Hi-
I wonder if anyone's ever successfully installed Franz Allegro 6.1 CL Trial
Edition on a Debian Woody box?
Any tips? Pointers? Rants?
Regs
Henry
_________________________________________________________________
Micro$oft-Free Human 100% Debian GNU/Linux
KMFMS "Bring the genome to the people!
···········@debian-rs.org
www.debian.org - www.debian-br.cipsga.org.br - www.debian-rs.org
synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> I wonder if anyone's ever successfully installed Franz Allegro
> 6.1 CL Trial Edition on a Debian Woody box?
Yes, on a x86-based Woody system. Worked fine on the first try.
No problems at all. RTFM.
On the other hand, if you are not able to put a real name in your From
header, you probably should learn some basic stuff first.
On Fri, 31 May 2002 15:00:57 -0300, Nils Kassube wrote:
> synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
>
>> I wonder if anyone's ever successfully installed Franz Allegro
>> 6.1 CL Trial Edition on a Debian Woody box?
>
> Yes, on a x86-based Woody system. Worked fine on the first try. No
> problems at all. RTFM.
>
> On the other hand, if you are not able to put a real name in your From
> header, you probably should learn some basic stuff first.
Hi-
Given your help, and the treatment received, I'm not even gonna try...
I'll stick to Open Source GPL'ed CMUCL.
And who cares anyway...No wonder soooo many people like to learn LISP...
When will you learn?...
Henry
_________________________________________________________________
Micro$oft-Free Human 100% Debian GNU/Linux
KMFMS "Bring the genome to the people!
···········@debian-rs.org
www.debian.org - www.debian-br.cipsga.org.br - www.debian-rs.org
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> would write:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 15:00:57 -0300, Nils Kassube wrote:
>
>> synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
>>
>>> I wonder if anyone's ever successfully installed Franz Allegro
>>> 6.1 CL Trial Edition on a Debian Woody box?
>>
>> Yes, on a x86-based Woody system. Worked fine on the first try. No
>> problems at all. RTFM.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you are not able to put a real name in your From
>> header, you probably should learn some basic stuff first.
>
> Hi-
> Given your help, and the treatment received, I'm not even gonna try...
> I'll stick to Open Source GPL'ed CMUCL.
> And who cares anyway...No wonder soooo many people like to learn LISP...
> When will you learn?...
The version I have installed is definitely _not_ licensed under the
GPL. Do you know when they made the license change?
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #164. "I will hire one hopelessly stupid
and incompetent lieutenant, but make sure that he is full of
misinformation when I send him to capture the hero."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
synthespian <···········@debian-rs.org> writes:
> Given your help, and the treatment received, I'm not even gonna try...
Unfortunately, my crystal ball is currently kaputt, so I'm not able
to answer anything else than "it works fine for me". If you are
looking for help, then it's a great idea to offer enough useful
information that someone _can_ help you.
BTW: It's common courtesy on Usenet to use a real name.
> I'll stick to Open Source GPL'ed CMUCL.
Last time I checked CMU CL was public domain software, not GPL'ed.
Nils Kassube <····@kassube.de> writes:
> BTW: It's common courtesy on Usenet to use a real name.
That would be German Usenet. Please don't try to introduce this
utterly idiotic bickering about real names into international
Usenet. Thank you.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> That would be German Usenet. Please don't try to introduce this
> utterly idiotic bickering about real names into international
> Usenet. Thank you.
http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/%7Eguckes/faq/using.realnames.html
Nils Kassube <····@kassube.de> writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > That would be German Usenet. Please don't try to introduce this
> > utterly idiotic bickering about real names into international
> > Usenet. Thank you.
>
> http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/%7Eguckes/faq/using.realnames.html
*sigh* As I said, it is not entirely coincidental that this text
is apparently written by a German. Google for ``realname
usenet''. In German newsgroups people get flamed and killfiled
if they don't use anything that sounds like a real name, the
flamewars about this are endless. Not so on international
newsgroups. This is one of the many reasons I don't read German
newsgroups at all. Sure, you can try to impose all kinds of
rules, restrictions and censorship the typical German loves so
much onto the whole of Internet and Usenet, but, hopefully, this
will not succeed.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
Nils Goesche wrote:
> *sigh* As I said, it is not entirely coincidental that this text
> is apparently written by a German. Google for ``realname
> usenet''. In German newsgroups people get flamed and killfiled
> if they don't use anything that sounds like a real name, the
> flamewars about this are endless.
That might be because there are people who like to talk about other
people who are just not interested in any regulations that may exist.
