Re: New toy (was :just a dumb guy)
G. D. Akin wrote: I just got new toy, a 30Gb Apple iPod. It is a bit on the spendy side, $499, but it is the best thing for music and/or audio books. I have almost 4400 songs (ripped my CDs to mp3) on the thing and The LOTR audio books and still have almost 10Gb to go. It has great sound, is lighter than my iPAQ, and has my vote for Toy of the Year. In Korea, we have few radio options (unless you like Korean music, of which some is okay). We have one military FM station and one AM. Since the military is very interested in diversity, there is much music I don't want to listen to--I'm a classic rocker. So I purchcased an RF transmitter and now can play the iPod through my car radio. I can set the thing to shuffle and I get all the diversity I need from my collection of 250 or so CDs. Also, my friend downloaded the Billboard Top 100 songs (actually only top 50 in the early years) from 1956 to 2002. I have editted that set of music (extensively) and so have all my favorite oldies. I have every Jethro Tull Album, all the Beatles, all Bob Dylan, all Moody Blues, etc. So you can see where my likes are tho' I also have all of Enya, Simon and Garfunkle, and Vanessa Mae. Anyway, great toy. It will play back through your computer too. Highly recommended. Very cool toy! And with definite advantages over my external HD. I've got a lot of classic stuff too, but mixed in with some more contemporary stuff. I just picked up Jack Johnson's new CD _On and On_ and like it quite a bit. 4400 songs though - puts my 2600 or so to shame. Unabridged LOTR narrated by Rob Inglis? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A friendly request JVB Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Before you go and trash this message, I would request that you read it to the end. Jan, Jeroen van Baardwijk has something he would like to say to this list. Yes he does. He's been flooding our mailboxes with it for months. He hates us. He'd like to see us rot in hell. He wants us to die painful deaths. We deserve to die. We are assholes. We deserve to rot in the gutter with the rest of life's rejects. He's been treated unfairly. He should never have been put on moderation. It wasn't his fault he attacked many of us onlist and off. We forced him to attack us. We forced him to spam us with multiple copies of the same e-mails sent to multiple addresses. He's completely innocent. He never tried to mislead us of his true motivations. He never tried to attack Nick's server and disrupt brin-l. He really was trying to incite a rebellion against the listowners, but that's because they forced him into it. He didn't want to do any of these things. We forced him to take action by removing him when he attacked some of us repeatedly onlist and refused to apologize. Oh, and when he did apologize, it was only because the listowners were about to throw him offlist for attacking us and he promptly rescinded the apology by again threatening us all. I think we can honestly assume that very very few people on his supressed recipient list give a damn about his opinions any more. In fact Jan, afaik, you might be the only one. I don't know what the rules are about this sort of thing, but I think that you will agree that if there are such rules this should be the exception. Along with how many others? He's had his chance to speak his mind. He's gone out of his way to force us to get his e-mails. He's been quite vocal about how he would like to make us wish we had never been born, and that he hopes we rot in hell and how we all deserve to die or end up in wheelchairs or shot. Why should we bother to listen or believe his sincerity after hearing him spout such abuse, Jan? Do you honestly think he's a changed man because his ISP and mail server and his own mailing list got mad at him over the way he harassed us? Why? Did he remove the page where he posts contact information about brinnellers and urges people to harass them? Why not? What's stopping him from making a show of good faith and asking us to leave him alone? After all, we were doing so before he started spamming us. Whatever your individual differneces or opinions are, whatever has happned in the past, recognize that this is an attmpt at resolution. I doubt his sincerity. Does the above list of offenses adequately explain why? I believe Jeroen to be sincere, and I would like to add my own caution. Please try and put whatever is in the past, in the past. We have been trying to do this since he was removed from Brin-L. We don't have a problem doing so. We have not been the ones trying to wage a one-man war against Brin-L's listowners and listmembers. You know, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I did not complain to freeler until he threatened me. Then I forwarded my entire correspondance with him from the freeler.nl addy to their abuse address _asking them_ if they agreed with me that what he had written was harassment. So _they_ made the final decision based on what he had written. I also asked them to take action so he would cease sending unwanted e-mails to those of us on his 'recipient list'. Judging by this post, they did so. It is also completely disingenuous of him to complain that *we* have been attacking him -- verbally or otherwise -- when *he is the only one flooding our mailboxes despite repeated requests that he not do so*. I repeat, why should we believe his motives or sincerity now? What has he done to earn our trust? Jeroen has shown greate dignity in the words he has written below. Should he not also be given the opertunity to show honesty? He wants to show dignity? He wants to prove his sincerity? He wants to show honesty? OK, let *him* take the first step. Let him show good faith and remove the page on Brin-L.com where he posts contact information for some of our oldest members and our listowners? Why can't he do that now? Why does he need to continue to threaten us when he wants us to do something? Why is he incapable of removing the page and **asking us** to leave him in peace? IMO, the only reason I can think of is that he really has no intention of removing the page or ceasing his harassment. You may want the order of envents to be differnt. You may require an appology. But ask yourself seriously what differnce these petty temporal nuances would make a few days from now, a week from now, or even a year from now. I don't give a damn about an
Re: A friendly request JVB
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:06:19AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Let him take down the page and _permanently_ stop harassing us and I'll never mention his name anywhere, ever again. Well said, Jon. The statement quoted above goes for me, too. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A friendly request JVB
