Re: Official Statement
Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote: I also urge the list to discuss the matter of list policy, so that we can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens that this list deems unacceptable. IMHO, only a clear and well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening again. Er, we have one? JoAnne's Etiquette Guidelines? Or has that changed? They used to be up on your site, IIRC, but of course that's gone now. But they were certainly useful as a roadmap to unacceptable behavior. The only thing I'd add to them is: No reposting private messages to other people without the permission of the original sender - with or without disclaimer sigs. grin I have an intense distaste for this practice. I've never *once* seen any good come of it. The golden rule is *always* Attack the post, not the poster. I find it very useful to have guidelines rather than rules. Everyone steps over the line at one point or another, and none of us want to get dinged every time we make an off-color joke in the heat of an arguement. It's when violating the guidelines becomes routine that it becomes upsetting. Kat Feete 'I've gone to hundreds of fortune-tellers' parlors, and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her.' -- New York City Detective ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious: he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge authority took control. Others are subtle. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? To be honest, I was considering defending Jeroen, until I started getting the endless stream of emails in my inbox - each one less rational and more, well, whiny. I despise whiny, and I don't appreciate being spammed. So I didn't. shrug I don't think it matters either way. I still can't figure out what's going on, and I've stopped even wanting anyone to explain it to me, because I'm pretty damned sure it's not important. I don't know. Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous breakdown than I've ever been, but I just - can't - see what the fuss is about here. I feel like I ought to be grabbing several people here by the collars, just like I did with the kids I used to play with when they started getting snappish, and shouting It's just a game! But none of you have collars (at least, not that I can get to), and none of you are kids - in fact, most of you are twice my age - and I don't have any right to be ordering anyone around anyway, so I guess I'll just unsub from the list again if this doesn't stop in the next few days. But I *still* want to say it. It's just a listserve. It's just a game. These are just words. You've got lives, jobs, houses, kids, and you can't be paying them half the attention that you're paying to throwing silly, spiky words at each other over an issue I can't even pin down on an obscure little listserve that ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the world doesn't even know exists. For God's sake *stop it* before you make bigger asses out of yourselves than you've already managed. Okay, I'm going to go quietly insane somewhere else for a while Kat Feete Generally speaking, all aliens look like they come from Earth, but just drive faster cars than we do. - Beettam and Geigen-Miller's 10 LAWS OF BAD SCIENCE FICTION http://www.xenosarrow.com/10laws.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:[LINK] AAAIIIIEEEE!!!!! The horror! The horror!
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/msparby/iMovieTheater5.html Thank you, Adam, for posting the most truly Evil thing I have ever seen on this list. twitch twitch Kat Feete It's not you, it's me. I don't like you. -- Aeryn Sun on relationships Farscape ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:34:11PM -0500, K. Feete wrote: I'm actually preparing to write a scifi story where the government has outlawed religious expression (along with any racial references whatsoever). The point being that a) it doesn't work and b) they live very dull, bland lives. So, banning religion doesn't work? Makes sense. People will go underground when told they can't do something that they want to do. But that doesn't sound dull or bland. Why dull, bland lives? I don't think I stated that very clearly. First off, religion et cetera isn't outlawed, it's just not considered acceptable - a bit like being a member of the KKK or something. grin It's difficult to impossible for you to get a job, particularly in the government or military, and you get passed over a lot. Some people are closet thiests, but they live in perpetual fear of being found out and loosing their jobs, et cetera. Dull and bland were definately the wrong words. The civilization as a whole is somewhat... stodgy... compared to the other two. People are extremely literal-minded and rational. There's not very many scientific breakthroughs compared to the other two, although once a breakthrough is made they're a great deal more likely to turn it into something useful. Sometimes they don't recognize a breakthrough that's occurred because they're so fixated on empirical data, which will be rather the focus of the story, I think, once I get the bloody time to write on it. (School, incidentally, is evil.) I should emphasize that this isn't *just* an effect of the suppression of religion, but, rather, suppression of religion is a symptom. I should also emphasize that I don't consider this *will* happen or even that it's particularly likely to happen, though I'll do my best to make it plausable. It's just a thought experiment of mine. grin Loose the fanatics, loose people like my roomate. I think I can live with the fanatics. The first time I read that, I read loose as in release, like you might say, loose the hounds! :-) Oops. And me an English major. hides head in shame It was late, okay? And I have trouble with these things... damned effect and affect goes off to dinner muttering Kat Feete - He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at. Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets look at a couple of things religion brought us in the past before we examine this question. We have: the dark ages, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the divine right of kings, jihad, forced religious conversions, thought crimes AKA heresy, caste systems, religious 'sacrifices' of humans and animals, superstition, conspiracy theories, terrorism, the thirty years war, bloody Mary, the conquistadors and the downfall of native americans, slavery, apartheid, genocide, feudal systems, burning at the stake, irrational beliefs, UFO's, etc. ad nauseum. All of these things and many more were caused at least in part if not wholly from religious beliefs. Hum. The dark ages, IIRC, were a result of invading barbarians destroying a weakened Rome. The Catholic Church helped preserve what knowledge was left and bring them to the end. Superstition and irrational beliefs occur with or without religion. Witness Skinner's superstitious pigeons, or my conviction that mentioning the fact that it's raining if I want it to rain will make the rain stop. grin Conspiracy has little or nothing to do with religion, although the two can sometimes be associated, and more to do with a systematic distrust of the government brought on by continual exposure to the fact that politicians lie. The most notable instances of genocide in this century have been Hitler and Stalin, both of whom were markedly anti-religious. Burning at the stake was an accepted criminal punishment, not particularly worse than hanging or drawing and quartering. It simply was the punishment resevered for witchcraft and sodomy, where drawing and quartering was for traitors and hanging was for murderers and thieves. Terrorism, as a term, originated with the Irish rebellions, and from what I've seen or heard of it the Irish were less concerned with the religious differences than with having the Brits foisting their laws and their political presence on them for centuries. The religion became a symbol, but it was never, IFAIK, more than an incidental cause. The spanish inquisition I'll give you. Mostly because I don't know much about it and I'm too hungry to do research right now. The Crusades, the divine right of kings, jihad, heresy, bloody Mary, the conquestadors, slavery, apartheid, and feudal systems were political and economic institutions or events, for which the religion was twisted to suit those in power, but for which religion was little more than a thin mask; even those living at the time recognized the manipulativeness and the essential power or money basis of them all. Screw eradicating religion. Let's eradicate politics and economics. grin Kat Feete 'I've gone to hundreds of fortune-tellers' parlors, and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her.' -- New York City Detective ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated
The Fool wrote: No. Which exactly my point. If I can't prove my own existence I also can't prove god's existence. Math exists whether god, the universe, consciousness, I, etc. exist. Math is the only thing that is transcendent. And those math proofs do exist. Yes, but, as Searle and Merleau-Ponty are both so fond of pointing out, no one seriously questions that they exist. It's simply that conciousness cannot be proven via scientific method because the scientific method relies on objectivity and conciousness is by its very nature subjective. I'd also question the mathematical point. One arguement is that math proofs only exist because we have a concept of mathematics, and so only exist because we are concious, and so are in fact based in a subjective assumption. GRIN But that's me, and therefore shaky. Let me refer you to Immanuel Kant: It might at first be though that the proposition 7 + 5 =12 is a mere analytical judgment, following from the concept of the sum of seven and five, according to the Law of Contradiction. But on closer examination it appears that the concept of the sum of 7 + 5 contains merely their union in a single number, without its being at all thought what the particular number is that unites them. The concept of twelve is by no means thought by merely thinking of the combination of seven and five; and analyse this possible sum as we may, we shall not discover twelve in the concept. Therefore, Kant concludes, math is *not* transcendant; it requires reference to the material world and expression through it, and is therefore, as Merleau-Ponty will argue a century or so later, affected and defined, like all things, by our worldview and our subjective conciousness. It's no more real or transcendant than anything else. Kat Feete --- The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. --Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
White House Wages Stealth War on Condoms
Amusing title and a pretty good information piece. I've been hearing a startling amount about various aspects of this issue from various sources for the past month or so... opinions? http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcoc143002251nov14,0,7803300.column ?