therefore cannot be trusted.
>
> We would all be a lot better off if we'd quit looking to the real world
> for understanding and instead turned to more palatable alternatives like
> Oprah Winfrey. Besides, she is a TV star - she must know all the answers
> to our questions, right? All the answers to human existence are found on
> television, in between commercials. That's why it is there.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly - let us follow the example of the Alexandrians
> and burn every library on earth to the ground, destroy every archive,
> erase every tape. Man has to remain a blank slate at birth like the
> Gnostics believed, any ideas to the contrary are short-sighted and
> untrue. We need more long-sighted views - any religious or mythological
> ideas of dubious merit should be substituted for all this nasty
> reasoning, we'd all be a lot better off in the end. We need to get back
> to basics and jettison this entire 2oth century civilization in favor of
> something more close to our roots, like cannibalism and captive torture.
>
> > I
> > had hoped someone of his (supposed) intelligence and talent would have
> > refrained from making such remarks.
>
> Indeed, to some minds even the oldest ideas are always controversial and
> brand new. I'll bet that in a 100 years some people will still be acting
> like these kinds of ideas are highly inflammatory - even today most
> people still behave like Darwinism is a hot topic for discussion and a
> real puzzler. I especially liked the newspaper headlines a few years back
> ... "DARWIN WAS WRONG." It is good to know we are all progressing as a
> race on the same intellectual curve at the same time.
It sounds like Cleve will believe anything that supports his ill conceive
notions of superiority.
>
> We've got ten more years for the Human Genome Project to be completed.
>
> Hold that thought for me, alright? Get back to me in ten years.
Hey Cleve, I got a better idea. How about you go away and sing your own
praises in private and you don't need to come back at all!
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <01bccbc4$e182b740$647a92cf@pentium-200>,
"Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> That's oh so true Cleve... the whole world is so far behind you... why even
> bother talking to us? As a matter of fact Cleve, just do yourself a
> tremendous favor and stop talking to any of us. Just because the guy made a
> mistake doesn't mean you were elected to play Judge and Jury... lighten up
> Cleve and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
The guy didn't make a mistake. The guy decided to lump me in with white
supremacy and Aryan Nazis because I said hormones create the differences
between men and women.
Now since the Nazis were totalitarian fascists who believed they had a
right to kill people they deemed genetically inferior, and monsters who
committed every sort of atrocity under the sun, I think that is a bit of
an ugly and rather stupid thing to say just because someone, like me, has
had the poor misfortune to fall headfirst into an open book of
introductory biology printed after the turn of the century. It is not my
fault. Chances are I was waiting on the dentist or something and thought
it was a Hardy Boys novel, next thing I know the information was there in
my brain and I didn't know how to erase it. I don't think involuntary
retention should be discriminated against.
To the best of my knowledge, the differences in behavior caused by the
hormones estrogen and testosterone is one of the best documented ideas in
the world next to thyroid function and simple circulation. IF this guy
wanted, we could walk into any book store and I could locate three dozen
titles in thirty seconds that back up every single thing I asserted.
I don't think this makes me a Nazi.
> But we would expect more from you Cleve, a grown and supposedly well read
> "mature" adult!
Ever hear me chuck that knee-jerk "Nazi" word at anybody? Of course not,
it is meaningless and a generic insult for people who have no argument.
It is quite stupid in this day and age too, but of course villains are
needed for Indiana Jones films and the Nazis are handy even though they
got wiped out 60 years ago - and good riddance.
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8754604...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <34316427...@news.zippo.com>,
> gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Cleve. I _know_ Critical Bill. Critical Bill is a friend of
> > mine. And you sir are nothing like Critical Bill.
> >
>
> Could you do me a favor? Get a huge snow shovel and put a big batch of
> that rotting flesh eating virus and ship it over here to Australia -
> somebody accidentally tipped over a pail of PineSol at a public hospital
> and we lost our starter culture. Apparently a public health service
> employee fell asleep standing up and crashed into a shelf piled high with
> disinfectant, it broke on the floor and inadvertently killed some golden
> staph germs as well.
>
> Could you do that for me?
The flesh-eating virus would probably choke. Maybe they could make a
vaccine for it by using some of your DNA?
> While you're at it, could you get me a quote on a vasectomy? I'd like to
> have my penis mistakenly removed at some time in the near future. Jesus
> god, why do these radical eccentrics keep disparaging people's right to
> free health care?
I think a vasectomy is a great idea. Put an end to this genetic mishap
before it has a chance to reproduce.
-Krud
David Thompson
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:41:03 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>In article <342eb984....@nntp.netcom.ca>,
> meph...@netcom.ca-NOSPAM (David Thompson) wrote:
>>
>> You're a truly skilled bullshitter, Cleve. You draw in all these
>> completely irrelevant references to Gnosticism, genetic vs.
>> environmental development, etc.
>
>Oh yeah, they're irrelevant, alright.
I'd love to know how Gnosticism, the earliest Christian heresy
that was suppressed almost 1800 years ago, has anything to do with
this conversation. Are you referring to the balance between good and
evil that they believed in? That was their greatest sin according to
orthodox Christianity...they tied into the Zoroastrian belief that
Good and Evil were constantly at war and that no one side had an
advantage over the other (thus denying the omnipotence of God). It IS
a belief that survived underground and which surfaced in certain
Medieval heretical movements like Waldenism, but I'm just not sure
what that has to do with what we're talking about.
>
>> You seem to be hoping to draw people
>> off into some kind of sideline debate. Doesn't work with me, dude.
>
>Of course not, you're a moron. How in the hell are you going to post a
>counter-argument when the sum total of your experience and knowledge
>could be written on a postage stamp?
No, love, just not interested in debating these points with an
intellectual huckster who takes a lot of irrelevant facts,
half-truths, and outright lies and wraps them into an argument.
>
>> The fact is, what you've said is that women are predisposed to
>> conform within a social structure, to be passive sheep who serve no
>> other purpose than to breed and produce more children (hopefully male
>
>I actually did not say any of this ... being a completely incurable moron
>your mind is racing like a badly tuned clock into ideas and words that
>never even crossed my mind.
>
>Women are predisposed to conform, as for being passive sheep, women are
>anything but. As for being mere "breeders," nothing could be farther from
>the truth. Without the counterbalancing instinct for social order,
>intelligence and stability to counteract the wild genetic crapshoot that
>is the male, human civilization would not last a fortnight. Women
>exercise strict genetic control over the destiny of mankind by choosing
>males, not the other way around. If anybody is a mere "one-shot"
>(literally) breeding implement, it is the average adult male. They are
>good for little else.
Even if women exercise strict genetic control over the destiny of
mankind, they're still breeders by your logic. What about the women
who don't want kids, who want to be astronauts, or scientists, or
hockey players? Shall we inject them with testosterone to make sure
they're up to it?
<snip>
>
>The really important thing I have said (that you did not get of course)
>is that the hormone testosterone is responsible for nearly all the noble
>impulses in human beings, both men and women. This hormone exists in both
>sexes - but the unreliability of it's function is immediately apparent.
>Look at the vast herd of males who are nothing more than slobbering,
>vicious, hieriarchial cretins devoid of any desire outside of sex, status
>and power. This is an example of where the hormone takes the low road, to
>say the least.
Sure, like estrogen is present in males. But testosterone is
predominant in males, estrogen in females. So, by your logic, the
AVERAGE male will be much more predisposed towards being a thinker,
someone who tries to break the mold and fight for what he believes in,
while the AVERAGE female will be a "don't make waves" Marge Simpson
conformist.
This, my wanna-be developer friend, is bullshit.
<snip>
>"A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
Taking too much heat on the constant quoting of other people, eh?
Heh...
HS Simpson
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:35:11 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au had these pearls
of wisdom to dispense:
>In article <34316427...@news.zippo.com>,
> gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Cleve. I _know_ Critical Bill. Critical Bill is a friend of
>> mine. And you sir are nothing like Critical Bill.
>Could you do me a favor? Get a huge snow shovel and put a big batch of
>that rotting flesh eating virus and ship it over here to Australia -
>somebody accidentally tipped over a pail of PineSol at a public hospital
>and we lost our starter culture. Apparently a public health service
>employee fell asleep standing up and crashed into a shelf piled high with
>disinfectant, it broke on the floor and inadvertently killed some golden
>staph germs as well.
>
>Could you do that for me?
Why waste time and FedEx shipping charges? Just ask a local
neurosurgeon in Australia to do a brain biopsy & culture on you. Of
course, as soon as they do that, you'll be deported. Hey, there's
your ticket back to the States!
>While you're at it, could you get me a quote on a vasectomy? I'd like to
Gee, I wouldn't want to deprive future generations of your genetic
code.
>have my penis mistakenly removed at some time in the near future. Jesus
>god, why do these radical eccentrics keep disparaging people's right to
>free health care?
Ah! I see one! Another typical Cleve non-sequitur. This is more fun
than counting Volkswagens on the highway.
Keep 'em coming. Who needs a daily Far Side calendar when we've got
Cleve's "quotes of the day"?
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342dc5ff...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
dru...@curie.dialix.com.au (Daniel Rutter) wrote:
> >> The notion that males are
> >> inherently superior mentally is palatable to roughly 50% of the
> >> population, who also happen to be physically stronger and firmly
> >> stated to be The Bosses in every half-assed religious ideology, which
> >> two attributes by themselves, it would seem, are sufficient to keep us
> >> penised people at the top of the social ladder in most societies.
Hatred of men and male culture is a religion, okay? It is not sane or
reasonable in any way. It is for oversocialized people who need some
cause to claim makes them morally superior to others. It is very
hippie-herbal retro-80's cheap virtue. It is as close as a song if you
know how to sing a politically correct tune.
Men happen to be physically stronger because of testosterone. They also
tend to be highly driven to achieve things and have a lot of creative
impulses because of same. The reason they tend to dominate cultures is
because testosterone is a drug that makes people domineering. It is also
at the root of all good impulses, as I have said before. It produces
integrity and ethical behavior in women all the time - but the kind of
absolutism that is male is rarely ever seen in females.
Real life is not as simple or accessible as political correctness. If you
have grown up on TV and want to sleep your life away, it represents an
easy out-of-the box way of looking at life that promises zero mental
effort for the devotee.
> >No one said any such thing about males being inherently superior - the
>
> Actually, I think you'll find YOU said "...there is now overwhelming
> and reproducible physiological evidence that testosterone is directly
> responsible for almost every noble, ambitious, self-sacrificing,
> creative, honest, sexy, truthful, kind and tolerant impulse that human
> beings have. If a woman displays these traits to a degree some men do,
> you can bet she must have a deep voice and hair on her lip like Ayn
> Rand, because estrogen compels people to conform, reside in strict
> hierarchies without complaining, submit to authority figures and
> believe group standards are superior to one's own as well as to be
> content with whatever situation one is in."
What is your point?
Bibliography - walk into any bookstore. Pick up any book with the word
BIOLOGY on the front cover. Open it.
The key phrase in that paragraph is "to a degree some men do."
Women are not absolutists and good on them, because we all know how
irritating men like me can be who stubbornly refuse to compromise on
anything, don't we? But on the other hand, it is usually men who produce
really high quality computer games, because this tstone makes them
stubborn aholes who refuse to budge an inch from the highest quality. A
woman would do the sane thing, modify the design a bit maybe, put a few
conflicts at peace, offer up compromises to detractors and probably
finish with a lot less antagonism in general around her. That is why
women are amazing. But I don't know if a woman has ever painted a Sistine
Chapel. This hardly makes them inferior.
> Now you backpedal and say that what you REALLY meant was that women
> are SMARTER than the vast bulk of men, but their tragic lack of
> nobility-enhancing male hormones means they're inescapably predisposed
> to be nurturing little herd-followers, while the few, proud
> hairy-chested big-brained gosh-darn-it-aren't-they-great chaps like,
> for example, you, lead society unwaveringly towards a better tomorrow,
> supported by a mob of muscular male dimwits.
Well, with the condescending and ironic elements removed, I'd say you're
close but not by that much. It is not even as simple as that, nor is it
ever. But you got the basic social underpinning right. Women keep things
on an even keel, men are the ones driven by their hormones to do great
things - or terrible ones.
You don't like this. You think Mother Nature is evil to have structured
things this way and you believe she needs to do it some other way. Okay,
why are you angry with me?
Didn't you just describe human history? Big butchering alpha males
leading knavish gangs of mindless mesomorphs on campaigns to aqquire
territory while the women care for children and keep some kind of
rational order present in the hearth and community?
Are you upset with reality? Do you think I had a hand in all this
somehow? Do you think I have God's ear where I could lean over and ask
him for a do-over on the entire state of affairs?
OR are you angry with me for saying this out loud?
> If you had the humility to say "sorry guys, went off half-cocked
> there, overstated my case", you'd come over as merely opinionated. As
> it is, your failure to answer my simple questions or admit your
> previous error makes you look like a fanatical loudmouthed boor.
Half-cocked? I'd say fully cocked, but speaking to the wrong audience. I
thought early adopters were supposed to be these high-income progressive
libertarians who were very well educated. You'd think this was the turn
of century and people were talking about natural selection in general.
> >Your problem is that your mind makes so much static and noise when you
>
> Thanks. I didn't actually ask you what my problem was, but it's good
> to get some free and useful advice.
It is true. You imply your errors into the text before you even
understand it.
> >read that you can't hear the author. Go back and look at my post. Look at
> >it carefully this time and instead of projecting your lack of knowledge
> >onto me, try to see what I really said.
> >
> >I said that occasionally Nature makes males like me. But 99% of the time
> >she makes them like you.
>
> In another post, you asserted that Richard Dawkins supports your views
> in "The Blind Watchmaker". Dawkins' big idea is that the driving
> engine of evolution is the propagation of one's genetic material -
> this, of course, is no big news. However, Dawkins does not presume to
> suggest that this selection pressure operates in any way other than
> the obvious - males are pressured to produce as many offspring as
> possible, females are pressured to ensure their offspring survive.
> This provides limited support for the idea that females club together
> and submit to the will of the group, since that indeed gets you a
> better chance of your babies surviving, but you extrapolate this to a
> strong predisposition against "decent" behaviour in women. Extending
> low-level evolutionary pressure to high-level conscious behaviour is
> courageous. So is climbing mountains naked.
Extrapolate? There is no extrapolation. Females have to be practical - if
they were as wild and crazy as men we would not be having this exchange
right now. Females have to be the core, men are variations and wildcards
to see if any of them will end up having kin-related bias and enhancing
group survival.
Men can draw a line in the sand and say "This is my principle, I will die
for it." They can afford to genetically as they are basically chromosomal
handiwipes. If women drew these kinds of distinctions and insisted on
absolutes all the time, how long would it take for society to fragment?
Ever think about this?
What is really pissing you off is four-dimensional space and the laws of
physics as well as natural selection, isn't it?
> Similarly, "the selfish gene" pressures males towards being good
> breeders, but how this translates into male hormones being the things
> - or, in your words, the ONLY things that cause people to "think,
> really think", is difficult to see for an average-penised,
> slightly-built person such as myself. No doubt your muscular frame and
> impressive genitalia, the only features which Dawkins would
> confidently present as actually being strongly selected for, indicate
> that I am no match for you in a test of wits.
One of the indirect effects of testosterone is to force you to be able to
think really, really hard about how to impress babes and get access to
females somehow. Occasionally, this same effect is sublimated by a small
handful of males who use these drives to think really, really hard about
things like politics, life, the world around them and their experiences.
It is like using acetone to run a car engine but considering this is the
only way Mother Nature can make somebody really contemplative it will
have to do in a pinch.