Jeroen wrote. I recommend that you accept this offer -- otherwise things can and probably will only escalate even further (no, that's not a threat, that's insight into how conflicts can escalate) and nobody stands to gain anything from that. Don't demand apologies; this is the best offer you'll get. Accept it, then we can go our separate ways and get on with our lives. I have read the replies to this email, and I am a bit disappointed at the attitudes shown - justified or not. This seems to be a sincere and reasonable suggestion, so my personal reply is simply. yes, please. Does it really need to be any more complicated than this? I suspect that it was difficult for Jeroen to write that email, so give him a break - and a little credit for being willing to call a truce and take that first step. Jeroen, I am sure you are reading this... Let me make a humble suggestion: Take down the opinion page as a sign of good faith. If you are not satisfied that your requests have been honored, then you always have the option of putting it back up. Just something to think about. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:33:57AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: We must have read different messages. What I read was, do what I want you to do, or else [despite the fact that I have consistently refused reasonable requests from numerous others to stop my own various poor behaviors], and if you do as I say in my [rather detached from reality] judgement, then I will stop harrassing you. By the way, in case it is not clear, what I'd LIKE to read, and what I think many others here would agree with, would be something along the lines of: I'm sorry for harrassing everyone. I took down the page on brin-l.com that encouraged harrassment of several list members. I won't be spamming anyone anymore. If you don't want to receive emails from me in the future, just send me an email letting me know and you won't hear from me again. Of course, that is probably too much to hope for. In reality, something like this would suffice: I took down the page on brin-l.com that listed contact addresses of people who asked not to be listed there. I have also removed the email addresses of people who requested it from my Bcc: email list. In return, I request that people not discuss me or mention my name on the Brin-L list -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] snipped proposition from Jeroen I don't know that I trust him to live up to his end. As long as he has access to the list archives, I don't trust him to truly leave the list alone. I am fine with the suggestion. The way I see it, the list was already living up to that until he rang back in reply to a message I posted that was not meant as an attack on him, I mearly repeated a comparison that someone had made *off-list*. I regret having posted that message for various reasons and I have said as much in one of my replies to it. The list hasn't been engaging in any Jeroen-bashing for some time now (since he stopped the mass mailings the first time), and we can not really control the words/actions of a few listmembers who may privately decide to continue speeking ill of Jeroen in private emails and personal blogs, nor should we be expected to. All of this started again when he chose to restart the mass mailings again (I wonder if he can see the causality there). I will not engage in any Jeroen bashing, I never have. I just don't believe he'll stay away from the list like he says he will. As long as he has access to the archives on Yahoo... I believe that he has the will to stay away if he wanted to, but I don't see him wanting to, especially as he makes another plee to be let back on-list in this message. If he will, as an act of good faith, delete the Brin-L Wall of Shame (AKA About the old Brin-L) as soon as possible, rather than a few weeks from now, I would be more inclined to believe the authenticity of this offer he is making. Either way, I was living up to the terms of it before, and I have no intent of changing that. I hope he really does live up to his side of the bargain though, as I feel he really needs to take a step away from this list and try to regain his perspective. If he can regain some perspective and demonstrate that his attitude towards the list and it's members has changed, then I would be very willing to argue for his return to the list in the future. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
By the way, Gary, I have read your messages and I am quite disappointed at the attitudes shown. You are making things worse. Don't encourage harrassment by making concessions to it. Don't interpret demands and veiled threats as goodwill. Please? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
John D. Giorgis wrote: That's o.k., I participate on a Catholic discussion List where I am considered a flaming liberal. oh yes, and after discussing certain economic policies with my officemates, one of them printed off a picture of the Kremlin for me to hang on my cube, because he thought that I was basically a communist. That could very well be one of the most frightening things I've ever read. :) I bet there are frogs with asses less watertight than people who'd consider you a liberal, John. ;) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
Michael Harney wrote: I just don't believe he'll stay away from the list like he says he will. As long as he has access to the archives on Yahoo... I believe that he has the will to stay away if he wanted to, but I don't see him wanting to, especially as he makes another plee to be let back on-list in this message. So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive private? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A friendly request JVB
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... I just don't believe he'll stay away from the list like he says he will. As long as he has access to the archives on Yahoo... I believe that he has the will to stay away if he wanted to, but I don't see him wanting to, especially as he makes another plee to be let back on-list in this message. So, I ask again, what are the objections to making the Yahoo archive private? It wouldn't help. The list is fundamentally public. Although we can keep an eye on who is posting, we don't have any way of knowing who is subscribed. It would be trivially simple to subscribe under an obscure e-mail address. Furthermore, one can always read one's wife's subscription. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
Richard Baker wrote: In your opinion, are the European media more biased than the US media? In my opinion, the British media, at least, are considerably more balanced than those US news channels I see (CNN, Fox). I can't speak for newspapers though - I just read the (London) Sunday Times, New Scientist and sometimes the Economist. Fox News, IMHO, is a total waste of spectrum. They have the lunch-room TV at work tuned to it in such a way that you can't change the channel... On Friday, they spent 5 - 10 minutes every hour on a segment on the Laci Petersen case. The news: The judge placed a gag order, so there is no news, and not likely to be any for a while. They followed this with a segment called 80 seconds around the world, in which the top stories were: China is getting ready to launch a manned rocket, Some guy in India is giving away water to people around his neighborhood for free, and Some crocodiles in Brazil were captured for release into the wild who got stuck in a fountain. Don't even get me started on the topic of balanced political coverage. How they make any money with such crap goes a long way towards arguing against the notion that free market anything is automatically better. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
