Subj : Re: puzzle To : comp.programming From : blmblm Date : Fri Jul 15 2005 01:24 pm In article <1121343478.738610.306570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, wrote: > > >blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: >> In article <1121153778.670218.189680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >CBFalconer wrote: >> >> [ snip ] >> >> >> I.E. you consider his output a hedonic experience? You will be >> >> pleased to know that we have a poster in alt.folklore.computer who >> >> can easily exceed the Nilgean volume. She tends to be somewhat >> >> repetitious, but at least makes some sense. >> >> Word -- though she has her own irritating quirks (the "quotation >> marks" ... the ellipses ... the SHOUTING!). >> >> >Oooh, lesgo bully her ass until she leaves in tears! Let's fucking rape >> >her online (as has happened on usenet)! >> >> Two questions for Mr. Nilges: >> >> (1) Do you follow alt.folklore.computers enough to recognize the person >> and/or discussion CBFalconer is talking about? > >No. But that's not stopping you from commenting. Why am I not surprised. >However, I've been posting and reading in all probability far >longer than you punks, Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say if you don't provide some specifics (such as an approximate date when you discovered Usenet). >and I have seen, repeatedly, female and male >posters (perceived as subdominant) treated in a fashion that can be >described as metaphorical rape, therefore I conclude that that is what >is happening to this poster. >In fact, if the only other alternative is that she is genuinely an >"irritating person" who is worthy of abuse, I conclude that she >is...not. > >Here is why. > >Despite the repeated characterization of people on usenet as >"irritating", "verbose", and similar defects, these labels literally >don't apply in most situations. > >This is because a truly irritating, verbose, etc. person monopolizes >your time in an oral encounter where the ordinary rules of courtesy >compel you to listen and not punch him in the mouth. He exploits your >courtesy and in Kant's terms lowers the supply of courtesy by not >following the categorical imperative. If everybody was irritating or >verbose in classrooms and cock-tail parties, then we would all be >discourteous and we would all carry guns to shoot irritating and >verbose people on sight. > >However, on usenet: (1) the ordinary rules of courtesy have never >applied and (2) usenet is writing where you have been long able to >ignore or shitcan people who you find irritating or verbose. And then there are people who seem like they might have something interesting to say, but not interesting enough to be worth reading hundreds of lines of prose per post. It's probably worth a try to persuade such people to post more briefly, before dealing with them as you suggest. I think there's some of that (attempts to persuade) going on in the case in question. >The exception is where the person communicates in the header, in a >spamming fashion, but this behavior is relatively rare. > >Nonetheless, the charge seems useful as a way of not having to deal >with unpopular views and in fact, on usenet, it is part, all too often, >of a campaign of metaphorical rape. >> >> (2) Would you have described what you think is happening in the same >> terms if this voluminous poster had been referred to as "he"? > >Yes. Including "leave in tears". My. >Feminist theorists know, even if nobody else seems to, that >heterosexual rape is continuous with, a subphenomena, of a general >arche-rape which appears ALSO in prison between men and here on the >internet between geeks. However, geeks are unable to narrate the >process because as geeks they haven't dealt with its actuality or its >possibility in their own lives. > >Psychological health would conclude that you need not fear buttfuck if >you don't buttfuck except of course between consenting adults. But >geeks can't seem to get to this point. > [ snip -- I lack the time and inclination to continue with this ] -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. .