Personally, I don't have this problem, anyone who does not use a real
name is killfiled automatically. This way it is easy for me and for the
people who do not want my attention or that of others who value a
certain code of behaviour.
> Not so on international
> newsgroups. This is one of the many reasons I don't read German
> newsgroups at all.
And I am sure some people are just the opposite.
> Sure, you can try to impose all kinds of
> rules, restrictions and censorship the typical German loves so
> much onto the whole of Internet and Usenet, but, hopefully, this
> will not succeed.
Using real names is a rule, not a restriction, and certainly not
censorship. Interestingly enough the people who actively encourage the
use of real names are the ones who also fight against censorship and
other means of controlling the free data flow on the internet. There are
many more arguments against your point of view but apparently you are
pleased with your hollow and self-righteous pose.
Thomas
--
Thomas S. Strathmann http://pdp7.org
RMS: NOOOOOObody expects the GNU Inquisition! Confess! Confess! Confess!
"Thomas Strathmann" <······@pdp7.org> wrote in message ··························@adams.pdp7.org...
>
> That might be because there are people who like to talk about other
> people who are just not interested in any regulations that may exist.
> Personally, I don't have this problem, anyone who does not use a real
> name is killfiled automatically. This way it is easy for me and for the
> people who do not want my attention or that of others who value a
> certain code of behaviour.
What on earth makes you think `Joe Marshall' is my `real' name?
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> What on earth makes you think `Joe Marshall' is my `real' name?
of course it's not, names beginning w/ J are integers.
now your credibility is completely blown.
thi
The world rejoiced as Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> wrote:
> "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
>
>> What on earth makes you think `Joe Marshall' is my `real' name?
>
> of course it's not, names beginning w/ J are integers.
> now your credibility is completely blown.
C'mon. Take it to comp.lang.ratfor.
Nothing to see here...
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #104. "My undercover agents will not have
tattoos identifying them as members of my organization, nor will they
be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress
codes." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Thomas Strathmann <······@pdp7.org> writes:
> hollow and self-righteous pose.
the way to side-step being offended by self-righteousness in usenet posts is
to avoid attaching self- (of others) to rightousness. requiring "real" name
to post bindings does not support this method of detachment and guarantees
continuing annoyances.
thi
Thomas Strathmann wrote:
> Personally, I don't have this problem, anyone who does not use a real
> name is killfiled automatically.
Buddha taught that the self is an illusion, so there is little hope of
there being any such thing as a real name.
And Nike says, no age, no nationality, just minds.
Buddha or Nike, yer in trouble.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Buddha taught that the self is an illusion, so there is little hope of
> there being any such thing as a real name.
That may be true.
> And Nike says, no age, no nationality, just minds.
That is what matters.
> Buddha or Nike, yer in trouble.
No, because most people use "real names" (even if those "real names" may
not only be real by definition) because it is the natural thing to do.
See, I am not trying to enforce things. What I don't like I usally
ignore. I am not going to lose vital information by not reading
anonymous' posts.
Thomas
--
Thomas S. Strathmann http://pdp7.org
RMS: NOOOOOObody expects the GNU Inquisition! Confess! Confess! Confess!
Thomas Strathmann <······@pdp7.org> writes:
> Using real names is a rule, not a restriction, and certainly not
> censorship.
Apparently this is a rule on German Usenet. It is most certainly
*not* a rule on international Usenet. I consider it quite rude to be
so presumptuous as to demand that someone use their government name.
If someone picks a nickname like "caffeine junky", they should be
expect to be taken less seriously than if they picked a less silly
nickname, but coming out of left field and telling people to use their
governments is totally uncalled for.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
"Thomas Strathmann" <······@pdp7.org> wrote:
> Using real names is a rule, not a restriction, and certainly not
> censorship.
No one else seems to have picked up on this little phrase but it seems to me
a distinction without a difference: how can a rule such as this not be a
restriction? (If it wasn't a rule then it might not be a restriction . . .)
So, what's your understanding of `rule' and `restriction'?
// Conrad
Thomas Strathmann <······@pdp7.org> writes:
> Nils Goesche wrote:
> > In German newsgroups people get flamed and killfiled if they don't
> > use anything that sounds like a real name, the flamewars about
> > this are endless.
> That might be because there are people who like to talk about other
> people who are just not interested in any regulations that may exist.
> Personally, I don't have this problem, anyone who does not use a real
> name is killfiled automatically. This way it is easy for me and for the
> people who do not want my attention or that of others who value a
> certain code of behaviour.