Erik: When I've wanted to search various mailing list archives, I've found it extremely annoying when the archive is private. I don't like it. Besides, there is more than the Yahoo archive to consider (mail archive, which cannot be private). and Nick wrote: It wouldn't help. The list is fundamentally public. Although we can keep an eye on who is posting, we don't have any way of knowing who is subscribed. It would be trivially simple to subscribe under an obscure e-mail address. Furthermore, one can always read one's wife's subscription. D'oh! Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug 80-90%? Not a chance. 50%, at most. Dan M. whom you called a conservative, much to my (and, I'd guess, his, amusement) was against it, I believe, just to pick an example. As for his popularity slipping, well, he's not going to stay at 60+%, no. OTOH, the odds that he's going to win in 2004, well, let's just say that I'm not urging my politically active friends to count on getting a Democratic White House job in 2005. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. So? There's something wrong with that? Tom Beck It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. Even most Democratic activists don't hate Republicans the way you do, Tom. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:59:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, are you having a bad day? Or are you really a conservative in disguise, trying to make liberals look stupid? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blogging
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I visited your site today. Wow can you ramble on! Thanks for keeping your L3s to yourself. Was wondering: why aren't you using movable type? I had trouble getting the comments to work, the link was based in England? Kevin T. - VRWC Hi Kevin. I'm not using Movable Type because blogger is free and takes no resources to set up - and I have exactly no resources, so the match works out fairly well :-( Otherwise I'd certainly very strongly prefer Movable Type. I think the comments are working again. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
I could have responded to any number of posts but I am responding directly to this one becouse it is the easiest to include everything I wish to say. I would like to note here that I strongly disagree with JvB's ideas and opinions on almost every political topic and many other topics as well, and I am put-off by his anti-americanism. --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jan Coffey ... I believe Jeroen to be sincere, and I would like to add my own caution. Sincerity is not the only issue in a situation like this. I don't think a community is obligated to tolerate someone's anti-social behavior because they are making a sincere effort not to be anti-social. A failed sincere effort is still a failure and is still anti-social. I do believe that sometimes a separation is needed and appropriate. I just don't know what to say to this. I'm really not very good with words and I tend to speak in extreams and expect everyone to see the 'gray scale' I am talking about. Far too often they just don't get it. Even when I explain before hand they still read it as threatenting or only listen to the extream or the personification (which I don't believe in). This among other things has coused me some dificulty at times. When I was younger I thought it was becouse such people were simply stupid, but as I have grown older I realize that it is due to a compleatly differnt way of thinking. Alter which type is the majority in a particular group and you have a compleatly differnt set of anti-socials. That said...and hopefully understood, ... If you ask a racist why they hate a particular race (bad word, but I can't think of the better one just now), they will generaly give you a list of reasons that have some anticdotal truth to them. There are stereotypes and the like which are gernalized to the whole group. If we remove this generalization and the racists said that they simply hate people who have that particular quality most would agree that it is still unaceptable. I am reminded of high school football players who daily atach smaller and weeker nerds, and a principle who shrugs and says, boys will be boys. Contrast this with the skate punks who bring the nerd along, when they go to the gym, taking him with them to concerts and clubs, teach him balance, teach him to skate, they might laugh at his expense from time to time, but they do it in friendhsip. The nerd learns how to fit in, learns the differnce between perspectives, learns a type of social interaction that allows him to understad the majority, and avoid what to him appears to be their crazyness. The majority are almost incapable of seperating ideas from the personality that hosts the idea. I do not share this disfunction and can speak about the way something nick has said without thinking ill of nick becouse fo the implications of this. Please try and keep this in mind. It's all about perspectives. Can you honestly say that the words above do not sound intolerant? Can you not see that perspective? I don't think a community is obligated to tolerate someone's anti-social behavior because they are making a sincere effort not to be anti-social. I do believe that sometimes a separation is needed and appropriate Sounds an aufull lot like a twin-cen seperatist to me. It seems very intolerant. Literaly, this idea _scares_ me. It makes me cautious and warry of danger. The main issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the person's behavior. Perhaps a sincere effort can be recognized by substantial change in behavior, in which case a sincere effort might be enough to make a difference... but it is the behavior that counts. You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done to him did appear to be abusive. Can you not step outside your norms, outside your own feelings and history? Can you not stretch to view anothers perspecitve? Maybe that skill is something you learn when you are differnt than the majority. Maybe the necessity that I, and others, had to leanred to translate perspectives just to get along with people has made this easier for us, but I can't believe that you are incapable. I am not saying what JvB did was right. No, I agree that many of his actions were very wrong. He acted childishly and took things further than most would. JvB is a poude person with a strong affinity for justice. He does not back down easily or let himself be walked on. From his perspecitve he was first singled out and attacked, then when he responded in the same manner as his attackers he was scolded for it. He tried to make others see how he was being wronged and finaly blue up. He was shuned and baned from a comunity that ment a lot to him. All, in his perspective, for doing nothing more than what other had done. You don't get that this is real his perspective is justified, it may not agree with your view of reality, but that does not