> >Just do a search on Alta Vista and read any credible data on standardized
> >IQ testing, ok? No need to act like this was all a big secret being kept
> >in a vault somewhere.
>
> I've read quite a bit on standardised IQ testing, actually. Including
> Stephen Jay Gould's rather good "The Mismeasure Of Man", which charts
> the history of "intelligence" testing and its shameful association
> with racism, class prejudice and simple straightforward scientific
Well, it may have a shameful history, but then truth always does, doesn't
it?
What do we do, throw out the scientific method? Some madmen say yes, but
madmen are legion.
I knew you would refer to Gould eventually, no joke - very popular among
people educated by mainstream sources and very supportive of people's
fond delusions. Constantly discrediting any new ideas, not too many of
his own worth considering though. He seems to know this and concentrates
on loose gibberish about other people's ideas. The guy has to pay rent
and eat and his books are popular with those anxious to blame
sew-sigh-etty.
> fraud. Support for nature-over-nurture as the serious determinant of
> ability is damn thin on the ground. Would you care to hitch your
> wagons to Cyril Burt's train?
I admit I never heard of Cyril Burt.
Yes, nature over nurture has been "discredited." I saw it on the front
cover of a newspaper, journalists never pass up an opportunity to run
this one unless it is the other popular one .... DARWIN WAS WRONG, SAYS
PROMINENT SCIENTIST. Or there is my personal favorite, always a fun one
in the Sunday Op-Ed section ... IQ NOT EVERYTHING SAYS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER
or INTELLIGENCE TOO VAGUELY DEFINED TO TEST, BETTER WE NOT THINK ABOUT
IT, SAYS IMPORTANT PERSON or IT IS TIME WE TURNED THE CLOCK BACK TO 1948,
SAYS RESPECTED EXPERT ON WHATEVER or SCIENTIFIC METHOD DISCOVERED TO BE
COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE SAYS MAJOR QUANTUM PHYSICIST or ALL THESE SEEMINGLY
SMART PEOPLE ARE JUST A BUNCH OF DAMN NATZEES, SAYS BUS DRIVER or SOCIETY
IS TO BLAME or EVIL MALE PATRIARCHY MUST BE REPLACED WITH REALLY NICE
PSYCHOTIC FEMINISTS HELL BENT ON ELIMINATION OF ALL MALES IN GENERAL or
BIGGEST PROBLEM IN SOCIETY IS TOO MUCH READING AND ALSO A LOT OF THINKING
or GENETICS IS A DISCREDITED IDEA, ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYTHING or LET US
BURN ALL THESE GODLESS LIBRARIES AND BUILD CHURCHES or COMPUTERS CAUSE
PEDOPHILIA or INTERNET LEADS TO DEMONIC DEATH AND NUCLEAR WASTELAND
TERROR FEAR NEUROSIS HORROR STUPIDITY BUT COMMON MAN HAS GOT IT ALL
FIGURED OUT AND DOESN'T NEED TO READ ANY DAMN BOOKS ANYWAY OR USE THESE
NEWFANGLED WHATCHAMACALLITS THE OLD WAYS WERE BEST or BELL CURVE IS JUST
A BUNCH OF DAMN NATZEE STATISTICS or THINKING IN GENERAL MAKES PEOPLE
WEIRDOS AND HAS BEEN VOTED OUT OF EXISTENCE BY MOB.
Yes, I know about "discreditation."
No, it is still socially fashionable to claim all sorts of cosmic powers
for the hairless monkey that is man ... like free will. But it is not too
sensible. A roughly six-foot primate gesturing wildly and jabbering about
it's power to break with the universe as a whole and enter into some
null-causality state in which it is not a direct result of it's genetic
inheritance and it's physical makeup is considered normal behavior in
Western Society.
Genetic determinism is opposed far more than the original Darwinism
because it is almost unbelievably unpleasant, disturbing, upsetting and
off-putting. It is also vulgar, distasteful, unpalatable, unworkably
depressing and a brutal shift from 2000 years of Gnostic thought that the
consciousness exists in some disconnected schism from the body.
Welcome to the 20th century. Get used to this kind of opposition, it can
only get more vocal and schizophrenic. Nevertheless, we have to continue
to try to understand who and what we really are, because we know that
ignorance is highly overrated, isn't it? Better to suck down an
unpleasant truth than bask in some fuzzy vague platitude and
obscurantism.
Genetic determinism is a superior meme because it explains things. The
alternative, that society is to blame? I don't think so, but keep trying
because nobody will ever criticize you for using that tripe to jump
through the intellectual equivalent of the emergency escape exit.
> I ask for the second time - where are you getting this stuff? Put up
> or shut up, Cleve.
Daniel, when you ask a guy who has read probably no less than several
thousand books on genetics, evolution and anthropology in his life, it is
hard for him to know how to answer this question. No sarcasm intended, I
don't know what you want me to say.
Where would I start? The Robert Ardrey Trilogy? Loren Eisley? Konrad
Lorenz? Desmond Morris? Colin Wilson? Dawkins? ... I don't know what you
want from me. A quote from a particular book? You'd respond by saying the
author was a so-and-so. Okay, the author was a so-and-so. What about the
other ten thousand? You want quotes from them too, page numbers, etc.
etc. ... what do you really want? Notes from God? I think those are
private.
I guess you are right, I am really a lazy-ass debater and cannot be
bothered.
:) Cheers,
Cleve Blakemore
Michael Bay
> I guess you are right, I am really a lazy-ass debater and cannot be
> bothered.
>
> :) Cheers,
> Cleve Blakemore
Hey Cleve.
I don't know who you are, but take your debates, rants, diatribes,
and lunatic fantasies into alt.cleve.is.mentally.deficient where
they belong.
Cheers
Michael W. Bay
Cmdr Krud
> cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8754075...@dejanews.com>...
> > In article <01bccb40$9e7f0040$c174...@primenet.primenet.com>,
> > "Cmdr Krud" <au...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > Pretty nasty thing to say considering you snipped the quote from me,
> > guess people will just have to take your word for it that I am somehow
> > connected with white supremacy movements. What if I decided to connect
> > you with crack dealing terrorists who deal in child pornography? [SNIP]
> > you'll just have to take my word on it!
Have I ever said anything in any post that would give someone that
impression? You, on the other hand, have given me the impression that you
are a very disturbed individual. I never said that you were somehow
connected with any group. Those are your words. I was just commenting on
how outrageous I found your remarks to be. As for me being nasty, I
thought that's what you expected. Why else would you make such
inflammatory remarks?
> > What you mean is, you have not read anything about advances in genetic
> > science printed since 1925.
No, what I meant was exactly what I said. Your remarks are every bit as
outrageous as any other fanatical rhetoric I've seen. I put you in the
same league as the white supremacists and the followers of Louis Farakhan,
and all the other hate mongers in the world (except they are a lot smarter
about it than you are). Don't believe everything you read. Just because
you read a theory in a book doesn't mean it's true.
> OK Cleve... I suppose you're going to enlighten us (again) with your
> profound knowledge of every subject in the universe...
>
> That's good. We need more people in the world
> > who think all genetic determinism is "sum kinda natzee bizniss er
sumthin
> > heah, Ah thenk alla dis here bizniss about DNA and whoremones iz sum
> > kinda natzee bizniss er sumthin. Wot wee need iz ta gat bak to basics,
Ah
> > meen ah reely thenk sew-sie-etty iz to blame, yeah."
Are you making fun of Southern Americans now? I would think that
"rednecks" would be your friends since most of them seem to have very
healthy testosterone levels. According to your logic that would make them
genetically superior.
> That's what I like about you Cleve, you're a man who reveals his mental
> superiority by his writing style.
> >
> > Hey look! It is almost 6 pm, pull up a chair, it's time for the Family
> > Feud!
>
> Pretty nasty thing to say Cleve, considering he might not own a T.V.!
That's ok, I own several TVs. In fact, I can't watch Family Feud tonight
because there's a special on A&E Biography about the life and times of
Lyndon Larouche (another truly enlightened individual). They're
interviewing him from his padded cell at the Federal Prison.
> Don't worry about the modern world and unpleasant and unappealing
> > reality, you can catch up someday before you die!
>
> Nice going Cleve, show 'em how you can correct someone while being
arrogant
> and demeaning at the same time. I'm sure you're win his friendship and
> respect (and the respect of everyone else in the world you despise).
>
> Then again, you've been
> > left so far behind by now, what is the use of even trying at this
point?
>
> That's oh so true Cleve... the whole world is so far behind you... why
even
> bother talking to us? As a matter of fact Cleve, just do yourself a
> tremendous favor and stop talking to any of us. Just because the guy made
a
> mistake doesn't mean you were elected to play Judge and Jury... lighten
up
> Cleve and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
>
> >
> > Watch plenty of wholesome TV and pretend it is 1945, it works for me!!
> >
> > I would not expect any less from a guy calling himself "Commander
Krud."
Gee, I'm sorry you don't like the name I use here. My kids thought of it.
Have you run out of clever insults so now you're criticizing my name? Tsk,
tsk, tsk.
-Krud
cl...@ans.com.au
You asked me how fast I read. You estimated 3 days for a scholarly tome -
let's say it was 200 pages.
I read Bill Gates's "The Road Ahead" in 20 minutes cover to cover. Last
week I read "Microsoft Secrets" by Cusumano and Selby in less than two
hours (500 pages).
You must know such people exist. I'm one of them.
Do you want an apology for this, too?
I'm really sorry I read faster than you can think. You happy now?
I wish Richard Dawkins could read your rebuttals, they're rich. You
basically do your thinking out loud, clumsily arrive at the exact
conclusions as me, then scream out "But not necessarily! This is all just
theoretical!"
The other day I was listening to this fellow mumble absentmindedly about
how little evidence there was for natural selection, he had me in
stitches. I got to watch him trying to stare me down in standard primate
fashion and I was thinking to myself, "Yeah, the common man is really
keeping up with himself, isn't he? He's got it going on in a big way, he
is some kind of happening cat. All those years of watching professional
wrestling during the greatest revolution in history in the natural
sciences has really paid off for him."
A lot of times most people sound like sleepers somebody has awakened in
the middle of the night. You don't want to talk to them and get them
upset but you can't resist trolling them just to see what they suspect
has happened during their long and unbroken slumber.
What is sad is that the gulf between the know-nothings and the
in-the-knows has nearly doubled in five years. You wonder how big the
cultural lag will be in 20.
You keep asking me about my sources - could I ask you a question?
Where have you been from 1975-1995? Dark side of the Moon? Do you ever
read magazines or periodicals? Watch public television, maybe take in a
documentary now and then? Maybe even read books sometimes on your own
without being assigned them?
I liked the bit about disparaging my estimate of "how much nature effects
human behavior" - that was really rich. What makes you think there is any
duality between human beings and nature? What makes you think culture is
not instinct, and instinct is not culture? At what point of our
development did this vast supernatural schism appear? For what reason?
I think it appeared in early A.D. when the Gnostics made up some crazy
bulls**t about a soul in the body. The Christians picked this up and
twisted it into pagan metaphysics, it got absorbed in the public psyche
and is now an immutable part of the way most people look at the world
long after the power of the Church has declined and vanished.
Western people are quite bizarre in that most of them are hardcore
Christians down deep, they just dismissed God and replaced him with the
collective herd at some point. This leaves them with a ridiculous
cosmology and without a celestial biblography to justify it. Nietzsche
discusses it at the beginning of TSZ after the acrobat falls to his death
- the fool runs through the town at night with the lantern astounded that
none knows of the great cataclysm that destroyed Christian cosmology
overnight. It happened but ordinary men slept right through it.
Kirk Macdonald
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
snip
> You must know such people exist. I'm one of them.
snip
Who cares? Other than the fact that you're clogging up the newsgroup
with critisism of the Canadian economic situation or disparaging remarks
about women, Australians and everybody else on the face of the earth;
except Cleve.
Why don't you make up a web page that itemizes all of your great
qualities; then people that actually care about this ego trip of yours
can go worship at the Shrine of Cleve, and the rest of us can get on
with discussions of Strategy games (No, not RPG's. By the way, how's
Grimore coming? "Oh! Forgot all about that! Better get back to work.").
--
Kirk Macdonald
"Age does not bring wisdom, ...but it does give perspective."
-- Robert Heinlein
These are my own opinions and do not reflect those of The Boeing Co.
Greg F.
Cleve Blakemore is by definition a sententious buffoon. I have never
before seen since David Lee Roth a more egocentric human being in my
life. At least Dave had a reason for his inflated sense of self.
I am writing this from my communal home on this frozen wasteland we
call Canada (ain't that right cleve). The government has been so good
as to allow me 15 minutes free access to the internet per month and I
just had to jump in and defend some of Cleve's magnificent pearls of
wisdom. Cleve is certainly an active spokesman on revisionist history
and it would appear we also have one of those conspiracy fruit cakes on
our hands here as well. His obvious love for the female species also
propels him to the top of the "misogynist's are us" movement.
In all of christendom I don't think I have ever seen a bigger "Girly
Man" than Cleve. Bitterness and defensivess resonates off every word he
utters. Why?
Because he's a failure that's why, He's realized he just doesn't have
what it takes to be in the big leagues and for that very reason he has a
hate on for all of humanity. He's a bitter, used up, useless husk.
Cleve, do us all a big favour, get a FUCKIN job pal!
Ya gotta love them Libertarians!!!
Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342dc5ff...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
dru...@curie.dialix.com.au (Daniel Rutter) wrote:
>
> industry, despite zero evidence that females are mentally or
> anatomically unsuited to the tasks. Since there are few brilliant
> programmers, and there are few female programmers, and few programmers
> program games, it makes sense that there are very very few brilliant
> female game programmers, without any appeals to hormonal differences.
Rich, I had a huge laugh reading this one. Wait, it helps if I put on my
Che Guevara beret with the SAVE THE WHALES button and my rose-tinted horn
rim glasses. I have to get my ACT-UP tee shirt on to maximize the effect.
Hey, let's get Bella Abzug in here, we got a live one!
> You will, of course, assert that there aren't many females in these
> lines of work because they don't appeal to their pink fluffy motherly
> brains. You will, however, be hard pressed to support this assertion
> with any empirical evidence whch shows occupation to be purely, or
> even predominantly, determined by biological, as opposed to social,
> factors.
Yeah!!!! KUMABAYA MY LORD, KUMBAYA, THOSE EVIL WHITE MALES ARE OPPRESSING
ME, WITH THEIR CUNNING INVISIBLE SOCIAL DEVICES, I COULD HAVE BEEN A
BRAIN SURGEON BUT THEY MADE ME PLAY WITH BARBIES, KUMBAYA, KUMBAYA MY
LORD KUMBAYA ....
Isn't it your "invisible social devices" that we lack any empirical
evidence for the existence of?
"Sally, I think your programming is substandard, but Bob's is quite good."
"OH GOD! I quit! AND I SO WANTED TO BE A GAMES PROGRAMMER!!! BOOHOOHOO
.... my dream was to sit around in a smelly room writing code like a mad
dog with no social companionship for years on end! Plus on top of
everything else, those evil patriarchial bastards have not been able to
produce a decent Pentium setup for less than $1500 clearly pushing it out
of my economic price range in a diabolical plot to keep me from getting
access to a computer!!! BOOHOOHOOHOO!!!"
Society does not make games programmers, Daniel. Wake up, man. God makes
them. If they got it, they'll get it, it doesn't matter a damn where they
are or where they come from. I am an uneducated poor boy from a broken
single-parent family with a high school diploma and no prospects - I
wrote and sold my first game three months after I got my computer.
