Linux-Advocacy Digest #369, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:11:28 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
> >> >that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way
I
> >> >see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
> >> >company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
> >> >and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
> >>
> >> I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
> >> but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
> >> someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
> >> *reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
> >
> >Timothy Devlin might know what he's talking about here since the same
> >situation almost sent him packing to a new ISP last month.
>
> That's 'T. Max Devlin', whoever you are; I haven't used Timothy in about
> seventeen years. And I got a form email; hardly 'almost sent packing'.
> They never responded when I asked them to identify who complained, so I
> presume they realized that they have no justification for supporting
> your attempts to harass me.
Identifying the complaining party to you was not necessary. Your unlawfull
acts were public record, no matter who made the complaint. And the carbon
copy I recieved looked anything but "form".
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:16:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
>> >that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way I
>> >see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
>> >company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
>> >and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
>>
>> I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
>> but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
>> someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
>> *reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
>
>I don't quite understand your point, Max. And I think you're wrong.
>AFAICS, my rights (or anybody else's) are not defined in terms of what
>is "reasonable" or not. That's a very problematic idea, since just what
>is "reasonable" is a very subjective notion.
It is not subjective, but rather self-evident. If you understand what
it means, then you agree with it. If you were to call me a clod, and I
was to shoot you with a gun, would I have any ability to defend my
action because "I can respond in any way I see fit?"
>You know, what I actually said there is tautological. I said I can
>respond in any lawful way. i.e. the law allows me to do that which is
>"lawful". Tautologies are kewl things in a debate, Max. They give people
>some very granite-hard thing to bang their heads against....
It would have been tautological, and thus meaningless, if you had, in
fact, stipulated you can only respond in a way which is lawful, yes.
You didn't, however. Thus the nasty bumps on your head as you try to
bang away against the self-evident fact that the law prevents you from
responding in any way which a reasonable person would not find 'fit'.
>But in any case, if it is not "reasonable" to file a complaint with
>someone's ISP, then it surely is not reasonable to file a lawsuit, since
>the latter is a more extreme course of action.
I didn't say it is not reasonable to file a complaint with the someone's
ISP. I said it is not reasonable merely because you see it as
appropriate; you could be wrong. In fact, you may be merely harassing
someone, rather than attempting to promote civil discourse by supporting
AUPs.
>> >BTW, Peter Thorsteinson seems to have gone to the James Robertson school
>> >of debate, which is simply to walk away when he cannot respond to the
>> >other's points.
>>
>> Or perhaps he got bored responding to the endless and cyclical trolls of
>> certain annoying personalities....
>
>No, not in this case. You can find the threads on deja looking at clja
>stuff.
>
>In the case of Thorsteinson, he was the one who initiated the thread
>entitled "This newsgroup is pathetic" in which he criticized certain
>people's behavior. I wrote a rebuttal in which, among other things, I
>asked him to clarify the grounds for his criticism. He simply walked
>away from the thread. He later claimed that it would be too "boring" to
>respond to my points. But note that he was the one who initiated the
>thread in that instance -- making moralistic pronouncements.
Well, you do seem to have a point, if your representation is reasonable.
The problem is it might also be an unreasonable representation. You are
correct that I might check it on deja, but that would be too easy. :-)
>In the case of James Robertson, he made statements from which I inferred
>that he meant to say that the United States Constitution accords
>citizens a right to anonymous slanderous speech. That was such a
>shocking notion to me that I asked him to clarify whether he really
>believed that or not.
It might seem shocking, but it certainly isn't necessarily outrageous.
If you'd like, I will take the position in support of such a notion, and
we could debate it. I don't see anything about whether speech is
anonymous directly presented in the Constitution. Perhaps you've found
some judicial discussion of the issue which might inform the debate?
>He disdained to do so. Apparently, also, clarifying his position on that
>would have been too "boring".
Or perhaps he thought you were merely trying to hound him using a straw
man argument, and said 'boring' as a polite alternative to 'distasteful
and pointless'?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:01:03 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"James A. Robertson" wrote:
> >>
> >> Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> >> > In other words, you made no attempt to refute my counter-arguments. As
> >> > far as I could tell, by all rules of debate, you were conceding my
> >> > points. In other words, it seemed to me that by your response -- or lack
> >> > thereof -- that you were in fact conceding that that anonymous libellous
> >> > speech was not protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Your points bored me, and I had better things to do with my time.
> >
> >This is a transparent lie, James. It is patently obvious that you did
> >not respond to my points because you were not capable of doing so.