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
Jan wrote: You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done to him did appear to be abusive. Can you not step outside your norms, outside your own feelings and history? Can you not stretch to view anothers perspecitve? Maybe that skill is something you learn when you are differnt than the majority. Maybe the necessity that I, and others, had to leanred to translate perspectives just to get along with people has made this easier for us, but I can't believe that you are incapable. I am not saying what JvB did was right. No, I agree that many of his actions were very wrong. He acted childishly and took things further than most would. JvB is a poude person with a strong affinity for justice. He does not back down easily or let himself be walked on. Well, good for him. I, and many others on this list, feel that he was given many, many chances to amend his choices and retain membership in this list. He instead chose to act in such a way that made it quite clear the he was not interested in justice, but rather in continuing to be a major disruption to this community. Since he's been banned, he has continued to act in a way that makes it clear that he will not let something as trivial as removal from a fricking mailing list rest, and still has (last time I checked) maintained a web page that has the personal contact information of several listmembers posted, along with inflammatory language that makes it clear that he would not be unhappy if there were real-life consequences to these people. This is all over a damn mailing list, mind you. His request was a thinly veiled threat that promised that, if we NEVER spoke of him again, he MIGHT stop mass emailing listmembers, and me might even, if he was feeling sufficiently charitable, remove the personal contact information of those listmembers mentioned above. The ball is in his court - he needs to demonstrate good will and maturity by ceasing the mass emailings (which appear to have stopped, possibly because his ISP told him to stop) and removing his Wall of Shame. I don't need to see his perspective to know that he's a disruption to this community, kind of like a belligerent drunk guy in a bar that keeps slobbering on the other patrons, than, when he's ejected, stands outside in the parking lot and screams abuse at the bartender. Who needs to see the world from the point of view of an angry, embittered person that can't accept the consequences of his choices? Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
At 01:08 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done to him did appear to be abusive. Did you read the copies of his messages I sent you off-list? Do I need to send you copies of the rest of the messages he sent to the list in which he made threats against Nick, Julia, John, and others? If the guy is not mentally ill, he acts like he is. He needs to _immediately_ quit monitoring this list, take down his Wall of Shame, quit sending unsolicited messages off-list, and get some professional help. And that is the most truly friendly request I or anyone here can make of him. I supported him as long as I could, hoping he would truly change his ways and would not have to be banned from the list. As I said in my off-list message, those were among the flood of messages he sent when it was made clear that he was indeed going to be banned, which was only after nearly a full year of an ever-worsening situation. His actions in the past eight weeks do not suggest that he has changed one bit. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A friendly request JVB
sigh I haven't commented on-list about this latest incident because I truly don't like confrontation, and I usually try to avoid what I think might escalate tensions as well. I don't like having expletives SHOUTED at me, or threats, especially when I've done nothing to deserve such treatment; I made sure that won't happen for now, but I'll re-assess soon. I've cut-and-pasted from several posts in this thread, with my responses beneath. --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we can honestly assume that very very few people on his supressed recipient list give a damn about his opinions any more. In fact Jan, afaik, you might be the only one. No, he isn't (although I'd probably have said feelings instead of opinions). Gary Nunn wrote: Jeroen, I am sure you are reading this... Let me make a humble suggestion: Take down the opinion page as a sign of good faith. If you are not satisfied that your requests have been honored, then you always have the option of putting it back up... Seconded. This opinion page is why I did not join the other list, which I had intended to do until I saw these statements. Erik Reuter wrote: what I'd LIKE to read, and what I think many others here would agree with, would be something along the lines of: I'm sorry for harrassing everyone. I took down the page on brin-l.com that encouraged harrassment of several list members. I won't be spamming anyone anymore. If you don't want to receive emails from me in the future, just send me an email letting me know and you won't hear from me again. Of course, that is probably too much to hope for. In reality, something like this would suffice: I took down the page on brin-l.com that listed contact addresses of people who asked not to be listed there. I have also removed the email addresses of people who requested it from my Bcc: email list. In return, I request that people not discuss me or mention my name on the Brin-L list. Agreed. Michael Harney wrote: If he will, as an act of good faith, deleteAbout the old Brin-L as soon as possible, rather than a few weeks from now, I would be more inclined to believe the authenticity of this offer he is making. Either way, I was living up to the terms of it before, and I have no intent of changing that. I hope he really does live up to his side of the bargain though, as I feel he really needs to take a step away from this list and try to regain his perspective. If he can regain some perspective and demonstrate that his attitude towards the list and it's members has changed, then I would be very willing to argue for his return to the list in the future. Also agreed. Jan Coffey, in the _Interpreting language_ thread, wrote [I snipped quite a lot from this paragraph, but tried to stay true to what I think Jan meant]: I am not saying what JvB did was right. No, I agree that many of his actions were very wrong. He acted childishly and took things further than most would Jeroen then responded in the same way he saw himself being attacked[he] is proud and has a strong affinity for justice. He couldn't let it goBut the manner in which he did it was socialy unacceptable... A fight has two sides you know, when things get to the point they are now, no one wins, no one gets to have it all their way Yes. However, Jan later wrote: Personaly I find banishment dispicable It was appropriate for the RL behavior. I would prefer that it be temporary/reversible (but admit to not knowing all the story, as I deleted most of the posts in those threads unread, and of course have no knowledge of what occurred offlist). [Not really tangential: The highly observant will have noted that I have acted in accordance with prior comments on social conflict.] Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:08 PM 6/15/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done to him did appear to be abusive. Did you read the copies of his messages I sent you off-list? Do I need to send you copies of the rest of the messages he sent to the list in which he made threats against Nick, Julia, John, and others? Yes in fact I referenced this in my message. Obviously this list ment quite a bit to him. His actions at that point were intolerable, but I do not believe that what I read necisarily constitutes a direct threat of the sort one would need to be physicaly conserned about. They were clearly the words of someone who had been deeply hurt and was lashing out in response. While I do not condone this, and while I find these particular actions in and of themsleves compleatly dispicable, I also wonder what kind of response you were expecting. There are allways more than one way to deal with a situation, and the response in question was compleatly forseable. Therefore if you choose to take the action and you know what the response will be, how can you then speak of that response as if it were proof that the action you took was corect. While I think that what JvB did was absolutly wrong, while I think that his wall of Shame is dispicable, while I disagree with his actions that put this conflict in place, I also disagree with the actions which exaserbated the conflict, the intolerance that prolongs it. While every person must be responsible for their own actions, and while it is sometimes necisary to simply allow others who are more skilled at phrasology and spin to manipulate a situation, while it may be better to simply let another win an argumant than start an incident, it certainly is also dispicable for someone who is fully skilled at such manipulations to push someone who isn't's buttons when they know full well what they will get as a response. It doesn't make the response anyones elses fualt but the one who took that response, but I for one still find it just as much a disruption. If the guy is not mentally ill, he acts like he is. I think many people would if they felt they were pushed into a corner. I don't believe he is mentaly ill, but he might be. Does it really make any diffence? He needs to _immediately_ quit monitoring this list, Why? take down his Wall of Shame, That would help. quit sending unsolicited messages off-list, I believe he would if he was never spoken of again on list. and get some professional help. You know, you don't know that he isn't. Besides there is no reason to try and be abusive. If you really think or feel that way, why must you say it? Otherwise it's just an attack. And that is the most truly friendly request I or anyone here can make of him. I supported him as long as I could, hoping he would truly change his ways and would not have to be banned from the list. As I said in my off-list message, those were among the flood of messages he sent when it was made clear that he was indeed going to be banned, which was only after nearly a full year of an ever-worsening situation. His actions in the past eight weeks do not suggest that he has changed one bit. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. Fine, you had your say. How far down does one have to go, before you let them starT to climb back up? Can we all just agree to his proposal and end this thing? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: How far down does one have to go, before you let them starT to climb back up? He CAN climb back up. You are not listening, Jan. I posted one way he can do it (others agreed or mentioned similar ways he could show that he made an effort). It is HIS choice. Can we all just agree to his proposal and end this thing? No. For the last time, Jan, his proposal amounts to blackmail. I and others have explained this. YOU, Jan, are making this worse by encouraging his behavior. Since you are so fond of extrapolation: one does not solve the problem of a terrorist taking hostages by doing whatever the terrorist tells you to do. That is a recipe for disaster. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Where are the European hypocrites?
After the Dryfus affair, Zionism got its start. Modern Zionism started in Eastern Europe--specifically Russia in the late 19th C, where anti-semitism was most virulent--according to my source. The roots of Zionism actually predate the affair by at least a decade. See _A History of the Modern Middle East_ by Cleveland pp. 235-237. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Tamiya's M151A2 MUTT w/TOW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! kpentai maru Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 5:43 PM Subject: Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB) While every person must be responsible for their own actions, and while it is sometimes necisary to simply allow others who are more skilled at phrasology and spin to manipulate a situation, while it may be better to simply let another win an argumant than start an incident, it certainly is also dispicable for someone who is fully skilled at such manipulations to push someone who isn't's buttons when they know full well what they will get as a response. Huh? Jeroen is the one of the very best manipulators that I have ever seen in almost 50 years. I thought Ive seen some pro's in the past, but he takes the cake. Let me state it simply: Death threats are not a normal reaction to reading posts one doesn't like. Death threats should not be dismissed. If someone is put on moderation after many warnings, hacking a computer is not a reasonable response. I am married to a psychotheripist who has specialized in abuse. I've asked her questions, as a sanity check. His behavior is deffiniately the problem. Her criticism has been, for months, that we spent too much time buying into his dsyfunctional behavior. IMHO, you are not only hurting the situation with Jerone, you are hurting him. One of the worst things you can do for a person who exhibits this type of behavior is reward it. It helps no-one. Indeed, its such a well recognized problem that there are two names for the type of behavior: enabling and co-dependant. Dan M. It doesn't make the response anyones elses fualt but the one who took that response, but I for one still find it just as much a disruption. If the guy is not mentally ill, he acts like he is. I think many people would if they felt they were pushed into a corner. I don't believe he is mentaly ill, but he might be. Does it really make any diffence? He needs to _immediately_ quit monitoring this list, Why? take down his Wall of Shame, That would help. quit sending unsolicited messages off-list, I believe he would if he was never spoken of again on list. and get some professional help. You know, you don't know that he isn't. Besides there is no reason to try and be abusive. If you really think or feel that way, why must you say it? Otherwise it's just an attack. And that is the most truly friendly request I or anyone here can make of him. I supported him as long as I could, hoping he would truly change his ways and would not have to be banned from the list. As I said in my off-list message, those were among the flood of messages he sent when it was made clear that he was indeed going to be banned, which was only after nearly a full year of an ever-worsening situation. His actions in the past eight weeks do not suggest that he has changed one bit. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. Fine, you had your say. How far down does one have to go, before you let them starT to climb back up? Can we all just agree to his proposal and end this thing? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 02:59 PM 6/15/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, a brief chronology for you: 1) Gautam stated that he considered Brin-L to be weighted heavily towards the liberal end of the spectrum. 2) Doug P. disagreed with this characterization. 3) Gautam used the above statistic regarding the election to rebut Doug's disagreement. Hopefully this all makes sense to you now. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Statscan
Previously used to check miners for stolen diamonds, this technology now checks for injuries in trauma patients. http://www.msnbc.com/news/925708.asp Conventional X-rays take up to 45 minutes to develop, and full-body scans have to be pieced together from several X-rays, taking more time and forcing the X-ray technicians to repeatedly move an injured patient. With the Statscan, a clear image of the entire body pops up on a computer screen in seconds after the scan is completed, allowing quick access to information at a time when diagnosing a patients injuries is most crucialBesides faster and clearer images, the machine, which costs about $400,000, also exposes patients to 75 percent less radiation than a conventional full-body X-ray series, doctors said... Nifty Devices Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
Jan wrote Can we all just agree to his proposal and end this thing? Erik replied No. For the last time, Jan, his proposal amounts to blackmail. I and others have explained this. YOU, Jan, are making this worse by encouraging his behavior. Since you are so fond of extrapolation: one does not solve the problem of a terrorist taking hostages by doing whatever the terrorist tells you to do. That is a recipe for disaster. Erik, you also accused me of making the situation worse by encouraging his (Jeroen's) behavior. I may not be the most intelligent person on this list, but I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt is encouraging bad behavior. What exactly do you want from Jeroen? Do you want him to grovel and plead? I can almost certainly guarantee that is not going to happen. He made a peace offering. Regardless of how he worded it, it is a peace offering none the less. He specifically said that he was not making threats, but merely having insight into what will happen if this thing continues. I agree with Jeroen, if this thing continues, it will escalate and get blown farther out of proportion than it already has. Erik, to take a momentary pause, to allow Jeroen time to carry out his end of the deal hurts no one. It does not mean that you (or we) agree with him, it does not mean we think he was, or is, right or wrong. I agree his behavior was unacceptable, I agree that he can be very anti-social when his buttons are pushed and I agree that he can be manipulative, but let's not pass up this chance to minimize damage before someone has real life consequences. Your analogy of giving into a misbehaving child in another post could not be more wrong. Do you have children? Sometimes you must be an authoritarian parent, but also sometimes you have to be the mature parent and compromise and allow the child to walk away with a little dignity intact. That does NOT mean that you are encouraging bad behavior, it means that you were intelligent enough and mature enough to induce the desired behavior by a compromise. It seems that the only bad behavior that is being encouraged here is by you. Do you (and others) really think that inflammatory and abrasive remarks aimed at Jeroen are constructive in this case? Do you think that making counter demands and counter blackmail will resolve this issue? Let's be the mature parent here and compromise and let the child walk away with a little dignity - but yet get what we want. It is possible. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:57:52PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Erik, you also accused me of making the situation worse by encouraging his (Jeroen's) behavior. I may not be the most intelligent person on this list, but I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt is encouraging bad behavior. What exactly do you want from Jeroen? Do you want him to grovel and plead? I can almost certainly guarantee that is not going to happen. For the last time, I stated EXPLICITLY what I would like to see and what I would accept; a few others made similar statements. I also answered your question about how it was making it worse. He made a peace offering. Wrong. Regardless of how he worded it, it is a peace offering none the less. Wrong. He specifically said that he was not making threats, Here's a hypothetical for you Gary: If you don't stop behaving like this, Gary, I am going to put a brick through your window, but that is not a threat. Erik, to take a momentary pause, to allow Jeroen time to carry out his end of the deal hurts no one. Wrong. but let's not pass up this chance to minimize damage before someone has real life consequences. This is not such a chance. Your analogy of giving into a misbehaving child in another post could not be more wrong. Well, it seems the general priniciple I stated agrees with Dan's assessment. It seems that the only bad behavior that is being encouraged here is by you. It seems you are a sucker for whining. Do you (and others) really think that inflammatory and abrasive remarks aimed at Jeroen are constructive in this case? I haven't seen any such. Do you think that making counter demands and counter blackmail will resolve this issue? No one made counter DEMANDS. Several people stated that if Jeroen wants to demonstrate his goodwill to us (since he seems to want something from us), he could start with certain things. That is not a demand. If Jeroen never emailed me again, that would also be acceptable, although maybe not to the people whose contacts he has posted to harrass them. Let's be the mature parent here and compromise and let the child walk away with a little dignity - but yet get what we want. It is possible. You are being naive. That's all I'm going to say to you about this. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Tamiya's M151A2 MUTT w/TOW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