"A male-dominated industry." Yeah, they've got their shirt sleeves rolled
up and are wrestling them gals away from the keyboards across the face of
the globe!! They are using their bulging testosterone powered muscles to
block the monitors so the girls can't see 'em - and they hid all the
manuals in the storage cabinet, too! Evil bastards, those damn males!
Spawn of hell! Monsters!
"I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, even though you have written a superior operating
system to UNIX we can't publish it because you're female. Try another
profession."
"Madam, we hate to disturb you, but we're doing a door-to-door search for
females using computers in their studies late at night. We frown on this
sort of thing and want you to do some ... knitting ... or something,
instead."
Randy Spalten
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <01bccbc4$e182b740$647a92cf@pentium-200>,
> "Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > bother talking to us? As a matter of fact Cleve, just do yourself a
> > tremendous favor and stop talking to any of us. Just because the guy made a
> > mistake doesn't mean you were elected to play Judge and Jury... lighten up
> > Cleve and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
>
> supremacy and Aryan Nazis because I said hormones create the differences
> between men and women.
I have to say I agree with Cleve (on some points) - but I figured out that
men and women were driven by different impulses by *third grade*, without
reading any dead German philosophers whatsoever!
The mere fact that people are misinterpreting this simple law of humanity can
only attest to their (a) ignorance or (b) inability to see sarcasm/irony on the Usenet.
Maybe it's the second part - I notice Cleve uses a lot of it, so maybe people think
he's a wacko because they *believe* he thinks people are forcibly stopping women from
becoming computer programmers. Go figure!
Sure, Cleve flies off the handle, but that's just the testosterone in him screaming
to compete!
>
> Now since the Nazis were totalitarian fascists who believed they had a
> right to kill people they deemed genetically inferior, and monsters who
> committed every sort of atrocity under the sun, I think that is a bit of
> an ugly and rather stupid thing to say just because someone, like me, has
> had the poor misfortune to fall headfirst into an open book of
> introductory biology printed after the turn of the century. It is not my
> fault. Chances are I was waiting on the dentist or something and thought
> it was a Hardy Boys novel, next thing I know the information was there in
> my brain and I didn't know how to erase it. I don't think involuntary
> retention should be discriminated against.
Most see the light of truth but decide to put on their sunglasses anyway.
However, Cleve, most people don't care. Can't we take this rant over to
alt.talk.bizarre where it is so desperately needed?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the differences in behavior caused by the
> hormones estrogen and testosterone is one of the best documented ideas in
> the world next to thyroid function and simple circulation. IF this guy
> wanted, we could walk into any book store and I could locate three dozen
> titles in thirty seconds that back up every single thing I asserted.
>
> I don't think this makes me a Nazi.
>
> > But we would expect more from you Cleve, a grown and supposedly well read
> > "mature" adult!
>
> Ever hear me chuck that knee-jerk "Nazi" word at anybody? Of course not,
> it is meaningless and a generic insult for people who have no argument.
> It is quite stupid in this day and age too, but of course villains are
> needed for Indiana Jones films and the Nazis are handy even though they
> got wiped out 60 years ago - and good riddance.
>
Werner Arend
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Steve Page wrote:
> Hmmmmm. Interesting...............
> Not once did anyone consider asking what a women might think.
> Are you all such experts on the femal gender?
> I have a faint suspicion that when it comes to the opposite sex most of
> you haven't a clue.
Hmmm, maybe - at least in some cases. Perhaps you would care to post a
comment of your own?
> Natasha Sands.
Werner
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
cl...@ans.com.au:
>In article <342dc5ff...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
> dru...@curie.dialix.com.au (Daniel Rutter) wrote:
>
>Hatred of men and male culture is a religion, okay? It is not sane or
>reasonable in any way. It is for oversocialized people who need some
Intruder Alert: "oversocialized" is also the Unabomber's favorite
word. I'd be nice to this one.
Patrick
_____________________________________________________________________
"Rest assured that my decisions always have in mind the ultimate good.
I shall now ask you some test questions, as a security measure."
_____________________________________________________________________
*Disclaimer*: These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8754790...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bccbc4$e182b740$647a92cf@pentium-200>,
> "Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > That's oh so true Cleve... the whole world is so far behind you... why
even
> > bother talking to us? As a matter of fact Cleve, just do yourself a
> > tremendous favor and stop talking to any of us. Just because the guy
made a
> > mistake doesn't mean you were elected to play Judge and Jury... lighten
up
> > Cleve and get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
>
> The guy didn't make a mistake. The guy decided to lump me in with white
> supremacy and Aryan Nazis because I said hormones create the differences
> between men and women.
>
> right to kill people they deemed genetically inferior, and monsters who
> committed every sort of atrocity under the sun, I think that is a bit of
> an ugly and rather stupid thing to say just because someone, like me, has
> had the poor misfortune to fall headfirst into an open book of
> introductory biology printed after the turn of the century. It is not my
> fault. Chances are I was waiting on the dentist or something and thought
> it was a Hardy Boys novel, next thing I know the information was there in
> my brain and I didn't know how to erase it. I don't think involuntary
> retention should be discriminated against.
>
> hormones estrogen and testosterone is one of the best documented ideas in
> the world next to thyroid function and simple circulation. IF this guy
> wanted, we could walk into any book store and I could locate three dozen
> titles in thirty seconds that back up every single thing I asserted.
>
> I don't think this makes me a Nazi.
>
> > But we would expect more from you Cleve, a grown and supposedly well
read
> > "mature" adult!
>
> Ever hear me chuck that knee-jerk "Nazi" word at anybody? Of course not,
> it is meaningless and a generic insult for people who have no argument.
> It is quite stupid in this day and age too, but of course villains are
> needed for Indiana Jones films and the Nazis are handy even though they
> got wiped out 60 years ago - and good riddance.
I never said you were a Nazi, I said that your remarks about Canada and
women were the most amazing thing I've read since I saw the Arian Nation
Home Page. Did I use the word Nazi? You wouldn't be *reading between the
lines*, would you? You are a certifiable lunatic, that's for sure. Maybe
you're right about women and Canadians (although I don't agree) but it's
pretty stupid saying the things you said in a public newsgroup.
Why don't you stop ranting and READ some of your posts. You are obviously
paranoid and delusional. And you obviously have a bone to pick with Steve
Bauman and his magazine. You are so transparent and predictable that it's
pathetic. Your antisocial behavior is indicative of a much deeper
emotional problem than is apparent from your ridiculous posts in these
newsgroups. Tell about your childhood Cleve, then maybe we will understand
why you are so obnoxious and we can give you the sympathy you so
desperately crave.
-Krud
ASSFUNGUS
who cares what's his view on women ... or anything? It's the game that
I'm interested in. I don't really give a rats ass if Cleve eats veal,
wears fur coat, do drugs, or any other shit. It's like not buying a
certain music CD because the band is a republican. You don't have to
like the author to like his art.
AIGamer
>Why don't you stop ranting and READ some of your posts. You are
obviously paranoid and delusional.
The truth is Cleve has all of you on a meat hook, and he's gutting you all
from the nave to the throat, watching your intestines fall onto the ground
while you squeal. He's laughing as he does it, because he knows how to yank
your chains, and you humorless fools don't know when to stop arguing with him.
It's a shame that the Military didn't use Cleve in pyscholical warfare,
because they've missed out on some great talent.
Cleve, twist the knife for me once! Make 'em squeal! Nothing makes me
laugh harder than a "squirming lefty."
MoJo
> > Subject: Re: Wizardry VIII Ad, Where?
> > From: cl...@ans.com.au
> > Date: 1997/09/11
> > Message-Id: <8740293...@dejanews.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
> > [More Headers]
> >
> > In article <34184E...@ccnet.com.nospam>
> >
> > Women are not particularly attracted to men who are skilled as
> > independent observers - this is why females almost never challenge the
> > group meme, rather they reinforce it and castigate males who offend it
> > by rejecting them sexually.
> >
I believe this would translate as: Cleve is a virgin because no woman
would be caught dead with him. ;-)
Seriously, while I believe Cleve's views on women are pretty reprehensible,
I'm also not surprised to find out that a fairly talented game designer
is, on a personal level, something of a jerk. I am a beta tester for
several large gaming companies, so I know several top game designers.
Most of them are assholes.
MJ
Alex Van Der Hengst
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:27:15 -0400, "Greg F." <nobozo's...@cleve.com>
wrote:
>
> Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
It's his real name, idiot.
Cmdr Krud
Randy Spalten <rspa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<343081...@ix.netcom.com>...
> cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
> >
> >
> > The guy didn't make a mistake. The guy decided to lump me in with white
> > supremacy and Aryan Nazis because I said hormones create the
differences
> > between men and women.
>
that
> men and women were driven by different impulses by *third grade*, without
> reading any dead German philosophers whatsoever!
> The mere fact that people are misinterpreting this simple law of humanity
can
> only attest to their (a) ignorance or (b) inability to see sarcasm/irony
on the Usenet.
> Maybe it's the second part - I notice Cleve uses a lot of it, so maybe
people think
> he's a wacko because they *believe* he thinks people are forcibly
stopping women from
> becoming computer programmers. Go figure!
> Sure, Cleve flies off the handle, but that's just the testosterone in him
screaming
> to compete!
You and Cleve are assuming that because he is being flamed, people don't
understand what he is saying. He is being flamed for his attitude, not his
ideas. He may be a very brilliant person but his people skills need a lot
of work. And what does his hatred of all things Canadian have to do with
his remarks about men and women? There is always more than one way to get
a point across and Cleve has chosen the hard way. I can tell you that I
think you're wrong about something one way and you'll say thanks for the
constructive criticism, and I can tell you that you're wrong another way
and you'll tell me to go to hell. It's all in the delivery.
One doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that men and women are
different. Anyone who has ever had a wife, girlfriend or even a sister
knows that to be true. Obviously hormones have something to do with the
differences between the genders. Whether or not testosterone is the
driving force behind human evolution is debatable. The theories that he
is referring to are just that - theories - not gospel. I believe that
nature and nurture are both equally responsible for an individual's
personality. In some cases nature may have more influence and in some
cases nurture may have more influence.
-Krud
Cmdr Krud
AIGamer <aig...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970929220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >Why don't you stop ranting and READ some of your posts. You are
> obviously paranoid and delusional.
>
>
> The truth is Cleve has all of you on a meat hook, and he's gutting you
all
> from the nave to the throat, watching your intestines fall onto the
ground
> while you squeal. He's laughing as he does it, because he knows how to
yank
> your chains, and you humorless fools don't know when to stop arguing with
him.
>
> It's a shame that the Military didn't use Cleve in pyscholical warfare,
> because they've missed out on some great talent.
Sounds like they used him for psychological warfare testing....... as a
guinea pig. That would explain those little purple microdots in his mashed
potatoes. Who's arguing? I'm just giving him the attention that he so
desperately wants. So what's your connection to Cleve?
-Krud
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8755616...@dejanews.com>...
> You asked me how fast I read. You estimated 3 days for a scholarly tome -
> let's say it was 200 pages.
>
> I read Bill Gates's "The Road Ahead" in 20 minutes cover to cover. Last
> week I read "Microsoft Secrets" by Cusumano and Selby in less than two
> hours (500 pages).
>
Cleve, since you are so gifted, why are you making a computer game when you
could be using your gifts to help solve some of the problems you're
complaining about? Maybe that's why you seem so bitter. Is your choice of
a career the result nature or nurture?
-Krud
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342f9ae6...@news.zippo.com>,
gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
>
> Keep 'em coming. Who needs a daily Far Side calendar when we've got
> Cleve's "quotes of the day"?
"Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
- Frank Zappa
AIGamer
>Who's arguing? I'm just giving him the attention that he so
desperately wants. So what's your connection to Cleve?
Just someone who reads this newsgroup and enjoys what Cleve has to say.
Greg F.
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <342f9ae6...@news.zippo.com>,
> gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Keep 'em coming. Who needs a daily Far Side calendar when we've got
> > Cleve's "quotes of the day"?
>
> "Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
> money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
> explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
>
> - Frank Zappa
"Death on two legs,
You never had a heart of your own,
Insane, should be put inside,
Your're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride,
Should be made unemployed,
Declare yourself null and void,
Make me feel good,
I feel good"
Freddie Mercuy
AIGamer
Hypocrite! Your response to Cleve is evidence that he belongs on this thread.
If you didn't really want to read his post, you would simply ignore it.
AIGamer
>Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
It's his name and and American city. But you wouldn't know that comming from a
province of a third world nation.
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8756434...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <342f9ae6...@news.zippo.com>,
> gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Keep 'em coming. Who needs a daily Far Side calendar when we've got
> > Cleve's "quotes of the day"?
>
> "Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
> money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
> explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
>
> - Frank Zappa
Heh, heh. I may not like your style but I DO appreciate your wit.
-Krud
HS Simpson
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:22:12 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au had these pearls
of wisdom to dispense:
>In article <342f9ae6...@news.zippo.com>,
> gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Keep 'em coming. Who needs a daily Far Side calendar when we've got
>> Cleve's "quotes of the day"?
>
>"Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
>money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
>explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
>
>- Frank Zappa
You quote a guy who named his kids Dweezil and Moon Unit. Why am I
not surprised?
To reply via e-mail, be sure to remove the NOSPAM from the e-mail address.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Game Drek -- your definitive guide to Gaming Grossness<tm>!
http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
* NEW! Game Drek Exclusive! Nippolena...The Drek Interview!
* Web-Exclusive! Nai-Chi Lee's BC3K FAQ!
* Newly-revised & Expanded Game Company Listings
* Desslock's Diablo Information Guide v2.3...get it now...at Game Drek!
Patrick Mcginley
ASSFUNGUS (ASSF...@prodigy.net) scribbled something about:
: who cares what's his view on women ... or anything? It's the game that
Agreed. Anybody who get's himself thrown into the nuthouse and struck
off the medical register for waving a crucifix shaped banner
at the Queen proclaiming "Elizardbeast - we are 666 of you"
is alright in my book. - Andrew in alt.conspiracy.pricess.di
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <342FA9...@aol.com>,
I found a newsgroup for you as well.
"alt.high.levels.of.lead.discovered.in.my.hometown.drinking.water"
Greg F.
AIGamer wrote:
>
> It's his name and and American city. But you wouldn't know that comming from a
> province of a third world nation.
What're you Cleve's Girlfriend! The whole lot of you (Cleve & Co.)
are so disgustingly left wing that the term Fruit Cake applies to all
of you. I would strongly reccomend some kind of introduction to
history classes to you and your ilk, because half assed comments like
yours are really quite laughable. Educated, witty responses are what
we're looking for here pal.
If you don't like it, don't talk about it.
If you want to get rolled over, just keep it up pally.
Rick Kaumeier
radiospace wrote:
>
> a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
>
> >>
> >> "Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
> >> money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
> >> explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
> >>
> >> - Frank Zappa
> >
> > You never had a heart of your own,
> > Insane, should be put inside,
> > Your're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride,
> > Should be made unemployed,
> > Declare yourself null and void,
> > Make me feel good,
> > I feel good"
> >
> > Freddie Mercuy
>
> ---John Lennon
>
> I think that settles it once and for all.
>
> Patrick
Wait! We still haven't heard from Sting!
"Da doo doo doo, Da da da da, that's all I want to say to you."
OK, that's it. <g>
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
"Greg F." <nobozo's...@cleve.com>:
>>
>> "Socialism is a lot like jail rape except you get a kiss, some spending
>> money, cigarettes and the top bunk after jail rape. And nobody tries to
>> explain why jail rape is good for you afterwards."