>
> So far, I'd say your statement was false. Nothing is 'patently obvious'
> until it is evidenced,
Max, if you were to walk into a movie house and watch the last 15
minutes of a movie, a lot of things that were obvious to people who were
there the whole time would not be obvious to you.
I can guarantee you that it *is* indeed patently obvious, if you
followed the thread, that James did not respond to my points because he
was unable to. They devastated his entire argument.
>and while you seem to be a troll, James seems to
> be an man of some intent and integrity.
I used to think he was too. I have my doubts now.
OTOH, why do you think that I am a troll?
>Asking a person the equivalent
> of 'do you still beat your wife' is hardly an incitements of *their*
> character.
>
> [...]
> >If you had really been so bored of the topic, as you are representing,
> >you would have simply withdrawn from the debate. Instead, you
> >cherry-picked which posts you responded to.
>
> As in, those that bored him with repetitive obstinate picayune points
> where ignored, and those that provided useful and interesting points of
> discussion were not?
No, James specifically avoided answering questions relating to the
central issue.
He seemed to be claiming that an anonymous jerk poster who spread
anti-Java FUD on the clja newsgroup for years had some kind of unlimited
right to anonymous free speech. BTW, the jerk in question is Gary Van
Sickle, who posted for years anonymously under the JTK pseudonym. Some
of the guy's posts were clearly libellous. He repeatedly called me an
alcoholic and called at least one other person a racist.
At one point, Gary Van Sickle represented that he was African-American
in order to represent that he was deeply offended by being called a
"monkey" and felt that it was a slur against him as a black man. (Gary
Van Sickle is lily white, apparently...) The whole thing was pretty
darned provocative and offensive.
But it's also after 2+ years of an anonymous troll campaign by that jerk
in which he just tells blatant lies repeatedly from behind a coward's
mask.
At any rate, some other people wrote Mr. Van Sickle's employer, Braemar,
complaining about this relentless abusive stuff, asking whether it was
an appropriate use of Braemar's systems.
So James Robertson was one of the people who felt that that was such a
terrible thing to do, mentioning things like the right to free speech
etcetera. I posed the question of whether the Bill of Rights included a
right to anonymous slanderous speech.
It was a central question and he disdained to answer it because it blew
up his whole argument. The obvious answer to the question was "NO".
Because that implied that the whole thing about how jerko's civil rights
were getting violated was a crock and that filing the complaint was
probably quite correct.
>
> I'm not familiar with the debate you reference, but so far you've hardly
> made a case. Why would whether 'any libelous speech' be protected by
> the Constitution be relevant to an argument, even one (we should
> suppose) that some libelous speech is not protected?
So you have absolutely no idea what the discussion was about and you are
pontificating. Not good, Max. Not good...
Jonathan Revusky
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:29:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>>My point
>> is that the "people's" understanding of the law is flawed by
>> over-simplification into 'popular wisdom' which presents the law as
>> arbitrary and convoluted, when in fact the law is not, nor is
>> interpretation of the law.
>
>Over-simplification is the opposite of convoluted. How does over
>simplification present the law as convoluted.
>
>I had to snip the rest of the postr because it made even less sense.
I'm surprised you got even that far, 'JS/PL'. Your ability to follow an
argument seems rather under-developed, to say the least.
You'll note there is a difference between 'simplification' and
'over-simplification'. IOW, the reason the law is over-simplified by
the 'popular wisdom' is that the law itself is presented as
'convoluted'. Since the laws concerning anti-trust, at least, are
incredibly straight-forward (anything anti-competitive is illegal), any
'simplification' becomes an 'over-simplification', since the law isn't
actually convoluted at all.
I think where you got tripped up was in presuming that
'over-simplification is the opposite of convoluted', which is not really
true at all. What you might have meant to say was 'simple is the
opposite of convoluted', but I don't think that would make it difficult
to figure out how simplifying the presentation of the law (specifically,
having to simplify the law in order to understand it easily) indicates
that the law itself is convoluted.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:41:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> >No one can predict what the Appeals Court will do. Once you go to court
> >> >in this country, all bets are off. Nothing would surprise me.