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines White House Wages Stealth War on Condoms Marie Cocco November 14, 2002 The government is waging a covert war on condoms. The start of hostilities wasn't announced from the Oval Office. Nor was it put to a dramatic vote in the Congress. This is a guerilla war. The insurgents inch forward with determined steadiness, and a certain stealth. A fact sheet on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus has disappeared from the Centers for Disease Control Web site. According to lawmakers who have protested, the missing sheet was based on public health data showing that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. In its place is a notice: Being revised. A separate CDC listing of sex-education Programs that Work, meant to give local officials information on scientifically proven methods of reducing risky teen sexual behavior, also has vanished. The list was created at the request of schools that wanted credible evidence of effectiveness as they selected sex-education programs, lawmakers say. President George W. Bush has begun appointing critics of condoms to a presidential advisory panel on AIDS. They include social conservatives who question the international scientific consensus that condoms are highly effective in AIDS prevention. Instead, they emphasize failure rates from slippage, breakage and not using condoms every time. The only 100 percent effective way to avoid nonmarital pregnancy and STD infection is to avoid sexual activity outside a mutually faithful, lifelong relationship - marriage, says the Texas-based Medical Institute for Sexual Health. The group's founder, Dr. Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., now sits on the presidential AIDS panel. Asked in an interview if people who aren't monogamous should use condoms, McIlhaney said, That's very simplistic and has been proven, so far, not to be very effective. Government audits of AIDS activist groups began after protesters disrupted remarks by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson at a conference in Barcelona. Conservatives in Congress now have called for expanding the audits to include such groups as the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a 38-year-old organization that assists schools and health departments with AIDS and sex-education programs. The conservatives say they are wary that government funds may improperly be used to lobby against the administration's favored abstinence-only programs on teen sex. The groups say their books are open. It's an intimidation tactic, said Tamara Kreinin, president of the sexuality information group. Abstinence-only programs, which promote sexual abstinence and do not provide information on contraception or AIDS prevention, are the administration's pet projects, slated for more and more funding every year. So far, studies on their effectiveness are incomplete or inconclusive. There is no documentation of success with this material, said Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), a former school nurse who has run programs for pregnant teens and adolescent parents. Last spring, Capps tried to get the House Commerce Committee to agree that the government should fund only medically and scientifically accurate sex-ed programs. She failed, by a committee vote of 31-19, that mostly broke on party lines. The congressional preference, apparently, is for the medically and scientifically inaccurate. HHS officials did not return several phone calls seeking comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not answer when asked if the president believes using condoms prevents transmission of the AIDS virus. He refused to say whether the president thinks public health officials should promote their use. When it comes to combating HIV, we ought to be funding programs that work, McClellan said. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when no one dared speak of what was then unspeakable, activist groups coined a phrase: Silence equals death. Two decades later, our own government has embarked on a campaign that begs for its own slogan: Disinformation is deadly. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. Wakey, wakey. I'm here with your weather report for the evening. I see rain, lightning, thunder, and your head nailed to that wall over there if you don't tell me what my friend and I need to know. -- Marcus, Babylon 5 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gautam's energy levels
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Without commenting on my own salary, I would point out that between the various taxes and government-mandated deductions in my salary, I end up paying 42% to the government. That's _before_ I deduct for my 401K and things like that. I'm trying to remember what 401K is. I know we don't have to pay the government much right now - in fact we usually get a few hundred back - because my mom's been complaining that, what with the new cheese business doing well, and the bro and I about to stop being dependents, she may actually have to start paying for the first time since they started farming. (I've never made enough money to have to pay taxes, so I don't know much about this either) I also live in Manhattan. Despite the fact that I have _4_ roommates, my rent+utilities exceeds $1300 per month. There are plenty of people at McKinsey - or any other financial/consulting firm - who make more than $120K/year (I assume - salary figures are confidential, but that isn't that much by financial world standards), but I understand quite well why they say that it doesn't go nearly as far as you might think. nod That's the good bit. You don't get paid a lot but you get perks - almost always, with a farming job, housing (usually crappy housing [there won't be any indoor plumbing when I go home] but housing), and usually food. My parents give their employees a pig and a cow - dead and cut up and all, of course. And as much milk as you want. grin J. van Baardwijk wrote: You are correct -- that is not a lot. GRIN OK, maybe it is a reasonable wage for a trained herdsman, but personally, I do not even bother to get out of bed for 15-20k per year. If I was having to do math all the time I *know* I wouldn't get out of bed for 120K a year. Farming's what I love. It pays nothing, and I end up with scars and muddy clothes and stuff, but there we are. grin I was just mildly curious, really. I just don't *know* what people make, or what that translates to. My family's financial situation is so muddy that it's impossible to judge anything. Anyway. Cool. goes to bed Kat Feete Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected. - George Carlin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gautam's energy levels