>>
>> - Frank Zappa
>
> "Death on two legs,
> You never had a heart of your own,
> Insane, should be put inside,
> Your're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride,
> Should be made unemployed,
> Declare yourself null and void,
> Make me feel good,
> I feel good"
>
> Freddie Mercuy
"Goo goo ga joob"
---John Lennon
I think that settles it once and for all.
Patrick
Cmdr Krud
> >Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
>
from a
> province of a third world nation.
Really? Where exactly is Cleve, U.S.A.? Is that anywhere near Cleveland?
-Krud
Skeksis
> As far as I know, mongoloids, and people with other determined genetic
> diseases where sterilized in many countries back when. USA, England, Sweden,
> France,
> Italy all had a program to 'keep theese diseases out of humanity'.
Think it might work on the politicians? ;)
Skeksis
Skeksis
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
> Of course not, you're a moron. How in the hell are you going to post a
> counter-argument when the sum total of your experience and knowledge
> could be written on a postage stamp?
And you are a rude, arrogant, elitist, sexist jerk. You do not seem to have
any notion how to make a point with resorting to some sort of insult or
belittling comment. After reading this thread I have got to wonder what got
you so wound up that you felt you has to share your vision of the world with
the rest of us, whether any one wanted it or not. I also have to wonder
*why* you chose this newsgroup to make yourself known instead of a venue more
appropriate.
During this thread I have noticed a few intersting comments such as the cry
for mercy because you cannot control what is in your brain. Sounds like
spurious thinking from the 'It's not *my* fault' camp. Apparently you have
never actively decided that any scrap of information is invalid and unworthy
of further attention. How sad for you...your mind must be so cluttered with
all the mental lint that accumulates in *one* day so are incapable of sorting
anything out any more.
As for your comment about only the rare souls seeing there is a problem in
the world....I don't think so. Just about any one can see there are
problems, big ones that need to be dealt with. The *rare* soul is the one
who can offer a good solution, not just "posture, scream, dance, fight and
carry on" saying "I told you so".
> (literally) breeding implement, it is the average adult male. They are
> good for little else.
Presumably this is your arrogance talking, tell us and yourself that you are
better than 'the average male'. I think you need to reread a certain passage
in a particular book about Christmas having to do with making choices of who
is worthy to live and not. I am not going to provide you with a title since
you lack the common courtesy to provide your titles. You shouldn't have any
trouble finding this passage anyway since underneath it all you semm to be a
literate person.
> The really important thing I have said (that you did not get of course)
> is that the hormone testosterone is responsible for nearly all the noble
> impulses in human beings, both men and women. This hormone exists in both
> sexes - but the unreliability of it's function is immediately apparent.
> Look at the vast herd of males who are nothing more than slobbering,
> vicious, hieriarchial cretins devoid of any desire outside of sex, status
> and power. This is an example of where the hormone takes the low road, to
> say the least.
By your disputation we are all nothing more than slaves to our endocrine
system and the human mind plays little or no value at all. Gee, I really
appreciate being debased on your altar of knowledge. Getting crude for a
moment...how the bloody FUCK do you make that kind of assertion? What tests
were performed that isolated *testosterone* as the motivating factor in the
world? Back up the claim with some sources please.
> Your beef is not with me - it is with Mother Nature and the past 60
> million years of evolution, you should take it up with her.
No...the beef *is* with you. You are the utter crackpot spewing forth this
pseudo-knowledge. What are you trying to accomplish...what is your
goal...what are you up to...to cause you to suddenly come boiling out of the
net-woodwork? This is also the second major attempt of yours to deflect
attention away from yourself by trying to cite another source that will
hopefully absolve you of the responsibility for your words. The first was
when you claimed it was your brain's fault for hording useless knowledge and
now this claptrap about it being Mother Nature's fault. Lord you sound just
like my ex who let an perfectly good flat run to ruin and later claimed the
flat did not motivate her to take care of it.
> "A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
You equate decency with a capacity for sight...what kind of pathetic clueless
creep are you? Let me ask my legally blind fiancee what she thinks of that
assesment. At this moment I considered refering to you as a 'bastard' but
that would be insult to all the children who were by no fault of their own
born out of wedlock. You are far, far lower.
Skeksis
Skeksis
> anything, don't we? But on the other hand, it is usually men who produce
> really high quality computer games, because this tstone makes them
> stubborn aholes who refuse to budge an inch from the highest quality.
Aaaahhhhh....at last we come to the crux of the issue. You are shilling for a
*game*. Given the amount of utter *crap* on the computer gaming market; most of
it produced by men, that defeats your 'highest quality' argument. Now that I,
in my all too limited way, because I am not blessed with all the noble
characters bequeathed by an excess of testosterone have sussed your underlying
motive, can safely go by to my sheltered life and *ingore* you.
BTW - try to guess my gender from my posts you sanctimonoius refugee from a
"Human Potential Movement' meeting.
Skeksis
Skeksis
> And the mapping of human DNA will tell us what, exactly, about subtle
> and elusive points of intellectual development?
Other that possibly causing a resurgance in the the theory that you can
measure the body to determine behavioural traits I think the only thing about
intellectual development is that when grants are concered it will stimulate
development of something.
Skeksis
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <343257B9...@buffnet.net>,
Ske...@buffnet.net wrote:
>
>[snip] 14 paragraphs of their own errors projected onto me
> > "A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
>
> You equate decency with a capacity for sight...what kind of pathetic clueless
> creep are you? Let me ask my legally blind fiancee what she thinks of that
> assesment. At this moment I considered refering to you as a 'bastard' but
> that would be insult to all the children who were by no fault of their own
> born out of wedlock. You are far, far lower.
>
> Skeksis
I'll just pick this one, out of fun.
Let me go really slow, patiently and try to explain to you what this
actually means.
Richard Dawkins, the world's foremost thinker on natural selection at the
moment, as labeled mother nature a "blind watchmaker."
This is nothing new to those who have been keeping up with anthropology
and evolution in general. People instantly recognize Dawkin's
implication. But everybody applauds his amazing ability to select a
near-perfect phrase to describe evolutionary forces.
There is no conscious thought controlling human evolution. It is a blind
exercise in trial and error.
Your suggestion that I am a Nazi because by using the word "blind," I
have insulted blind people everywhere, is so hilarious and so far-left
politically correct that it confirms my suspicion the world is host to
some magnificently confused nuts. How much of the english language do you
guys wish to outlaw before you feel that there will be no words that
could possibly offend somebody somewhere?
This "blind watchmaker," (nature) when given million of years to work in
and innumerable failures, is seemingly capable of producing very complex
organic life forms that would seem to have been built by conscious design
to a simpler mind with it's prejudices about conscious design implied
into the whole universe around it everywhere..
But ... to really understand these forces, the forces of natural
selection, means to understand that there is no rhyme or reason behind
it. Evolution selects whatever gets the job done. If nature needs to make
a one-eyed four-footed mud-slurping insect, she'll do that given it is
not too far genetically from existing life forms.
Nature does not stop to say "The animal will look ridiculous." She
doesn't care because she is not a conscious force nor is she even female.
Evolution has no sense of decency.
If two different sexes male and female seem to be a good combination for
overall group survival, each with different personality traits, evolution
does not stop to think "but what about radical feminists with preexisting
prejudices about the myth of genetic equality? Won't they be offended by
the notion of people with genetically determined traits and predisposed
to certain types of behavior?"
None of this existed 60 million years ago when all the groundwork was
laid.
Thus ... (I'm getting bored at this point) ... "A blind watchmaker has no
sense of decency." Kapishe? It doesn't matter what society wants to be
true, nature has already completed most of her work with our species and
is not taking suggestions at this point. This does not involve a vote.
You either accept that men and women are different, or you live a lie and
pretend they aren't. If you're worried that men will use this knowledge
to argue they are genetically superior, trust me, nobody has more to lose
by an honest examination of the biological facts than men. Men come out
more poorly at EVERYTHING under the sun, if anybody needs pity it is
men. Men excel at fighting, tasks involving muscular strength, 3D mental
memorization of terrain, intensely focused singular acts of concentration
and a few odds and ends. At everything else under the sun, men stink. So
don't worry any of this new science is going to hurt women, if anything
it will increase respect for their abilities and prove that they are
quite good at an awful lot of things that men have claimed for a long
time they aren't. The majority of men, in fact, IMHO, are basically
botched women.
If you DON'T get it ... don't bother posting. You've already been very
vocal about your misunderstanding.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <34325B28...@buffnet.net>,
Knowledge is evil, isn't it. Let us burn all of these godless libraries
and erect churches in their place and return to the good old days.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <NEWTNews.875549...@paprika.roch875.mc.xerox.com>,
MoJo <md...@roch875.mc.xerox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Seriously, while I believe Cleve's views on women are pretty reprehensible,
> I'm also not surprised to find out that a fairly talented game designer
> is, on a personal level, something of a jerk. I am a beta tester for
> several large gaming companies, so I know several top game designers.
>
> Most of them are assholes.
>
> MJ
You're really trying to keep up with the world with things, aren't you?
"Views on women." I thought most of my views were on human beings and
biology, not women.
You should get a job as those experts that come on the show at the end of
Oprah, you're highly qualified as it is obvious you are oblivious to
advances in understanding about human beings made since 1930.
At those several large games companies - did you meet a lot of good
female games programmers? No? Is it bad to even ask why? Did you ever
stop for more than one second and ever think about the question in
curiosity?
"Invisible social devices and evil male patriarchial structures."
Did you meet a woman who said "I desperately want to be a games
programmer but these male bastards are discouraging me and won't let me
get my foot in the door?"
I think most women are too well-adjusted to want to do anything to the
manic level it takes to be a good games designer. Honestly, their minds
just have better stabilizers and just like the hardcore biological
evidence shows, they tend to monopolize the middle of the gene pool,
while the men cluster at the ends.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <19970929220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
aig...@aol.com (AIGamer) wrote:
>
> >Why don't you stop ranting and READ some of your posts. You are
> obviously paranoid and delusional.
>
> The truth is Cleve has all of you on a meat hook, and he's gutting you all
> from the nave to the throat, watching your intestines fall onto the ground
> while you squeal. He's laughing as he does it, because he knows how to yank
> your chains, and you humorless fools don't know when to stop arguing with him.
>
> It's a shame that the Military didn't use Cleve in pyscholical warfare,
> because they've missed out on some great talent.
>
> laugh harder than a "squirming lefty."
Oh no, I'm found out now. :)
Nothing better to relax than putting out a good little troll there with
some nice bait on it like hormonal differences and see what sort of fish
start biting at it.
It is hard to make these things sound exciting or radical because they
are actually so boring. But usually suggesting men have a corner on the
market in ethical behavior gets their blood going.
Ya Natzee, ya! By gum, we kekked yer asses in the big W-2 and we're
aiming ta do it agin, ya nat-zee, ya! How dare ya talks bout our
wimmenfolk thet way, ya nat-zee! Theys mite be girls but theys our girls,
ya nat-zee!!! Why, by gump ahl slap the dickins outaya, ya demm nat-zee!!
Adam G. Unikowsky
On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 15:11:59 -0600, cl...@ans.com.au etched unto
cyberspace for eternity:
>
>Ya Natzee, ya! By gum, we kekked yer asses in the big W-2 and we're
>aiming ta do it agin, ya nat-zee, ya! How dare ya talks bout our
>wimmenfolk thet way, ya nat-zee! Theys mite be girls but theys our girls,
>ya nat-zee!!! Why, by gump ahl slap the dickins outaya, ya demm nat-zee!!
>
Cleve,
This is about the seventh time you've attempted badly to imitate an
accent you obviously don't speak, and it hasn't gotten any funnier...
Try something new...
-Adam
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8757350...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <34325B28...@buffnet.net>,
> Ske...@buffnet.net wrote:
> >
> > > anything, don't we? But on the other hand, it is usually men who
produce
> > > really high quality computer games, because this tstone makes them
> > > stubborn aholes who refuse to budge an inch from the highest quality.
> >
> > Aaaahhhhh....at last we come to the crux of the issue. You are
shilling for a
> > *game*. Given the amount of utter *crap* on the computer gaming
market; most
> of
> > it produced by men, that defeats your 'highest quality' argument. Now
that I,
> > in my all too limited way, because I am not blessed with all the noble
> > characters bequeathed by an excess of testosterone have sussed your
underlying
> > motive, can safely go by to my sheltered life and *ingore* you.
> >
> > BTW - try to guess my gender from my posts you sanctimonoius refugee
from a
> > "Human Potential Movement' meeting.
> >
> > Skeksis
>
> Knowledge is evil, isn't it. Let us burn all of these godless libraries
> and erect churches in their place and return to the good old days.
>
Only when the knowledge is misinterpreted and misunderstood, then
distributed for other people to misinterpret and misunderstand. If you
had any control at all over your ego you might realize that your opinions
(and the opinions of others that you've read) are not necessarily facts.
If Cleve believes it then it must be true, eh?
-Krud
Joe
> > > "A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
> >
> > You equate decency with a capacity for sight...what kind of pathetic clueless
> > creep are you? Let me ask my legally blind fiancee what she thinks of that
> > assesment. At this moment I considered refering to you as a 'bastard' but
> > that would be insult to all the children who were by no fault of their own
> > born out of wedlock. You are far, far lower.
> >
> > Skeksis
> sense of decency." Kapishe? It doesn't matter what society wants to be
> true, nature has already completed most of her work with our species and
> is not taking suggestions at this point. This does not involve a vote.
> You either accept that men and women are different, or you live a lie and
[snip,for brevity].
Entire article, dead-on.
Of course, people don't *want* to see things so mechanically.
It seems all so unfair. Like we're just little bugs in a great
galactic machine. Which is exactly what we are.
Whatever else we want to be, we'll have to make of it ourselves.
--Joe.
Cmdr Krud
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in article <8757361...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <19970929220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> aig...@aol.com (AIGamer) wrote:
> >
> > >Why don't you stop ranting and READ some of your posts. You are
> > obviously paranoid and delusional.
> >
> > The truth is Cleve has all of you on a meat hook, and he's gutting you
all
> > from the nave to the throat, watching your intestines fall onto the
ground
> > while you squeal. He's laughing as he does it, because he knows how to
yank
> > your chains, and you humorless fools don't know when to stop arguing
with him.
> >
> > It's a shame that the Military didn't use Cleve in pyscholical warfare,
> > because they've missed out on some great talent.
> >
> > Cleve, twist the knife for me once! Make 'em squeal! Nothing makes me
> > laugh harder than a "squirming lefty."
>
> Oh no, I'm found out now. :)
>
> Nothing better to relax than putting out a good little troll there with
> some nice bait on it like hormonal differences and see what sort of fish
> start biting at it.
>
> It is hard to make these things sound exciting or radical because they
> are actually so boring. But usually suggesting men have a corner on the
> market in ethical behavior gets their blood going.
>
> aiming ta do it agin, ya nat-zee, ya! How dare ya talks bout our
> wimmenfolk thet way, ya nat-zee! Theys mite be girls but theys our girls,
> ya nat-zee!!! Why, by gump ahl slap the dickins outaya, ya demm nat-zee!!
Oh, come on Cleve. You're not just trolling, you like to show off. You're
a regular Cliff Claven.
-Krud :)
Joe
> > Seriously, while I believe Cleve's views on women are pretty reprehensible,
> > I'm also not surprised to find out that a fairly talented game designer
> > is, on a personal level, something of a jerk. I am a beta tester for
> > several large gaming companies, so I know several top game designers.
> >
> > Most of them are assholes.
> At those several large games companies - did you meet a lot of good
> female games programmers? No? Is it bad to even ask why? Did you ever
> stop for more than one second and ever think about the question in
> curiosity?
