Subj : Re: puzzle To : comp.programming From : spinoza1111 Date : Wed Jul 20 2005 03:49 am blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > In article <1121652167.553346.183640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > wrote: > > > > > >blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > >> 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. > > > >Sorry, I am not going to plow through depressing flames because I have > >quite enough data to conclude that in most such encounters, someone is > >being less flamed than bullied. > > > >To be theoretical is not to deny the worth of data. It's instead to > >realize when one is fed up with data and quite ready, thank you, to > >draw a conclusion. > > I would think that a reasonable person would always be prepared to > say "but perhaps this particular case is the exception to the general > rule I have formulated based on observation." You don't seem to be > doing this. No, and I won't start, because we're talking (you seem to forget) about a person on comp.folklore with feelings who I have tentatively concluded is the victim and not the perpetrator. What I mean is that for me it strikes a completely wrong note to start talking oh, so very "scientifically" about observing a person and oh, so very objectively, drawing conclusions about her heart and soul from "observation". As if she were not a person with rights at all but a rat in a maze. It's not morally serious nor is it scientific (because a large and chaotic system such as a human person is not a suitable object for the external observation of facts). > > >Furthermore, texts are not empirical facts alone. > > I have no idea what you mean by this. That's your problem, I'm afraid. Texts as facts are little black letter shapes. If we know the shape we don't know the text. > > >> >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). > > In another post you say 1981 for first use of e-mail. I'll concede > that I didn't have access to e-mail until the mid-1980s. I think > I first acquired access to Usenet about the same time. You will > probably not remember this, but in some previous discussion in this > group, I think I backed you up on a point about programming in IBM > assembly language, which might be a clue that I also am not a spring > chicken. > OK. Thanks for your conscionable support and also you are no spring chicken. > [ snip ] > > >> >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. > > > >Let me get this straight. Some doll meets some guy at some cocktail > >party and is fascinated with Mister Fabulous but at the same time > >thinks he is prolix. > > > >Somehow, although this happens, it doesn't parse. It would seem that if > >you think some clown has something interesting to say, it would be > >discourteous to ax him to compress it. > > Actually it might be more courteous to say "do you have a point here, > and if so could you get to it please?" than to just get bored and > wander away, though in a face-to-face conversation the latter is > probably a lot more likely. > The best reply remains John Mitchell's in Oliver Stone's Nixon: somebody freshen Martha's drink. I think she's a quart down. > I don't think this is a particularly good analogy, though. If part > of your point is that Usenet is not like a face-to-face conversation, > well, sure. > > Anyway, I understand you to be saying that if you find a Usenet > poster irritatingly long-winded, there is no point in attempting to > persuade him or her to be otherwise; your choices are to wade through > the drivel in search of the gems, or just skip the whole thing. > I think on occasion it might be worthwhile to try saying "you know, > more people would probably read your stuff if it were briefer." > I'll admit, though, that I haven't encountered too many Usenet > discussions in which any party appears to change his/her mind about > anything, so perhaps you're right that it's a waste of time. > What's the benefit of more people reading my stuff? Perhaps I prefer to be a cult figure like Hollywood director Ed Wood. If brevity changes the meaning, then the hell with brevity. Furthermore I have to tell you that there are some thoughts so complex as to demand what seems to be prolixity. Read Henry James. If you can stay awake. Hemingway? The hell with Hemingway. This is Hemingway as far as I can tell: It had been raining in the afternoon for three weeks. It rains here. And when you expect it to stop, it doesn't stop. Men go mad. Cooper was working on his laptop hoping for a power outage so Cooper could have a drink when Jorge Won Ton walked in. Jorge Won Ton was half Mexican, half Chinese, and all bad. "Son of pigs who mate with anteaters, are you done with the code yet". This is how Jorge greeted me. Without looking up from his code, Cooper said, "no" only to see the fist coming, and Jorge Won Ton was on the floor. "Dogs and sons of putana who mate with dogs, cut that shit out" said Dolores. Dolores had a way of entering a room before you knew it. Dolores was handy with a pistol and she had one ready for use. Dolores held her own. > >> >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. > > > >Men cry. Men cry in front of their women. The problem is denial and the > >transformation of sadness into anger, which here results in flame wars. > > > >So like boo hoo. You got a problem with that, buddy? > > None of this really has anything to do with whether you would have > used the same terms to describe an interaction in which a man was > being bullied. I'm skeptical, but if you want to claim you would, > I can't think of any way to convince anyone otherwise, short of wading > back through several years' worth of Usenet posts in search of > patterns of allegedly sexist writing on your part, or something. OOOoooo patterns of allegedly sexist writing. Whyncha use Prolog? Gimme a high score if I use a lotta bad words like poo. For this is the infantilism that any analysis that starts with the VERY IDEA that one can reify or hypostatize or fetishise "sexist writing", and that one can draw any conclusions therefrom. Today and in Amerikkka, "sexist" has been completely redefined to mean "offends the Puritan sensibility". In the rest of the world "sexist" means the systematic oppression of women by powerful rich bastards. > > I don't care enough, and maybe it would be better to just say that > my question (2) would have been better left unasked. > > [ snip ] > > >> [ snip -- I lack the time and inclination to continue with this ] > > > >In which you adopt the pose, the mask, of the elite who never has time, > >do they, to LISTEN but who calls upon everyone else to LISTEN. This is > >false consciousness. > > I have no idea what you mean here. It doesn't seem to me to apply > to anything I wrote. > > >You are in or out of the game, Pard, and note that we never apply the > >text "I yam a busy man" to games of chance such as Texas Fold-em. Money > >talks. However, I won't use PayPal to get your attention. > > Well, it's a fact that I started something that I don't care to finish, > and that was a mistake. I apologize to all concerned. I did learn > one interesting fact, namely that the Google Groups archive contains > posts going back to at least 1988. > > -- > | B. L. Massingill > | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. .