> >>
> >> Only because your entire understanding of jurisprudence is based on
> >> 'popular wisdom', and the only capability which such an
> >> over-simplification has of representing court decisions is as an endless
> >> series of 'special cases' resulting in convoluted rules. This is a
> >> false representation; in fact, the laws, both court and statutes, are
> >> quite clear. Any anti-competitive act is a felony; if it isn't
> >> 'restraint of trade', it is 'monopolization'. This is called the 'rule
> >> of reason', and if you'd actually read enough court cases, you'd see (if
> >> you can parse the rather complex and inferential text) that it is a
> >> consisent guiding principle. The only reason one would be 'surprised'
> >> by an appellate court decision is lack of understanding of the legal
> >> principles involved.
> >
> >laws may be clear, but people's (and judges) interpretations of them
> >differ. If they didn't, courts wouldn't need to adjudicate
>
> The judges all share (generally) a single consistent interpretation of
> the law; that's what the Supreme Court is all about. It is the facts
> which are rarely clear, and the reason we need adjudication.
You can't possibly believe this. You do know that Appeals Courts exist
with which the Supreme Court consistently disagrees? There is no one
understanding, and that's
why rulings change over time - as the political philosophy of the
President (and at the state level, of the governors) change, so too does
the philosophy of the courts.
INterpretation varies widely. Look at the convoluted mess that is the
law on Affirmative action or abortion - regardless of what your position
is (or mine), it's clear that the effective law changes based on the
swirl of the wind. On abortion law, it changes based on the thinking of
Sandra Day O'Connor.
When we get to less emotionally charged issues like the anti-trust case,
the same thing happens. Your idea that the law is consistent is
laughable. The fact that
you think so indicates that you probably don't read widely enough.
> My point
> is that the "people's" understanding of the law is flawed by
> over-simplification into 'popular wisdom' which presents the law as
> arbitrary and convoluted, when in fact the law is not, nor is
> interpretation of the law. The reason this 'popular wisdom' approach
> makes it seem that interpretations differ is because the law is often
> based on abstractions, such as the concept in anti-trust of "market
> power" and "monopoly power", and most people have an apparently
> under-nourished ability to grasp abstractions.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:43:02 -0400
The API for BeOS is Multithreaded, therefore you do not program specifically
for Multithread, it just comes out that way.
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r41q6$ua0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
>
> >> > Again, I belive NT does that. Every process is a thread, and every
process
> >> > can be multithreaded.
> >>
> >> Every application isnt multithreaded...
> >>
> >> > I don't see how an OS could force every process to multithread.. you
have to
> >> > program threads into your code.
> >>
> >> Exactly; BeOS demands it.
>
> > So if I write a simple app that wouldn't benefit from being
multithreaded.. I
> > still have to code for it? If so, that's freaking lame. Noone should
ever
> > have to put in code that's not useful.
>
> BeOS is unlike any operating system youve ever seen, apparantly...:)
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
> > --
> > Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
> > http://www.miguelito.org
> > If Microsoft made cars instead of software, you could only have one
person
> > at a time in your car unless you bought Car95 or CarNT. But then you
have
> > to buy more seats.
>
> --
> "It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
> with computers"
>
> ---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
> protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:43:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
>
> I think where you got tripped up was in presuming that
> 'over-simplification is the opposite of convoluted', which is not really
> true at all. What you might have meant to say was 'simple is the
> opposite of convoluted', but I don't think that would make it difficult
> to figure out how simplifying the presentation of the law (specifically,
> having to simplify the law in order to understand it easily) indicates
> that the law itself is convoluted.
But it's not. Define 'anti-competitive'. Then get 10 people in a room
and see if you can get consensus on your definition. If it were clear,
we wouldn't have adjudication.
Moreover, if it were clear Judge Jackson wouldn't have held all
penalties pending the appeal, because he would have been absolutely
certain of the outcome. Fact is, he's not certain. Nor is anyone else,
MS or the DOJ.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:45:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[...]The anti-trust case came about for the reasons that
> >> >Jackson's conviction did -- Microsoft refused to play ball with the bureaucrats
> >> >and pay their lunch ticket like McNealy, Ellison and Case did.
> >>
> >> Please be specific. What "lunch ticket" have these men, or the
> >> corporations they represent, paid; when, and how much?
> >
> >Campaign contributions
>
> Neither the judiciary nor the prosecuting attorneys have campaigns to
> contribute to.
>
Sigh. The attorneys are hired by the executive branch, and the
President certainly has them. The judges are appointed by the President
(at the Fedral level), and a certain level of back scratching exists in
order to become a judge who becomes a presidential nomination.
If not, why do both candidates make such a big deal over the Supreme
Court niminations? If the law is crystal clear, and the adjudication of
it simple, then it ought to make zero difference which candidate makes
the appointments.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