> I think most women are too well-adjusted to want to do anything to the
> manic level it takes to be a good games designer. Honestly, their minds
> just have better stabilizers and just like the hardcore biological
> evidence shows, they tend to monopolize the middle of the gene pool,
> while the men cluster at the ends.
Where Cleve is, for the most part, a self-confessed asshole :),
I don't see the views as expressed above as 'reprehensible'.
Theorizing *why* there are no 'good women games programmers'
is not the same as suggesting that there shouldn't be any.
Whether or not you agree with his conclusions or his theories,
no matter how outlandish you think those theories are, does
not make a person's beliefs reprehensible per se.
There aren't very many female programmers, period. For some
reason most women just haven't been attracted to the art.
I think this is particularly true if you get into the 'geek
with a poney tail' disciplines like games programming,
operating systems, and so on.
I do think this has been changing a bit.
If I had to theorize why there were few female games
programmers, I myself might guess that there is an initial
predilication against sustained interest in games themselves.
This might have something to do with male spatial processing.
I dunno.
Omigosh. I just mentioned the male spatial processing
advantage. Uh-oh. Does that make me 'reprehensible'?
[only a complete ignoramus totally uniformed as to the
realities of human biology would think so].
--Joe.
Rollin Baker
In article <8757361...@dejanews.com>, cl...@ans.com.au writes...
>
>Nothing better to relax than putting out a good little troll there with
>some nice bait on it like hormonal differences and see what sort of fish
>start biting at it.
>
>It is hard to make these things sound exciting or radical because they
>are actually so boring. But usually suggesting men have a corner on the
>market in ethical behavior gets their blood going.
I understand that you didn't post (in this instance) the original post in
this stellar example of usenet 'traditional behavior', but, hopefully,
you've had your fill of the rather limited amusement it must offer, and
could you please take the discussion somewhere else?
Rollin
Mike Hussey
In article <3433DC...@bbn.com>, Joe <jkr...@bbn.com> writes
<snip>
>There aren't very many female programmers, period. For some
>reason most women just haven't been attracted to the art.
>I think this is particularly true if you get into the 'geek
>with a poney tail' disciplines like games programming,
>operating systems, and so on.
Sorry to interupt the flame war (which I'm really enjoying BTW), but the
number of female programmers is actually declining. When I first started
in this industry, as a lowely IBM mainframe operator, back when most of
you (including Cleve) were probably still in short pants, women
programmers were quite common, if not a majority of the profession. When
I grew up and was actually afforded the coveted title of *programmer*
and could impress women at parties, it was still quite common for 50% of
a commercial development department to be female. I noticed, with
concern, the decline in recent years and discussed it with a young (very
good) female programmer. Her opinion was that when computer science was
introduced into schools (at least in the UK) it was considered a boys
subject (like metalwork or woodwork) and young girls were positively
discouraged from taking an interest. She, personally, had never
considered computing as a career, until she had completed her history
degree and had spent two boring years in banking. The ability to
program, if there is such a thing, is not biological, remember Commander
(later Admiral) Grace Hopper.
>
<snip>
>--Joe.
Please remove asterisks if replying by e-mail.
Mike Hussey
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <2OCT1997...@eql12.caltech.edu>,
rol...@eql12.caltech.edu (Rollin Baker) wrote:
>
>
> I understand that you didn't post (in this instance) the original post in
> this stellar example of usenet 'traditional behavior', but, hopefully,
> you've had your fill of the rather limited amusement it must offer, and
> could you please take the discussion somewhere else?
>
> Rollin
Actually, I wrote the original post like 3 weeks ago and nobody even
noticed it. David Thompson decided to dress it up as an assault on women
and reposted it - why? because he was trolling you. IT worked - all it
took was a slightly changed header and the politically correct storm
troopers decended on rappelling lines all over the server firing
automatic machine guns at anybody who even read the thought-crime.
Is Usenet a limited resource? I wasn't aware it needed conservation
rangers wandering around on it like Smokey the Bear. You could do what I
do - skip the header. Oh, sorry, that would rock your world, wouldn't it?
Why don't we have one world government and international regulation of
the net instead? Would make it all so much easier for people with IQs of
65 and below if they did not have to use independent judgement when they
are on the web.
Rollin Baker
In article <8759293...@dejanews.com>, cl...@ans.com.au writes...
>Is Usenet a limited resource? I wasn't aware it needed conservation
>rangers wandering around on it like Smokey the Bear. You could do what I
>do - skip the header. Oh, sorry, that would rock your world, wouldn't it?
>Why don't we have one world government and international regulation of
>the net instead? Would make it all so much easier for people with IQs of
>65 and below if they did not have to use independent judgement when they
>are on the web.
Nope, I'd prefer to let people do the self-regulation. (Did it sound as if
I was advocating otherwise? - I hadn't thought that asking that you moderate
yourself smacked of one-world government, but whatever works for you.)
Which is why I asked, rather nicely I thought, if you'd had your fill of the
rather limited amusement shooting at fish in barrels must offer you, and we
could go back to discussing what, I at least, understood the newsgroup to be
about. You can pretty much tell you've won, BTW, when they accuse you of
buggering sheep - you've gotten down to the point where the adolescents have
nothing else much left to say.
And I also apologize if you inferred I thought you had an IQ of 65 (or below),
since I certainly didn't intend for you to take it that way.
Rollin
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <3433DC...@bbn.com>,
Joe <jkr...@bbn.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see the views as expressed above as 'reprehensible'.
> Theorizing *why* there are no 'good women games programmers'
> is not the same as suggesting that there shouldn't be any.
I can say with great confidence there is NOTHING I would be more
interested in seeing than a GREAT female games programmer. IF few women
go into philosophy, but the greatest philosopher of all time was a woman,
imagine what a great female games programmer might be like. She might
make men look sad and pitiful by comparison.
> Whether or not you agree with his conclusions or his theories,
> no matter how outlandish you think those theories are, does
> not make a person's beliefs reprehensible per se.
Especially if they are talking leading-edge, hardcore cutting science. A
person is not a monster because they can read, although the early
Christians seemed to think so. They burned people for it.
>
> If I had to theorize why there were few female games
> programmers, I myself might guess that there is an initial
> predilication against sustained interest in games themselves.
> This might have something to do with male spatial processing.
> I dunno.
Well, now you are a Nazi, and I'll tell you why.
1. You are suggesting the Earth is more than 4000 years old. 2. You are
saying the human race is the result of natural selection. 3. You are
saying that the male is better at spatial processing because he needed to
figure out how to trap game in canyons and ravines being a hunter. 4. By
suggesting men were hunters and females were gatherers you are supporting
the evil male patriarchy that says human beings are not genetically
identical, which anybody who has grown up watching DIFFERENT STROKES
knows they are.
> Omigosh. I just mentioned the male spatial processing
> advantage. Uh-oh. Does that make me 'reprehensible'?
Totally. Come and stand over behind the asshole line. We have been
cordoned off for the safety of the public.
> [only a complete ignoramus totally uniformed as to the
> realities of human biology would think so].
>
> --Joe.
Well, in Christian thought the original sin was eating of the Tree of
Knowledge, wasn't it? It is people like you that got us kicked out of
Eden, ya Nat-Zee bastid!
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <CbM4eCAJ...@falconry.demon.co.uk>,
Mike Hussey <mike@*falconry.*demon.*co.*uk> wrote:
>
> In article <3433DC...@bbn.com>, Joe <jkr...@bbn.com> writes
> <snip>
>
> >There aren't very many female programmers, period. For some
> >reason most women just haven't been attracted to the art.
> >I think this is particularly true if you get into the 'geek
> >with a poney tail' disciplines like games programming,
> >operating systems, and so on.
>
> Sorry to interupt the flame war (which I'm really enjoying BTW), but the
> number of female programmers is actually declining. When I first started
> in this industry, as a lowely IBM mainframe operator, back when most of
> you (including Cleve) were probably still in short pants, women
> programmers were quite common, if not a majority of the profession. When
Back when it was more data manipulation and following strict orders from
central designers ala IBM world paradigm, known now as "Mythical
Man-Hour," "Companies in Liquidation," "Ms. Reno for God's Sake make Bill
Give our Toys Back" and of course "Vaporized into Atomic Steam by
Microsoft."
> I grew up and was actually afforded the coveted title of *programmer*
> and could impress women at parties, it was still quite common for 50% of
> a commercial development department to be female. I noticed, with
> concern, the decline in recent years and discussed it with a young (very
> good) female programmer. Her opinion was that when computer science was
> introduced into schools (at least in the UK) it was considered a boys
> subject (like metalwork or woodwork) and young girls were positively
> discouraged from taking an interest.
Insight. Sew-sigh-etty, then, is to blame. Why didn't I realize. Wasn't
considered a female profession, of course. Except somebody with aptitude
goes after computers like a mad dog with a serious case of rabies nearly
as soon as they make eye contact with the monitor and cannot be pulled
off with wild horses. Doesn't matter where the computer is.
Being 35 years old I can't help but notice that all the really superb
programmers I have seen are self-taught. Also college dropouts like Bill
Gates. In fact, all the best programmers are self-educated and why
wouldn't they be, having to take 4 years of indoctrination is nearly
proof someone has no aptitude.
In fact, I have never seen a really, really good programmer with a
college degree who had not distinguished themself before they even
entered/left college or else dropped out of college.
All good games programmers start as adolescent males with computers in
their studies, they cannot be pulled off with tire chains. Most good
games designers have sold many games in their teens before they even get
any kind of formal qualifications at all.
So I guess the sort of aggression which (hopefully) you understand is
associated with testosterone cannot be sublimated into an aggressive
desire for mastery of complex disciplines. Every bottle of testosterone
comes with a little label that reads "SUBLIMATION IS NOT RECOMMENDED,
PLEASE SEEK DOCTOR'S ADVICE FIRST"
Here is another wild, far-out theory. The decline in female programmers
is due to the increase in programming complexity. COBOL is not cutting
edge anymore.
> She, personally, had never
> considered computing as a career, until she had completed her history
> degree and had spent two boring years in banking. The ability to
> program, if there is such a thing, is not biological, remember Commander
> (later Admiral) Grace Hopper.
Good argument. Somebody was promoted to a supervisory role in the Army,
ergo programming aptitude is not biological. I guess running .42 in the
400 is just a function of growing up in a certain neighborhood and eating
the right foods. I guess squatting 800 lbs. is all a matter of attitude.
I suppose getting a Nobel prize in Theoretical Physics is due to having
an extensive education, like Einstein, who attended a community college
for a couple of hours and worked as a patent clerk. I guess the fact I
can read a 500 page book in 2 hours is entirely due to a certain mental
frame of mind I get myself into. I would conjecture that Mike Tyson and
PeeWee Herman are in fact perfectly matched in a boxing ring, with the
exception that Mike likes to think really mean thoughts due to his
troubled childhood.
Dominance of males in boxing and weight-lifting is due to boys being made
to play with GI Joes and girls made to play with barbies. Dominance of
males in computer programming is due to social discouragement of women to
take it as a profession. The evil patriarchial males are behind every
tree watching for the slightest flicker of interest in a woman's face
when she sees a computer monitor. They are in closets, under the bed,
behind the drapes, always watching, always enforcing their evil invisible
social manipulation devices. When a young girl tries to purchase a home
computer at Sears, klaxons sound at the evil male patriarchy control
center. Helicopters take off with SWAT teams and descend in the parking
lot to intercept the poor young girl and confiscate the equipment.
How are these "social" theories different from full blown psychosis? They
aren't, they are just a widely acceptable form of mass psychosis. There
are plenty of ways you can be stark raving insane, as long as you are
insane in a socially acceptable fashion or surround your irrational ideas
with widely held delusions.
As Steven Wozniak pointed out in an interview in WIRED magazine, the
social perspective is the juvenile one - if society is to blame, then we
can do something about it. We can get the "bastards," form a committee,
fight "evil" like Elmer Gantry, raise a donation, form huge socialist
engineering bodies to regulate human behavior into anything we want it to
be. If 99.999999999% of all human behavior is determined by genetics,
then there is nothing we can do about it, it demands the adult
perspective of acceptance. This is part of being a grown adult,
understanding you are not in possession of godlike cosmic powers and
neither is the rest of the human race, and you have to learn that a great
deal of life is tragic necessity. You are your body, you are your
hormones, your nervous system, your hands, your organs your brain.
Imagine a society so sick and schizophrenic that one of it's members has
to try to explain painstakingly to the majority that a creature is what
it sees in the mirror. You are what you see in the mirror. You are on
this planet. You exist, you take up 3-dimensional space.
The whole notion of genetic equality is a mindless, irrational amalgam of
bizarre pagan Christian ideas, misunderstood Renaissance notions,
confused takes on Gnostic thought, a lot of TV sitcoms signature lines,
some odd mistakes about biology and a lot of typical human
feeblemindedness.
Might I suggest that it is to be expected of a small meat computer that
weighs three pounds and runs on sugar? Wouldn't the majority of of human
beings be completely incapable of comprehending their condition, being
big primates with very vague, solipsist thought processes that are meant
as a mere chatterbox commentary on their sex, status and power drives
anyway?
John Gordon
Skeksis <Ske...@buffnet.net> writes:
>cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>> "A blind watchmaker lacks a notion of decency." - Cleve Blakemore
>You equate decency with a capacity for sight...what kind of pathetic clueless
>creep are you? Let me ask my legally blind fiancee what she thinks of that
>assesment. At this moment I considered refering to you as a 'bastard' but
>that would be insult to all the children who were by no fault of their own
>born out of wedlock. You are far, far lower.
Cleve wasn't saying mean things about blind people. He was
referring to the "blind watchmaker" concept of God -- He created the
universe, but doesn't really care about it and lets it run on its own.
---
John Gordon "No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would
gor...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu all the calculators go?" -- Kryten, Red Dwarf
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <343047...@cleve.com>,
"Greg F." <nobozo's...@cleve.com> wrote:
> Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
If you mix a Canadian with a Siamese, what do you get?
A cat with a french accent that can't get a job, trusts dogs completely
and thinks we should pool all the cat litter into one big box.
Makhno
In article <8761551...@dejanews.com>, cl...@ans.com.au writes
>If you mix a Canadian with a Siamese, what do you get?
>
>A cat with a french accent that can't get a job, trusts dogs completely
>and thinks we should pool all the cat litter into one big box.
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
...whereas the Libertarian wolf tries to persuade the sheep that they
should shrug off the tyranny of the shepherd and come for a little
walk with him/her in the woods...
Who's afraid of the Big Bad Cleve?
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/lidindex.html
Read and Laugh.
--
Makhno
Paul Reitsma
> If you mix a Canadian with a Siamese, what do you get?
>
> A cat with a french accent that can't get a job, trusts dogs completely
> and thinks we should pool all the cat litter into one big box.
Is there a _particular_ reason you felt the need to slam a whole country
to hit a single resident, or are you just trying to add another bit of
fuel to the flame thread?
So we's defined by higher unemployment, greater trust, and socialism?
Well, unemployment is fairly low (unless you used to fish), greater
initial trust is actually closer to the optimal algorithm (tit-for-tat
strategy), and, um, I guess I can't refute the socialism thing. I can't
BELIEVE those idiots who elected a socialist guy to run this province...
Still, the periodic cries of "fight the racist Reform party!" have got
to prove we're not _all_ part of the hard-core lefty family... (or all
_sane_, for that matter...)
Don't be afraid to call individual Canadians oafs (I spend much of my
day doing so), but I'd expect even you could fire into the world's
second biggest country and manage to miss some of it...
Oh, and, of course, the requisite chest-thumping nationalism...
> It's his name and and American city. But you wouldn't know that comming from a
> province of a third world nation.