Erik wrote It seems you are a sucker for whining. You are being naive. That's all I'm going to say to you about this. Erik, you are clearly an intelligent person and I have always enjoyed reading your posts - even when you are being abrasive, so please know that this next comment was made in a friendly way and said with a great deal of respect: You certainly can be a stubborn and opinionated pinhead at times. Having said that, I think that we should just agree to disagree here. We have both laid out our arguments and defended our positions, and I don't think that either one of us are going to change our position. Can we at least agree to that? Respectfully, Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Communication (was Re: media stratagy meetings)
Deborah Harrell wrote: So *please* tell how you would let a woman know that she looked like a zombie potato chip without being derogatory... huge grin Well, for starters, if the dress just didn't flatter her coloring, I'd just let her know that it's not her best color, and maybe mention another *specific* dress of a better color (mentioning the color, of course) I've seen her in that I like better on her. Or do the same sort of thing for the *line* of the dress. Pick one little attribute like that and tell her what would flatter *her* better than what she's wearing, at least on that attribute. Or if you were going to be very blunt, tell her it's not to *your* taste. That puts the problem on you, and not the dress. :) Julia who wore a dress she didn't care for all *that* much yesterday, but considering it's the only dress she can wear right now with a bra she can stand to be in for a few hours, and the only other clothing that fits her is shorts tops, and shorts were forbidden for the function, she just wore the darn thing (and nobody criticized it, and if they had, I'd've cheerfully told them it wasn't my favorite either, but it was a dress that fit, which is more than could be said for anything *else* she owns right now, and YES she wanted to go out on Friday and get a new dress, but the weather was really bad at the ideal time to go shopping, so she stayed home and vegged and looked up the quote in the Feynman book and typed it in, instead) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
In a message dated 6/15/2003 6:30:13 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! kpentai maru Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) Just a guess... phwit lamunkpelechis! = Please look for my teeth! William Taylor - (Well, it would on The Goon Show) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Lenape, spelling I am unsure of, but then there are so many ways to properly spell in Lenape, I am sure I hit one of them with each word. Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! Oh...phooey underpants! kpentai maru -Do you understand me- maru like savvy? an afermative sersponse would be kpentul Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Communication (was Re: media stratagy meetings)
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip we disagree onthe appropriateness of the actions that were taken concerning spin. At the same time, I hold no negative assessment of Bush et. al. for spinning as I see spinning a requirement to communicate with and persuade the American public. The emergent properties of this appears contradictory. Listen to what I mean not what I say Listen to what I say not what it sounds like I mean. The key to the difference is in the use of logic and recognizing mistakes rather than recognizing spin. As you said earlier, many people seem to be too lazy, distracted or uncritical of what they hear and read. I don't know how to correct that except by teaching critical thinking in school (I suppose some private schools do this). So one question is, should our government look upon its constituency as PT Barnum would, or as sheep to be led, or wolves who are content to follow-the-leaders but might turn upon them and tear them up if sufficiently angered? And my answer to this is that they should do what they think is right, the communication to the masses should follow whatever paradigm they find to be most effective. But effective short-term or long-term? Transparency and accountability lessen the State's predatory abilities; both of these principles have been under attack by the current admin, IMO. Can you give examples of this? Holding people in jail without formal charges; running Patriot I through Congress without giving sufficient time for members to read it before voting; the proposed 'Domestic Security Enhancement Act' aka Patriot II, which was leaked to the press. These have all been discussed/cited on-list previously. While I think Ashcroft is the force behind these manuevers, Bush put him into his position of power, so what the Justice Dept. does reflects on Bush, for ill or good. Mind you, I am *not* saying that prior admins were shining examples of transparency or accountability either - look at Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, which resulted in an escalation of involvement in Vietnam; it was in best light a stupid misinterpretation, and at worst an outright lie. :/ Which in turn has led to my distrust of their motives in just about every arena. Would you always distrust any government? Yes, to one degree or another. 'Not only does power corrupt, but it attracts the corruptible,' to paraphrase Himself. Is that not a sign of a healthy democracy? Freedom to express one's doubts, without fear of repression or unwarranted repercussions, certainly is. One of the dangers to 'the spinners' is that if *enough* people become aware of excessive manipulative spin, they might revile and attack those who twist critical truth. Or disbelieve *anything* the spin-mongers say because of the prior perceived manipulation(s). This WashPost OpEd piece, provocatively titled, nevertheless gives examples of prior spinning-lying which got those Admins into trouble (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton). It also discusses the very spin we are disagreeing on, re: WMD, and wonders why (non-militarily critical) truth isn't used instead. Of course, it too spins by comparing the current situation, which is *far* from clear, to the *known* lies of the above presidents. Yet that rather proves my point about government spin/lying - public/media mistrust and disbelief! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57402-2003Jun13.html ...Of course, weapons of mass destruction may yet be uncovered in Iraq. But in Poland last month, President Bush startled observers by saying on Polish TV: We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories . . . . And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them. Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances. But by artfully joining the manufacturing devices or banned weapons in one sentence, his comments nicely fuzzed up what he meant by saying, We found them ...Official lies erode the public's confidence in its leaders and inspire conspiracy theories. Public trust between the government and the electorate is the bedrock of a democracy that ultimately rests on the informed consent of the governed. Ethics professor Sissela Bok has written of the presumption against lying that forms the basis of trust, without which institutions collapse. Official lying destroys that bond. There is an alternative to government lying. It is to tell the truth. Or, if need be, to remain silent. We can only hope that *enough * people become aware, but I also hope that with that awareness comes some maturity so that attacks are unnecessary. Do you think that Wofowitz(sp?) et.al. admissions about the amount of