Erik Rueter wrote: 5 figures a month would mean a minimum of $120K a year, right? I thought that was not all that unusual at McKinsey. Now that I know that, I guess I should have more sympathy for McKinsey employees :-) Ye gods, but that is an obscene amount of money. Brings up a point of curiousity for me: what sort of money, exactly, do people make? I know in a vague way what my parents gross, but since they're running their own business that doesn't mean much. Last I heard, once business expenses were subtracted, we were somewhere under 20k a year but that still doesn't mean much... and, now that I think of it, isn't necessarily right either. Gah. Myself, I thought I was doing great when I was making £240 a week (about $350) for 60 hours a week or so of work... when I start working this January, realistically, I'm going to be paid whatever my parents can afford to pay me, but practically I think the going wage for a trained herdsman is 15-20k. Er, is that not a lot? Kat Money? What's that? Feete - What you have to remember is that in the movies there are two types of people 1) the directors, artists, actors and so on who have to do things and are often quite human and 2) the other lifeforms. Unfortunately you have to deal with the other lifeforms first. It is impossible to exaggerate their baleful stupidity. - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correcting a slight injustice
Erik Reute wrote: RTFM usually means Read The Fucking Manual There's one of those? Why haven't I got a copy? it would seem to mean, Read The Fucking Archive. This, on the other hand, I don't even want to *see* Kat Feete - Do not needlessly endanger your lives until I give you the signal. --Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Attack Iraq, Alone If Must Be
John D. Giorgis wrote: Only *one* Brin-L poster bothered to object to this incredibly insulting and slanderous comment. This second poster did not attack the first poster, but simply asked if the first post ever felt guilty about casting such incredibly vicious insults when, by her own admission, without actually keeping up on the situation. 4) This second Brin-L poster then reserves twice as many criticisms for his post (2) than the original poster received for hers (1). Not very fair, is it? But then again, as my parents are fond of reminding me, *life's* not fair. I didn't ask people to defend me. It's nice of them, and I appreciate it, but I've got lots and lots of teeth of my own. As most of you know. grin For the record, I didn't object to your language. I'm thick skinned, and people have called me far worse than that. I objected to your responding to the emotional overtones of the post, rather than the issues I was bringing up. Maybe I phrased it badly: I'm in a hurry most of the time these days, and I'm also pretty heavily depressed. But I *am* interested in what you've got to say, or I wouldn't have posted. Conclusion: If anyone ever wants another Brin-L poster to take their friendly advice and criticism towards that poster seriously, offer that advice/criticism in private, not on-list in front of that poster's friends and the entire community. Another good idea is to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy whenever dispensing advice/criticism to anybody, as that appearance can certainly alter the reception of that advice/criticism. Please don't. I'm allergic to off-list posting; it always seems to lead to trouble. Besides, the fun of this is that it *is* a public forum. Sharks and stuff. Hope this was clear; I've got to run and write a paper now - Kat Feete - Do not needlessly endanger your lives until I give you the signal. --Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:Attack Iraq, Alone If We Must
Kevin Tarr wrote: whoa, hold your horses, Republicans create an emotionally charged smokescreen? I'll give you a chance to say retract and say ALL political people create an emotionally charged smokescreen. Emendation accepted. The Republicans are just the current worst offenders. Kat I Vote Third Party, Myself Feete --- What's a philosopher ? said Brutha. Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting. - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Brin-l] Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 43, Issue 2
JDG wrote: Kat, do you ever feel guilty about accusing a guy of ordering innocent men to their deaths for electoral advantage without even bothering to keep up on the news, and oh, I don't know, news reports on the case this guy has been making to Congress and the United Nations to get their support for this attack? Maybe you at least think about maybe feeling guilty? thinks about it Considering the amount of news reports our glorious President apparently reads before deciding to make war, I could say no right off. But, in fact, I have read a lot of the stuff you're referring to. I read the Economist article you sent the list, and I've read various other articles that other people on both sides of the question have sent, and I've read some newspapers, and so on. I just haven't read everything on the question. And, as it so happens, I *still* say what I said. Whether that's what you say I said is a different question, but never mind. Now that we've dealt with your your blatant misreading, would you care to deal with the actual *substance* of my message, or are you going to continue to reinforce my opinions about Republicans by trying to create an emotionally charged smokescreen? evil grin Kat Feete ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