Third world. Really? Well, ignoring for the moment your complete
ignorance of the etymology of that term (FYI, Canada and the US are in
the second world), calling Canada "third world" would have to make the
US fourth world or something.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. US schools don't teach you to how count that
high...
(my apologies to all Americans with brains larger than a thimble)
PulSAR
(who loved the "french accent" bit, especially since most of the people
around here aren't even of Euro descent, much less able to parlent
francais. Je ne connais personne qui parle francais...)
Mendorf
I have read your comments with pleasure. As a long time Ayn Rand disciple, I
agree with many of your comments, especially as related to Socialism.
If you have not read it, I would like to recommend the book, "Brain Sex" by
Anne Moir - Carrol Publishing. Moir's scientific conclusions regarding
testosterone are very compelling and tend to support your comments.
Mendorf
Don Grigorio
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <343047...@cleve.com>,
> "Greg F." <nobozo's...@cleve.com> wrote:
>
> > Ya gotta love Cleve (what kinda handle is "Cleve" anyway?)!!
>
>
> A cat with a french accent that can't get a job, trusts dogs completely
> and thinks we should pool all the cat litter into one big box.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
If you were to mix cleve blakemores DNA with that of any animal on the
planet what would you get?
cleve blakemore.
Hey cleve, you're too sexy for your body pal.
Steve Henderson
web while researching it, I'm not to sanguine about the science
involved. Certainly, most of the reviews I found made some pretty
telling points about the science used in it. Still, I can't tell for
sure until I've seen it. I'd be more impressed by finding anything in
the peer reviewed literature than in a non-reviewed book.
Richard Wesson
In article <34399F...@unix.ucb.ca>,
Paul Reitsma <prei...@unix.ucb.ca> wrote:
>
>Third world. Really? Well, ignoring for the moment your complete
>ignorance of the etymology of that term (FYI, Canada and the US are in
>the second world), calling Canada "third world" would have to make the
>US fourth world or something.
>Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. US schools don't teach you to how count that
>high...
>
Um, the "first world" is The West, which would be US Canada Europe etc,
the "second world" is (was) the Communist nations, and the "third world"
is everybody else.
Don't blame me if this sounds like a dumb system of classification. It's
a Cold-War point of view.
Anyhow so perhaps "nonaligned nations" would be a better way of describing
the so-called "Third World."
-- richard
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <Nnk2WCAR...@taijc.denom.co.uk>,
Makhno <Mak...@black.flag.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <8761551...@dejanews.com>, cl...@ans.com.au writes
> >
> >A cat with a french accent that can't get a job, trusts dogs completely
> >and thinks we should pool all the cat litter into one big box.
>
> should shrug off the tyranny of the shepherd and come for a little
> walk with him/her in the woods...
>
> Who's afraid of the Big Bad Cleve?
Yeah! Libertarians are trying to trick people into being free to do
whatever they like in life with their own money, property and possessions
as well as their bodies and loved ones!
Whatta scam! What an angle that is! Talk about a con job! I want to trick
people into being free so they'll buy all my privatized services by
choice. Heh-heh! What a devious plan!
Everybody knows the past 5000 years of 5% of the population telling the
other 95% what to do is much better!
Oh yeah, the Soviet Union was practicing Stalinism, not "Communism,"
(wink) I heard this about 2-3 years ago from some left-wing nut who lived
in Australia, he committed suicide by hanging about a year ago, I guess
he got tired of waiting for the proles to revolt! What a shame, all he
wanted to do was to "make the rich bastards pay their fair share," it
couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
I wanted the police to leave his body up for a while so we could use it
for a pinata! At least the guy would finally serve some purpose! Maybe
they can finally find him a job now, like a crash dummy or maybe a
sandbag! We'll give the proceeds to the local chapter of communists here
in Australia, the 3 of them can go out to lunch at McDonald's sometime!
Listen, ask Brooke Shelby Biggs if she has split the atom yet or found a
cure for cancer, we laughed so hard at her article in WIRED magazine we
almost passed out here! "You're not the boss of me," judging from her
ideas I think she was getting LIBERTARIANS confused with LIBRARIANS.
WIRED magazine had to run the equivalent of a formal retraction when the
public suggested she may have been the dumbest columnist ever indulged
with space in the magazine.
Michael A. Walsh
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
> Here is another wild, far-out theory. The decline in female programmers
> is due to the increase in programming complexity. COBOL is not cutting
> edge anymore.
</lurk> Sooo.... To follow this statement to it's logical conclusion: lil'
girls can't handle big nasty oogy complicated things. I'm sure my wife will
be astounded when I tell her she really shouldn't be associated with a company
which continues to encourage her in such deviant behavior involving C/C++,
Perl/Tk etc. Thanks Cleve! I knew she should actually be in the kitchen!
> Dominance of males in boxing and weight-lifting is due to boys being made
> to play with GI Joes and girls made to play with barbies. Dominance of
> males in computer programming is due to social discouragement of women to
> take it as a profession. The evil patriarchial males are behind every
> tree watching for the slightest flicker of interest in a woman's face
> when she sees a computer monitor. They are in closets, under the bed,
> behind the drapes, always watching, always enforcing their evil invisible
> social manipulation devices. When a young girl tries to purchase a home
> computer at Sears, klaxons sound at the evil male patriarchy control
> center. Helicopters take off with SWAT teams and descend in the parking
> lot to intercept the poor young girl and confiscate the equipment.
Why do so many people feel the genetics v. environment debate is an either/or
issue? Behavior is derived from the combination of the two. Genetics can tip
the scale toward genius, but Einstein would have had a rough time developing
into what he was being raised in no-wheresvill U.S.A. or South-central L.A.
Further, while I most certainly have no idea how things are in Australia, I
definitely recall that the 'cool' guys were the athletes while the 'popular'
girls avoided the appearance of interest in the 'hard' sciences. Do you feel
that social interaction has no influence on behavior? Why do you think we
recite the Pledge of Allegiance in kindergarten? Patriotism is not an
inherently genetic trait.
> How are these "social" theories different from full blown psychosis? They
> aren't, they are just a widely acceptable form of mass psychosis. There
> are plenty of ways you can be stark raving insane, as long as you are
> insane in a socially acceptable fashion or surround your irrational ideas
> with widely held delusions.
An interesting thesis. Can you cite an example? Oh wait... I get it.
> As Steven Wozniak pointed out in an interview in WIRED magazine, the
> social perspective is the juvenile one - if society is to blame, then we
> can do something about it. We can get the "bastards," form a committee,
> fight "evil" like Elmer Gantry, raise a donation, form huge socialist
> engineering bodies to regulate human behavior into anything we want it to
> be. If 99.999999999% of all human behavior is determined by genetics,
> then there is nothing we can do about it, it demands the adult
> perspective of acceptance. This is part of being a grown adult,
> understanding you are not in possession of godlike cosmic powers and
> neither is the rest of the human race, and you have to learn that a great
> deal of life is tragic necessity. You are your body, you are your
> hormones, your nervous system, your hands, your organs your brain.
Wrong. And you are right. It's quite simple really... We exist in an
equilibrium state of social/genetic dynamics. I agree that all it requires is
that we be adults. Unfortunately how many of us actually get there? 'You are
your body, you are your hormones, your nervous system, your hands, your organs
your brain' AND the sum of your experience. The neurological/synaptic
construct is a wonderfully complicated thing. To dismiss the role of
experience on such a complicated system is naive at best.
> Imagine a society so sick and schizophrenic that one of it's members has
> to try to explain painstakingly to the majority that a creature is what
> it sees in the mirror. You are what you see in the mirror. You are on
> this planet. You exist, you take up 3-dimensional space.
Sounds good to me.
> The whole notion of genetic equality is a mindless, irrational amalgam of
> bizarre pagan Christian ideas, misunderstood Renaissance notions,
> confused takes on Gnostic thought, a lot of TV sitcoms signature lines,
> some odd mistakes about biology and a lot of typical human
> feeblemindedness.
Why? According to the Promise Keepers (a currently vogue Christian
cult-movement-thingy) it's up to the man to be in control of the spiritual
family well being. This is a very traditional Judeo-Christian ethos. Genetic
equality is a very recent concept. Is the concept that we're all human with
interesting individual variation a difficult concept? Sure the sexes are
different. So what? What does this have to do with the ability to comprehend
complex phenomenon? Who cares how a person arrives at B from A, as long as
they arrive there?
> Might I suggest that it is to be expected of a small meat computer that
> weighs three pounds and runs on sugar? Wouldn't the majority of of human
> beings be completely incapable of comprehending their condition, being
> big primates with very vague, solipsist thought processes that are meant
> as a mere chatterbox commentary on their sex, status and power drives
> anyway?
As an alternative why don't you give people, regardless of sex, race or
whatever a smidgen of a chance?
Michael A. Walsh
mwa...@rtd.com
P.S. What does ANY of this have to do with strategy gaming?
<lurk>
Ben Flieger
cl...@ans.com.au wrote in message <8762328...@dejanews.com>...
>In article <Nnk2WCAR...@taijc.denom.co.uk>,
> Makhno <Mak...@black.flag.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <8761551...@dejanews.com>, cl...@ans.com.au writes
[snipped]
>Everybody knows the past 5000 years of 5% of the population telling the
>other 95% what to do is much better!
Its worked pretty damn fine. I notice that libertarianism has yet to work in
the real world.
>Oh yeah, the Soviet Union was practicing Stalinism, not "Communism,"
>(wink) I heard this about 2-3 years ago from some left-wing nut who lived
Dude, you obviously have no clue. That guy was (gasp) right. Communism, as
described by Karl Marx, is quite a bit different than what Lenin, and later
Stalin, ran.
[snipped]
Chris Smith
wes...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Richard Wesson) writes:
| Um, the "first world" is The West, which would be US Canada Europe etc,
| the "second world" is (was) the Communist nations, and the "third world"
| is everybody else.
Huh. I always thought it was Old, New, Third.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <343AC6BE...@ReGenisys.com>,
"Michael A. Walsh" <mi...@ReGenisys.com> wrote:
> > Here is another wild, far-out theory. The decline in female programmers
> > is due to the increase in programming complexity. COBOL is not cutting
> > edge anymore.
>
> </lurk> Sooo.... To follow this statement to it's logical conclusion: lil'
> girls can't handle big nasty oogy complicated things. I'm sure my wife will
> be astounded when I tell her she really shouldn't be associated with a company
> which continues to encourage her in such deviant behavior involving C/C++,
> Perl/Tk etc. Thanks Cleve! I knew she should actually be in the kitchen!
So you know of an exception - this means the rule is not true. I don't
think I recall saying anything about women being in the kitchen, but I
congratulate you on the proper air of politically correct moral
revulsion, it is standard practice for oversocialized people. I am sure
your standing in society will be intact now. It is just a bit
melodramatic and seems to be unrelated to my original post in any way.
> Why do so many people feel the genetics v. environment debate is an either/or
> issue? Behavior is derived from the combination of the two. Genetics can tip
> the scale toward genius, but Einstein would have had a rough time developing
> into what he was being raised in no-wheresvill U.S.A. or South-central L.A.
Actually, genetics is native intelligence, period. You can't make someone
smart who is not born that way, but a bad environment can keep someone
bright from reaching their potential although it is unlikely - like a
blade of grass pushing through a sidewalk. Environment cannot make a
genius, and true genius is usually completely liberated from environment.
Society needs to cultivate the illusion intelligence or understanding is
something that can be purchased for the same reason the early church
needed people to believe they could sell real estate in the "next world"
- money. If people only entered professions they had aptitude for, there
would be a lot of people angry that they could not buy credentials to
work anywhere they wanted in life and people who currently sell them
those credentials would be angry they could not make a living doing so.
Einstein was raised in no-wheresville Germany, thought to be a moron like
Michelangelo when he was growing up and sent to a Zurich tech academy
just to try to give him a trade. He worked as a clerk in a Swiss patent
office and got no encouragement from anybody, zilch, nothing and had no
mental stimulation that would in any way have related to physics any more
than a bus driver. He sat 8 hours a day at a desk and hit stuff with a
rubber stamp.
After he first published his ideas about relativity in a physics journal
they sat there roughly two years without anybody having any idea
whatsoever he was talking about and generally ignoring the article as he
had no formal credentials.
This is perfectly normal - almost all scientific progress comes from
laymen.
> Further, while I most certainly have no idea how things are in Australia, I
> definitely recall that the 'cool' guys were the athletes while the 'popular'
> girls avoided the appearance of interest in the 'hard' sciences.
I think you have your causality backwards. Early bloomers in school
obsessed with status are an example of people who reach early maturity
including closure of the skull cesures limiting brain growth. The reason
all the popular people in school never amounted to anything is that they
represent short-term primates who are ready for reproduction at a young
age and burn out quickly. The thing that separates us from the primates
is our long and protracted youth that allows a huge period of latency
before reaching maturity resulting in much more potential brain power.
Juvenalized primates are human beings, period. A man is an ape that never
grows up. The longer the growth cycle, the more powerful the intelligence
when it is completed. Hence the legendary playfulness of bright people.
> Do you feel
> that social interaction has no influence on behavior? Why do you think we
> recite the Pledge of Allegiance in kindergarten? Patriotism is not an
> inherently genetic trait.
Patriotism not an inherent genetic trait. So the past 60 million years of
tribal wars were fought on principle. Our ancestors reassured themselves
with logical arguments as they approached the battlefield and found no
need to shore up their courage with deep instinctual loyalty to their
fellows and tribal values. Right. I think it is fair to say you have
never been afraid you were going to die shortly in a violent fashion.
These ideas were popular in the 1970's, I am guessing you are college
educated and probably beyond your means to absorb it, but have done
almost no reading whatsoever since you graduated.
Social interaction has zero influence on intelligence. Given a modicum of
stimulation the brain will tend to gravitate towards its natural level of
understanding. There are people who can learn the secrets of the universe
from a gum wrapper, but most cannot make even the simplest connections
when they are laid out so obviously they can barely avoid tripping over
them.
> > How are these "social" theories different from full blown psychosis? They
> > aren't, they are just a widely acceptable form of mass psychosis. There
> > are plenty of ways you can be stark raving insane, as long as you are
> > insane in a socially acceptable fashion or surround your irrational ideas
> > with widely held delusions.
>
> An interesting thesis. Can you cite an example? Oh wait... I get it.
A world paradigm that evil patriarchial males are using a thousand subtle
invisible social devices to suppress women is a psychotic viewpoint. I'm
sure you can find thousands of people who will repeat this received idea
like it is gospel however, so that must make it true. How is this vision
of the world any different from the delusions of common paranoia that the
CIA is putting mind-control drugs in your margarine?
> > As Steven Wozniak pointed out in an interview in WIRED magazine, the
> > social perspective is the juvenile one - if society is to blame, then we
> > can do something about it. We can get the "bastards," form a committee,
> > fight "evil" like Elmer Gantry, raise a donation, form huge socialist
> > engineering bodies to regulate human behavior into anything we want it to
> > be. If 99.999999999% of all human behavior is determined by genetics,
> > then there is nothing we can do about it, it demands the adult
> > perspective of acceptance. This is part of being a grown adult,
> > understanding you are not in possession of godlike cosmic powers and
> > neither is the rest of the human race, and you have to learn that a great
> > deal of life is tragic necessity. You are your body, you are your
> > hormones, your nervous system, your hands, your organs your brain.
>
> Wrong. And you are right. It's quite simple really... We exist in an
> equilibrium state of social/genetic dynamics. I agree that all it requires is
> that we be adults. Unfortunately how many of us actually get there? 'You are
> your body, you are your hormones, your nervous system, your hands, your organs
> your brain' AND the sum of your experience. The neurological/synaptic
> construct is a wonderfully complicated thing. To dismiss the role of
> experience on such a complicated system is naive at best.