Re: WMD
--- Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Well statistically it shocks the hell out of me, Damon. Army officers are what, 90% Republican? Something in that range. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Communication (was Re: media stratagy meetings)
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: So *please* tell how you would let a woman know that she looked like a zombie potato chip without being derogatory... huge grin Well, for starters, if the dress just didn't flatter her coloring, I'd just let her know that it's not her best color, and maybe mention another *specific* dress of a better color (mentioning the color, of course) I've seen her in that I like better on her. Or do the same sort of thing for the *line* of the dress. Pick one little attribute like that and tell her what would flatter *her* better than what she's wearing, at least on that attribute. Or if you were going to be very blunt, tell her it's not to *your* taste. That puts the problem on you, and not the dress. :) Oh, Julia, now you've gone and given the guys another example of how we females finesse our reactions! VBG How will they learn if they don't try first?! Debbi cups ear to listen for distant snarling, and some Tim Allen-type u-UNn? ;} __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. OK, if we look at all the current subscribers who voted in the 2000 election, I bet it's going to be less than 100. And of all those, I bet that not everyone who voted for a presidential candidate chose either Bush or Gore. So your breakdown has a little problem -- maybe it should be more like 25/70/5 Bush/Gore/Other. I mean, *I* wasn't particularly happy with either major party candidate, and I cast a vote for a third party candidate. Without my having said that, who would you have pegged me for voting for? And my having said that, who do you think I voted for? My guess: I can't imagine you voting for Pat Buchanan of the Independant party (then again, I can't imagine anyone who isn't ultra-conservative voting for him), and you say you didn't vote for Bush or Gore... That leaves the Libertarian and Green parties. Regrettably, I don't remember the Libertarian candidate. I would guess you probably voted Libertarian. Just a guess though. And am I the only one? You should know better than that. Everyone here who was present in 2000 should know that I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Native American Rights RE: Where are the European hypocrites?
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped all but phrases of interest Since no-one else has asked...what do these phrases/words mean? (Maru of course I know) Lenape, spelling I am unsure of, but then there are so many ways to properly spell in Lenape, I am sure I hit one of them with each word. Uh...phwit lamunkpelechis! Oh...phooey underpants! ROTFLOL I got a garbled visual of the cartoon character 'Hong Kong Phooey' in dirty diapers... kpentai maru -Do you understand me- maru like savvy? an afermative sersponse would be kpentul Kpentul And Wakarimas* Maru *?sp; my roommate and I, while the miniseries Shogun was running back in the early '80s, used various Japanese phrases that we'd learned from the show; 'wakarimas' is my phonetic spelling of the word which, IIRC, means I understand (and 'wakarimaska?' meant 'do you understand?') :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Interpreting language (was RE: A friendly request JVB)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Nunn ... He made a peace offering. Regardless of how he worded it, it is a peace offering none the less. He specifically said that he was not making threats, but merely having insight into what will happen if this thing continues. I agree with Jeroen, if this thing continues, it will escalate and get blown farther out of proportion than it already has. I have to say that I'm a little confused at this point -- I don't know what it would mean for this thing to continue, nor to I know what it would mean to accept Jeroen's offer. The latter would seem to require a pledge by all subscribers to refrain from saying anything negative about Jeroen and to refrain from complaining about his behavior to his ISP, hosting company etc. I can't see why we'd do that for any individual on or off the list. We have a policy about personal attacks, which most of us think is sufficient. As far as this thing continuing, as far as I know, the list subscribers let it go quite a while ago. A number of other folks joined me in calling for and sticking to a policy of dropping the whole subject. Then one comment by one person and we're getting sucked back into this vortex again. If accepting Jeroen's offer means we drop the whole thing and tolerate each other's existence in peace, then I'm all for it. And so I'll suggest again that the best thing for all of us is to move on. But I have to add that if there are one or two violations of this informal agreement, let's not hit the panic button. I tolerated quite a few annoying e-mails from Jeroen before complaining to his ISP and that's what I'll do next time. Anybody can have a bad day, after all. I would hope that he'll tolerate a few gripes that people fail to withhold. But if he starts making a habit of harassing us or we are habitually bashing him, there's certainly a problem. I don't want this list and the part of my life it represents to be mainly about Jeroen van Baardwijk. The best we all can do is try to live well despite the difficulties of the past. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? I'm glad to know that you are so enlightened. 8^) /serious No, not at all. I've observed you are hawkish on matters of national defense, and based my assessment on those observations - especially as this was a discussion on WMD. Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Doug Converted by GHWBush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Not the popular vote 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hurmuphta newspaper editorial--correction.
In a message dated 6/15/2003 10:15:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Earthclan literate, Interesting The spellchecker must have bounced off of literature. Ah well,...Hurmuphta is just a small colonial planet. Never of any importance. (So far.) William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Parrot Fable
A man goes into a petshop and asks for the price of a parrot. That one can program in C++ - it's $500, says the shop-owner. The man then asks about the next parrot to be told that this one costs $1,000 because it can do everything the other parrot can do plus it knows how to use the UNIX operating system. Naturally, the increasingly startled man asks about the third parrot to be told that it costs $2,000. Needless to say this begs the question, What can it do? To which the shop owner replies, To be honest I have never seen it do a thing, but the other two call him boss! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