Equilibrium? Unfortunately, no. It is not a 50/50 relationship.
Environment provides channels for genetics to flow into. You cannot
become what you are not and you can't end up more than your genetic
potential permits.
As for naive, I'd say your patient dissection of my leading-edge
scientific thought like it is a highly theoretical proposition is naivete
on your part. You obviously don't realize the Nature vs. Nurture debate
ended in the early 80's and Nature won by a huge margin. You are like the
guys who are still marshalling longwinded arguments against natural
selection without realizing the stadium is empty and the participants
have all gone home long ago.
But you are in good company. I will not say it takes the common man a
hundred years to absorb a new idea because that would be inaccurate, the
common man never absorbs new ideas and is virtually indistinguishable in
his understanding of the world around him from a Dark Ages feudal serf.
The only difference is he eats at McDonalds and watches a lot of TV
instead of getting some healthy exercise and exposure to the elements to
give him a natural education in the immediate realities of life. Modern
people are in fact, intellectually inferior to feudal serfs because they
lack even this simple understanding of the sun, rain, wind, judgement of
distances and comprehension of very simple cause and effect. After 18
years of television most people are hardcore schizophrenics who exist in
a sensory vaccuum where almost any fallacy can be taught them if it comes
from authority figures, even an idea as absurd as genetic equality. This
is why people said thirty years ago that TV was a worst threat to
democratic societies and human freedom than nuclear weapons - they were
right.
I highly recommend Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments For the Elimination of
Television" to understand what it is about television that makes people
so crazy they can be taught nearly anything by liberal colleges. For
up-to-date consolidated knowledge on the intellectual differences between
men and women, I highly advocate reading "Brain Sex" by Anne Moir.
As for giving people a chance to excel at anything irregardless of
who/what gender they are, it is only your misunderstanding that led you
to believe I ever said anything but. I don't want to deprive you of the
opportunity for some moral posturing and a public PC loyalty oath,
however, so be my guest.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <61eln0$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
"Ben Flieger" <a...@spamdis.primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Everybody knows the past 5000 years of 5% of the population telling the
> >other 95% what to do is much better!
> Its worked pretty damn fine. I notice that libertarianism has yet to work in
> the real world.
The existing arrangements as per nature worked really fine if you're in
the 5%. Good to see you're like most primates, genetically programmed to
sacrifice yourself for the dominant alphas. This makes you the
chromosomal equivalent of a disposable handiwipe, no more conscious than
a table lamp.
Yeah, the U.S., New Zealand, Hong Kong and the other ten million free
economies in world history have been terrible failures. That is why
people kill each other to escape from Communist countries to free ones.
It is why the entire world has attempted to move towards free markets and
libertarian value systems. Because all these bright well-informed people
like me are clueless. Freedom is bad and dangerous, it can lead to
unlimited wealth and prosperity and we need to prove we are descended
from apes and do really destructive bully things to other people to force
them to be and say what we want, it is the only way to be kind, by
shooting them and burying them in mass graves for refusing to cooporate
with our mad dreams of ending the basic laws of the universe pertaining
to supply and demand. We must leave no doubt we come from vicious and
stupid primates who love to force others to conform and have no innate
respect for the property of our neighbors.
> >Oh yeah, the Soviet Union was practicing Stalinism, not "Communism,"
>
> >(wink) I heard this about 2-3 years ago from some left-wing nut who lived
> Dude, you obviously have no clue. That guy was (gasp) right. Communism, as
> described by Karl Marx, is quite a bit different than what Lenin, and later
> Stalin, ran.
I have a clue, "dude" and my clue from reading Marx is that he was a bum
who never held down a steady day job in his life and filched off of
Engels the Capitalist to write his crappy books. Das Kapital was the
biggest piece of envious gibberish I have ever read in my life, Marx was
truly a pitiful little creature all eaten up by jealousy at the
prosperity of people who worked for a living. But I notice 16-year olds
with the minds of infants are always smitten by his "lets gang up on the
bastards and take their stuff" philosophy. It is a crabs-in-a-box
religion that says "Why try to lift ourselves up, let us pull everything
else down and steal all the good stuff that belongs to others."
Lenin and Stalin did their best as did Mao, but an economic system
designed by a layabout no-hoper white trash bum like Marx takes a lot of
brute force and bloodshed to shut up people who suggest it is a massive
joke and a total failure 7 days a week. It is an inevitable part of a
"Communist" system - you have to threaten people who are laughing
themselves blue in the face with death if they don't stop it.
Ever heard of a free government doing mass executions? No? But they are
commonplace in Communist systems.
"No, it just has not been tried yet! That was Stalinism!" You're a sick
puppy believe me. You've got worms on the brain.
Remember, Communists need capitalists, they cannot survive without them.
Just like Marx, they talk a good game but look at the food on their fork
and guess where it came from.
Dave Kehler
Cleve,
I have read your posts with interest. Some of them have angered me, but
you come across very intelligently.
I would like to know where you see the elderly, the disabled, or others who
are unable to get by without the generosity and kindness of others? Seems
to me through no fault of their own, lots of these people would be just
"outta luck" in your scheme of things.
I am physically disabled and live in Winnipeg, Canada, in a modest one
bedroom apartment that is partially subsidized. I have orderlies that help
me get up and go to bed etc. and an electric wheelchair that gives me some
independance and mobility.
I attribute my good fortune to the greatness of our Canadian social
programs. I would never be able to enjoy this kind of dignity in the US
without bankrupting my parents.
Yes, governments waste unbelievable amounts of money and there are those
people who abuse social programs and take advantage of other people. But
the idea you "seem" to be putting forth would have human beings reverting
to the "survival of the fittest" way of thinking. I think that would be a
step backwards, not forwards. A lot of good people would never have a hope
in a world like that.
Can government be improved? Yes, of course. But in a truly civilized
society, the rich and powerful will always give something back to the less
fortunate because we are all human beings. This is what sets us apart from
the animals.
Thanks for reading,
Dave
james edward mc hie
In article <8763243...@dejanews.com>, <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Why do so many people feel the genetics v. environment debate is an either/or
>> issue? Behavior is derived from the combination of the two. Genetics can tip
>> the scale toward genius, but Einstein would have had a rough time developing
>> into what he was being raised in no-wheresvill U.S.A. or South-central L.A.
>
>Actually, genetics is native intelligence, period. You can't make someone
>smart who is not born that way, but a bad environment can keep someone
>bright from reaching their potential although it is unlikely - like a
>blade of grass pushing through a sidewalk. Environment cannot make a
>genius, and true genius is usually completely liberated from environment.
. . .
>Social interaction has zero influence on intelligence. Given a modicum of
>stimulation the brain will tend to gravitate towards its natural level of
>understanding. There are people who can learn the secrets of the universe
>from a gum wrapper, but most cannot make even the simplest connections
>when they are laid out so obviously they can barely avoid tripping over
>them.
I've done a bit of reading and it is my understanding that children who
are given mental stimulation early and often develop better intellectually
than their counterparts who do not receive the same kind of stimulation.
This seems to indicate that it is not just genetics which determine our
intellectual aptitude.
Additionally, I think it fair to point out that pure genius is not always
responsible for world progress. Often men & women without superior
intelligence but with tremendous work ethic will outperform their
intellectually superior conterparts, and even out-think them because of
the discipline they develop when approaching intellectual challenge.
>A world paradigm that evil patriarchial males are using a thousand subtle
>invisible social devices to suppress women is a psychotic viewpoint. I'm
>sure you can find thousands of people who will repeat this received idea
>like it is gospel however, so that must make it true. How is this vision
>of the world any different from the delusions of common paranoia that the
>CIA is putting mind-control drugs in your margarine?
There is nothing invisible about some of the social devices which men have
used over the past century to maintain their social/political superiority.
Perhaps some of the perceived inequalities in the workplace may stem from
inherent genetic differences, but to attribute all inequalities to
genetics is simply not borne out by empirical data.
Just trying to contribute to the discussion . . .
--
Jim McHie
Kirk Macdonald
cl...@ans.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <61eln0$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> "Ben Flieger" <a...@spamdis.primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Everybody knows the past 5000 years of 5% of the population telling the
> > >other 95% what to do is much better!
>
> > Its worked pretty damn fine. I notice that libertarianism has yet to work in
> > the real world.
>
> The existing arrangements as per nature worked really fine if you're in
> the 5%. Good to see you're like most primates, genetically programmed to
> sacrifice yourself for the dominant alphas. This makes you the
> chromosomal equivalent of a disposable handiwipe, no more conscious than
> a table lamp.
By the way; where do you fit in the big scheme of things with all of
these grandiose statements, quotes and condescending attitudes: Writing
a computer game (snigger!). A rewite of a good game though!
(Yawn)
--
Kirk Macdonald
"Woof! Woof! That's my other dog imitation."
-- Oddball
These are my own opinions and do not reflect those of The Boeing Co.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <61gocd$pnd$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
jmc...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (james edward mc hie) wrote:
>
> I've done a bit of reading and it is my understanding that children who
> are given mental stimulation early and often develop better intellectually
> than their counterparts who do not receive the same kind of stimulation.
They do. Whatever potential they have is maximized by stimulation. There
are children who can thrive on almost no stim whatsoever but the majority
can benefit from truly progressive privatized schooling that has a
genuine focus on understanding the world from an early age, a lot of
exposure to speech and ideas and discourse as well as external stimuli
like books and experience. In other words, the exact opposite of what
they get in public education.
The reason I have to speak in absolutes Jim is because the majority of
the people responding to me are not as levelheaded as you and have a
serious agenda they are pushing IMHO which is unbelievably sick and
pathological. They sound like they are talking about one thing but they
are actually pursuing another purpose altogether which involves a bizarre
hatred of the world around them almost identical to anti-semitism except
it substitutes smart european males for jews. It is just as crazy albeit
a widely held socially acceptable form of psychosis.
> This seems to indicate that it is not just genetics which determine our
> intellectual aptitude.
Genetics sets our spectrum of possibilities. Environment determines how
far we move in either direction on the scale.
> Additionally, I think it fair to point out that pure genius is not always
> responsible for world progress. Often men & women without superior
> intelligence but with tremendous work ethic will outperform their
> intellectually superior conterparts, and even out-think them because of
> the discipline they develop when approaching intellectual challenge.
This is very true too. A lot of really bright people spend their lives
thinking how pointless it all is (probably accurately) while people of
lesser intelligence often accomplish significantly more in their life by
simply applying themselves harder.
> There is nothing invisible about some of the social devices which men have
> used over the past century to maintain their social/political superiority.
Definitely. Problem is that when many of these original methods using
law/force/regulation/coercion/intimidation were removed from many
environments people began inventing things to explain what is still a
significant genetic difference in the way men and women strive to reach
goals. When these fanciful explanations did not seem to explain such
phenomena, other people added to them and they became more and more
contrived until the modern day when it really is mass insanity, a
commonly held delusional view of the world.
In the cosmology of the politically correct, the evil white male
patriarchy has tunnels beneath the earth that run everywhere underfoot.
At night, by guttering candlelight while the world is asleep, they gather
their hard and ugly faces together to discuss the business of the
following day - oppressing women, minorities, dogs, cats and children.
They have a secret handshake, they use secret signals in the workplace to
signal each other, theirs is a concealed world into which none can enter
by virtue of merit, all must have the mark of the phallus tattooed into a
hidden place on their bodies. It really is paranoid lunacy. When you
honestly ask people for examples nowadays they usually just get a furious
expression and nod their heads "One of them, alright." Somebody told me
recently that a male colleague told them they weren't good enough to get
promoted because he was competing for the same position, and this so
discouraged her that she gave up. Welcome to the world of business! It is
a cutthroat rat race, maybe it will improve a little soon but it will
always be hard, tough and a struggle! Women want equality, well men deal
with these put-downs and chest displays every day!
Since the turn of the century, about 99% of the very real and very
oppressive laws and regulations directly enforcing the inferior stature
of women, minorities and many other social groups have been removed
altogether. In that time, millions of immigrants have flourished under
these new freedoms and risen as far as they wanted to in America. Today,
however, we still have people who want to compare 1997 to 1901 and
pretend these systems are still in place. Well, they aren't, and maybe if
you are not getting ahead in a decentralized free market information
economy it is because you are either lazy, not good enough or plain
stupid. As Milton Friedman the economist pointed out in FREE TO CHOOSE,
this sort of accountability for one's position in life is the worst
nightmare of the socialist personality. Having to look in the mirror is
the ultimate horror and taking responsibility to do better in the future
irregardless is so anathema to many people that their mind has to leap
into the ridiculous ... the secret tunnels and the mark, to explain their
failures.
> Perhaps some of the perceived inequalities in the workplace may stem from
> inherent genetic differences, but to attribute all inequalities to
> genetics is simply not borne out by empirical data.
Post-industrial corporations are a mess. They don't get much work done
and there is a lot of show from top to bottom and not much go. So if
you're a woman, start your own company using the internet as a tool for a
means of delivery and kick all these men's butts while they squabble over
the embers of once great corporate empires. If your business fails, it is
not the evil male patriarchy, join the club most entrepreneurs suffer
tons of failure every day of the week. Pick yourself up and try again,
but if you wait for the invisible social devices are removed you will be
waiting a while - because they don't exist.
It is funny to hear modern women say men are mean to them at the office
and this is keeping them back - men are mean to other men as well.
Compared to women in 1901 with no right to vote, few property rights or
ability to petition for divorce and precious little trades they were even
allowed to enter, they really are spoiled to think they have it so hard,
it is crazy talk. Like the anit-semite they are not suffering because
life is tough, they are suffering because of the "oppressors." Wish all
of us had it so easy, a lot of us just have to suck down our own failures
and try again ad nauseum.
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <01bcd422$7d009ce0$8e3f...@wpg-01.escape.ca>,
"Dave Kehler" <dke...@escape.ca> wrote:
>
> Cleve,
>
> I have read your posts with interest. Some of them have angered me, but
> you come across very intelligently.
>
> I would like to know where you see the elderly, the disabled, or others who
> are unable to get by without the generosity and kindness of others? Seems
> to me through no fault of their own, lots of these people would be just
> "outta luck" in your scheme of things.
Sir, the libertarian movement is largely occupied by what are considered
blasphemers like me by the old vanguard libs.
We know perfectly well you cannot go from a bizarre screwed up socialist
system back to a free market system overnight or you will cause
unbelievable suffering. The only rational course of action once
incredible garbage like rent control, subsidies and public housing is
removed is voucher systems like those that were so successful in Germany
after WWII.
New York has wrecked their housing system so badly with rent control it
is a nightmare. The city looks like it has been carpet bombed. Should a
libertarian come in and say to the million senior citizens of New York
who are now kept animals in the communist housing scheme, "Sorry, that
craziness is canceled," after 30 years of rent control and watch them
thrown into the street? No, and in fact no libertarian informed of the
party line ever suggests it either.
Those senior citizens and disabled will have to be given vouchers for the
10-20 years it will take to get the world back to something resembling
sanity. It will take time for housing to be built up, get used up and
pass down the housing food chain like it operates normally in a free
economy which always produces a surplus of cheap affordable housing
through private means. This takes time - after the market has been
disrupted it takes a while to heal itself.
Before rent control in New York City you could get a nice place for a
quarter a day. Someday you'll be able to get it again if you get rid of
rent control. Those senior citizens have to get vouchers so they can pay
their way in a privatized economy until it heals itself.
This voucher system, which gives the poor and disabled more money than
they get now under socialism, is a kind of prepaid check from the
government which can only be spent on housing, medicine, education and
other needs. This makes disadvantaged people into market participants and
means people will compete for their dollar just like anybody else. It
replaces government-managed programs with market systems.
Instead of a doctor billing the government, you can choose whatever
doctor you want because you are a paying customer just like a private
patient and I am sure you know how well they are treated. The doctor does
not talk to a third party about your bill, he talks directly to you.
There is not a vast medicaid system in which human beings are shuffled
through like livestock by people who do not even speak to them, rather
using vouchers they are identical to any paying customer. If they can't
get the price they like or the medical care they want they can tell the
doctor to go to hell and go somewhere else, anyplace they want to. I
don't know if you know this or not, but despite all the pretensions in
the world, nobody ever takes you seriously until you flash money. Until
then you are a joke to them and that includes doctors who will scoff at a
public patient like a barnyard animal interrupting their veterinarial
care by stomping hooves. I have seen the most hardcore Communists in the
world get the door for the guy who is a paying customer and snub the
public ones.
Most libertarians believe a system of temporary/permanent vouchers can
bridge the years back to reality and free markets and some vouchers like
education should always be given to the poor to always make sure they are
on a level footing with the rich in terms of their start in life. The
difference is the government is not paying your bills - you are, with
vouchers that are real money that you decide how it is to be spent. This
is the difference between heaven and earth when it comes to price
competition, service, quality and general health for the whole economy.
That is why the AMA in the United States screams idolatry whenever they
hear any talk of vouchers replacing the medicaid socialist system - the
last thing in the world they want is for patients to start deciding when,
who, how, where and why. They know damn well medical costs would plummet
overnight in the intense market competition that would ensue and a
doctor's degree would no longer become a pension for life in a fantasy
world of government-pays billing.
> I am physically disabled and live in Winnipeg, Canada, in a modest one
> bedroom apartment that is partially subsidized. I have orderlies that help
> me get up and go to bed etc. and an electric wheelchair that gives me some
> independance and mobility.
>
> I attribute my good fortune to the greatness of our Canadian social
> programs. I would never be able to enjoy this kind of dignity in the US
> without bankrupting my parents.
I am not surprised, health care costs are so high that unless the
Canadian government wrote phony checks for everything all the time nobody
could afford to pay them. And of course they climb every day.
What you would find, or the next generation would find, is that with
market-based medicine, nurses would someday charge prices that people
could afford to pay, because if they did not then they would not find any
work. You would find that most of the medical care you get now would
mysteriously (actually, not mysteriously at all) conform to what you
could really afford instead of a billion dollars a second or whatever it
is now for bringing you clean linen. You would find an electrical
wheelchair would cost $300 instead of 3 trillion or half the precious
metals of South Africa or whatever the latest price on them is.
In the meanwhile, of course, disabled people would have to get vouchers
while the market moved back to normal. There is no other sane way to
solve the problem, the Canadians bodged it up and the Americans bodged it
up over a fifty year period, it is great to speak of the bliss of the
19th century but the fact is like the Soviets we have to pay off our sins
now. The only humane way to make the transition is through vouchers if we
don't want to end up like the Soviets.
This probably sounds like voodoo, because it is extraordinarily complex
and perhaps beyond the ken of the human mind in all it's facets. This is
why it has few adherents, even if it is true (and it is) it is a lot
harder to understand than "The government will write a check and tax the
rich people for the bill". The important thing to remember is, that in
free market systems markets adjust to human beings and their financial
limitations, not the other way around. The market cannot charge more than
people can pay and service providers have to compete to provide the most
inexpensive care they can in order to get your dollar or else they will
be out of work.
Throughout human history, service markets that are unregulated tend to
become glutted by new startups and prices drop so low they are a joke.
This was true of the stonecutters of Egypt and it is true of Canadian
home nursing.
> Yes, governments waste unbelievable amounts of money and there are those
> people who abuse social programs and take advantage of other people. But
> the idea you "seem" to be putting forth would have human beings reverting
> to the "survival of the fittest" way of thinking. I think that would be a
> step backwards, not forwards. A lot of good people would never have a hope
> in a world like that.
First, Dave, socialism is a game of musical chairs where each year, a
chair is taken away. Socialism is entropic, it can take 80 years like the
Soviet Union for the end to come but it always does. I could say like a
lot of Russians, f**k the world I'll get mine before the music stops and
future generations can worry about whatever, but in the end somebody pays
the bill. Nothing is free in this world. Socialism in fact is remarkably
like a chain letter scheme that always ends up burning 90% of the people
who take part when it winds down.
Funny, before socialism the world seemed to be just fine. In fact all the
misery of the world seemed to start right around after the Great
Depression when FDR put his new deal together.
One of the big problems of the roaring 20's is that people had more money
than they knew what to do with, taxes were incredibly low and the economy
was booming at an astronomical rate. Of course, there were abuses and
when these abuses built up, rather than crashing a single bank they
crashed the world banking system which was a centralized monopoly. The
Great Depression would have never happened if central banks were not
claiming to have 100% of money in their vaults they actually had only 5%
on hand of. But of course like you I was taught the Great Depression was
a mysterious phenomenon that if it could be explained at all was due to
"unbridled selfishness and greed." Right. The world economy collapsed
simultaneously because of greed. Nice little urban legend there with a
moral twist to it.
> Can government be improved? Yes, of course. But in a truly civilized
> society, the rich and powerful will always give something back to the less
> fortunate because we are all human beings. This is what sets us apart from
> the animals.
What sets us apart from the animals is our ability to reason, not
compassion for the less fortunate. Almost all primates take care of their
injured and provide for them. If we ignore the rules of market systems
then like animals, like the Soviets, we will suffer and the more we
ignore them the worse we will suffer in the end. There is nothing free in
this world.
At the turn of the century private charity far exceeded the donations the
public system gets today. I didn't know this until I read this terrific
book called THE GOLDEN YEARS by Wilhelm Ellicott which was a comparison
between now and the 1900's. Back when the government let people keep the
money they made there were unbelievably generous philanthropists and
nouveau rich who sought to outdo one another with greater and greater
donations during their lives and at death. Community based charity was
always available for people who needed it and local communities gave very
liberal amounts to them - they were well managed and usually insisted on
results from the people they helped. There were thousands of foundations,
trusts and scholarships, all private without any government interference.
It was like you see today except it was the flip side of light, not the
dark side of the coin we see now. The National government was a tiny body
with very marginal powers and state governments took care of the most
important responsibilities.
Like you I was taught that the early 20th century was a time of child
labor and horrid working conditions etc etc. I had this burned into my
brain by the time I was 12 years old. Well it is all BS, before the
socialist empires the world kept on turning merrily and it did damn good
too without any central control in the United States. There were abuses
but you should see what a lot of these people were coming from in order
to be "exploited," because they never had it so good. Bad as child labor
was it beat starving to death in the countryside over a bad harvest and
more children died of famine than ever died of industrial accidents.
But like you, I still have those heart-rending images in my head of the
children chained to their posts and the government's words ringing in my
ears "Without us to protect you, this is what life would be! We are the
only thing standing between you and exploitation! Now cough up 64% of
your income and make it fast I got to get to the Porsche dealership
before they close, being a highly respected public servant I am entitled
to a means of transport fitting my position!"
Dave, it takes a long time to understand what malarkey all this is and
how it is basically a scam to get nearly every single dollar you make.
They rattle the bars of your cage, throw you a pail of slop and tell you
how lucky you are not to be out there in the big bad world. Each year
they want more money for all the "valuable services" they provide, and
who can blame them it is the best con since gold-painted bricks. They get
more powerful, sweep more people under their wing and the State grows
itself like a horrible out-of-control science fiction fungus. And it only
costs you 75% of your income as opposed to 10% for what would be
privatized systems to replace the whole kit'n'kaboodle. Government is a
great racket for people too stupid to succeed in business.
Makhno
>Yeah! Libertarians are trying to trick people into being free to do
>whatever they like in life with their own money, property and possessions
>as well as their bodies and loved ones!
>
>Whatta scam! What an angle that is! Talk about a con job! I want to trick
>people into being free so they'll buy all my privatized services by
>choice. Heh-heh! What a devious plan!
Nice try boyo. Capitalist corporations are pyramid hierarchies with
authoritarian power at the top. Are you gonna let the workers (wealth
producers) elect bosses? Scrap shareholding? Redistribute profit to
those made it? Prevent monopolies and cartels?
Cleve said earlier:
>"Nothing is free in this world. Nothing. Only little kids believe in
>"Free Stuff".
Agree 100%. But make yer fecking mind up. Those nasty, horrible taxes
stolen from folks is where you do the paying under one of those
"socialist" govts. Of course what you mean by "socialist" is social-
reformist. I share your contempt for them. They seek to maintain
capitalism by "tinkering" through interventionist government to make it
palatable to the masses. In Britain they're found in both Labour and
Conservative Parties.
Cleve also said:
>"Laissez faire means the government is not doing its job to protect
people from coercion and force. It is NOT libertarianism, it is bad
governing as usual."
Again couldn't agree more but I thought you wanted rid of govt? Then
again right-wing "libertarians" can't agree on this point. Some want
just a teeny-weeny amount of govt. to stop the worst excesses.
"There is no such thing as society, just individuals" (M.Thatcher)
Sound familiar? Is she a mate of yours? Faced with 3 Million unemployed
through the failure of the "let the (capitalist) market decide" approach
something had to give. What do you do when the economy won't support
enough jobs to go round the whole population? Aside the useless shirkers
who hang around anywhere, most of those 3 Million were desperate to
work. Thatcher had to go just as the failure of Gladestonian laissez
faire led to workers establishing unions and the Labour Party (which
promptly betrayed them)
Cleve again:
>"What happens if nobody buys insurance from that company and goes
somewhere else? What will they dictate with no money and no customers?"
Well strangely enough you find the insurance company round the corner
charges roughly the same prices! Why because when you you look further
at the two companies you find their both subsidiaries of the same
megacorp! Or they're in a cartel. All EMI or Harper-Collins. This is the
myth of "free" market capitalism. Somehow you right-"libertarians" have
decided governments are the ones responsible for protecting monopolies!
Utter bollocks! They set up bodies like the "Monopolies and Mergers
Commission" in their tinkering way to try and artificially produce "free
markets" and fail spectacularly.
As economies expand, capitalist companies by nature of "competition"
inevitably try and put the other bloke out of business or make a take-
over bid. They also have to inevitably expand their markets leading to
imperialism, conquest, puppet govts and downright terrorism (US in
central and Sth. America, Monroe Doctrine etc). So "free", "democratic"
govts. have never massacred anyone have they? Bollocks! Try the British
in India (Amritsar), try the CIA Contras, try Mai Lai, Hiroshima, our
mates in Indonesia etc, etc.
Here it is: anarchists support free non-capitalist markets, non-statist
institutions and libertarian co-ops.
"I get knocked down.
But I get up again.
You're never gonna keep me down!"
(Chumbawamba)
--
Makhno
cl...@ans.com.au
In article <9goKXBAk...@taijc.denom.co.uk>,
Makhno <Mak...@black.flag.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Yeah! Libertarians are trying to trick people into being free to do
> >whatever they like in life with their own money, property and possessions
> >as well as their bodies and loved ones!
> >
> >Whatta scam! What an angle that is! Talk about a con job! I want to trick
> >people into being free so they'll buy all my privatized services by
> >choice. Heh-heh! What a devious plan!
>
> Nice try boyo. Capitalist corporations are pyramid hierarchies with
> authoritarian power at the top. Are you gonna let the workers (wealth
> producers) elect bosses? Scrap shareholding? Redistribute profit to
> those made it? Prevent monopolies and cartels?
Makhno, congratulations on arguing about the flaws of a government
protected post-industrial economy. Now go and look at your calendar. Now
look at your hands. How are you writing this message to me? Do you know
what year it is?
"Workers" (primary producers) have zero use for "bosses" (social
engineers) anymore, they are obsolete. Look at my game. Who is the
primary producer? Where is the boss to take my money? How do you get a
monopoly on the internet as a means of distribution? Make really good
click-through banners that hypnotize people into participating in your
cartel?
> Cleve said earlier:
> >"Nothing is free in this world. Nothing. Only little kids believe in
> >"Free Stuff".
>
> Agree 100%. But make yer fecking mind up. Those nasty, horrible taxes
> stolen from folks is where you do the paying under one of those
> "socialist" govts. Of course what you mean by "socialist" is social-
> reformist. I share your contempt for them. They seek to maintain
> capitalism by "tinkering" through interventionist government to make it
> palatable to the masses. In Britain they're found in both Labour and
> Conservative Parties.
Yeah, they are massive failures and they are like chain letter schemes in
a spiral into bankruptcy.
> Cleve also said:
> >"Laissez faire means the government is not doing its job to protect
> people from coercion and force. It is NOT libertarianism, it is bad
> governing as usual."
>
> Again couldn't agree more but I thought you wanted rid of govt? Then
> again right-wing "libertarians" can't agree on this point. Some want
> just a teeny-weeny amount of govt. to stop the worst excesses.
I don't actually think you know what libertarian means although you talk
a good game. Neither I nor anybody who even understood libertarianism has
ever talked about eliminating government. It sounds like you have been at
coffee with Brooke Shelby Biggs. Could I suggest you find out what
libertarianism actually is before you attack it? You seem to be making up
your own version to suit your meaning.
> "There is no such thing as society, just individuals" (M.Thatcher)
>
> Sound familiar? Is she a mate of yours? Faced with 3 Million unemployed
> through the failure of the "let the (capitalist) market decide" approach
> something had to give. What do you do when the economy won't support
> enough jobs to go round the whole population? Aside the useless shirkers
> who hang around anywhere, most of those 3 Million were desperate to
> work. Thatcher had to go just as the failure of Gladestonian laissez
> faire led to workers establishing unions and the Labour Party (which
> promptly betrayed them)
Thather presided over the biggest prison colony in the world, Britain,
and called it capitalism. Like Reagan and Bush, she should have made sure
where her feet were before she claimed she was standing in the free
market camp.
The Labour Party got a resurgence when all the new hi-tech companies in
Britain started making enough money to generate envy in the pop. at
large. Most of these companies are 5-6 people operations run by single
owners.
> Cleve again:
> >"What happens if nobody buys insurance from that company and goes
> somewhere else? What will they dictate with no money and no customers?"
>
> Well strangely enough you find the insurance company round the corner
> charges roughly the same prices! Why because when you you look further
> at the two companies you find their both subsidiaries of the same
> megacorp! Or they're in a cartel. All EMI or Harper-Collins. This is the
> myth of "free" market capitalism. Somehow you right-"libertarians" have
> decided governments are the ones responsible for protecting monopolies!
> Utter bollocks! They set up bodies like the "Monopolies and Mergers
> Commission" in their tinkering way to try and artificially produce "free
> markets" and fail spectacularly.
Well, as long as you can start your own insurance company any time you
want and charge whatever you want - guess what, no monopoly! When
governments place highly restrictive legislation in place to prevent
others from entering the market that is a monopoly held by force.
> As economies expand, capitalist companies by nature of "competition"
> inevitably try and put the other bloke out of business or make a take-
> over bid. They also have to inevitably expand their markets leading to
> imperialism, conquest, puppet govts and downright terrorism (US in
> central and Sth. America, Monroe Doctrine etc). So "free", "democratic"
> govts. have never massacred anyone have they? Bollocks! Try the British
> in India (Amritsar), try the CIA Contras, try Mai Lai, Hiroshima, our
> mates in Indonesia etc, etc.
>
> Here it is: anarchists support free non-capitalist markets, non-statist
> institutions and libertarian co-ops.
Anarchism. Yeah, that is a plan. You don't know human beings.