So, you automatically killfile everybody who doesn't follow a totally
arbitrary and nonsensical rule which is only known in Germany and
nowhere else in the world. Well, there are a lot more people to
killfile then, because the fact that somebody uses something that
sounds like a real name doesn't imply at all that they agree with you,
either (as you are experiencing right now).
> > Not so on international newsgroups. This is one of the many
> > reasons I don't read German newsgroups at all.
>
> And I am sure some people are just the opposite.
So am I. And I am glad that I can avoid them by not reading German
newsgroups.
> > Sure, you can try to impose all kinds of rules, restrictions and
> > censorship the typical German loves so much onto the whole of
> > Internet and Usenet, but, hopefully, this will not succeed.
>
> Using real names is a rule, not a restriction, and certainly not
> censorship. Interestingly enough the people who actively encourage
> the use of real names are the ones who also fight against censorship
> and other means of controlling the free data flow on the internet.
Oh, so now it's the Germans who are the only ones who fight censorship
on the internet? Now, that's news to me. Whenever I see somebody
advocating all kinds of censorship and filtering of websites the
government doesn't like, it's a German. Granted, there may be some
politicians in China or North Korea who are on our side here, too.
> There are many more arguments against your point of view but
> apparently you are pleased with your hollow and self-righteous pose.
I personally can't imagine anything more self-righteous than
killfiling everybody who doesn't agree with you, but, for now, you are
still free to do whatever you like. And you don't have to tell me
those arguments, I have read all of them a thousand times and still
think they're all wrong.
I still wonder what the real reason for this silly insistance on
``real names'' is, though. I guess the typical German subconsciously
doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of somebody being able to
express his opinion on a public medium like Usenet without the
possibility of being sued and arrested whenever this opinion isn't
government-approved. Of course, you still can't tell if my real name
isn't in fact ``Donald Duck'' and not what you see in the header, but
I guess it gives Germans at least some assurance that things are
properly controlled. (In the last German newsgroup I read people were
constantly talking about sueing each other. And that was a technical
newsgroup! I couldn't stand it anymore.)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message ···················@pc022.bln.elmeg.de...
>
> (In the last German newsgroup I read people were
> constantly talking about sueing each other. And that was a technical
> newsgroup! I couldn't stand it anymore.)
In the US it is extraordinarily difficult to win a slander
or libel suit. You have to prove that the allegation was
false, that it damaged your reputation, that the person
who made the allegation knew (or ought to have known) it
was false, *and* that he made the allegation to discredit you.
Even *then*, if it was a joke, parody or satire, or you are
a `public figure' forget it.
I know that in England that it is *much* easier to prosecute
a slander or libel suit. (I believe it is incumbent upon the
person who made the allegation to prove that it is *true*,
and that intent and actual damage to you reputation don't
enter in to it.) It may be similar in Germany.
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> wrote in message
····························@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
>
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@pc022.bln.elmeg.de...
> >
> > (In the last German newsgroup I read people were
> > constantly talking about sueing each other. And that was a technical
> > newsgroup! I couldn't stand it anymore.)
>
> In the US it is extraordinarily difficult to win a slander
> or libel suit. You have to prove that the allegation was
> false, that it damaged your reputation, that the person
> who made the allegation knew (or ought to have known) it
> was false, *and* that he made the allegation to discredit you.
> Even *then*, if it was a joke, parody or satire, or you are
> a `public figure' forget it.
>
I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit over a
usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for that matter...) Given the
level of discourse on usenet that would be an extraordinary thing, IMO.
I've certainly seen threats.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
>>>>> "Coby" == Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
Coby> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a
Coby> successful lawsuit over a usenet posting. (or even an
Coby> unsuccessful one for that matter...) Given the level of
Coby> discourse on usenet that would be an extraordinary thing,
Coby> IMO. I've certainly seen threats.
Not that I can recall in the USA, but in the UK, a guy named Laurence
Godfrey sued Demon Internet over some news postings. They settled out
of court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_695000/695596.stm
--
Matthew X. Economou <········@irtnog.org> - Unsafe at any clock speed!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian heritage! (http://www.subgenius.com)
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio ······························@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit over a
> usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for that matter...)
At least one in an Italian newsgroup (unsuccessful).
P.
"Pierpaolo BERNARDI" <··················@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio ······························@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit over a
> > usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for that matter...)
>
> At least one in an Italian newsgroup (unsuccessful).
>
Long time since I traveled the Italian Neswgroups. I bet I know who
filed the suit :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> ha scritto nel
> messaggio
> ······························@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a
>> successful lawsuit over a usenet posting. (or even an
>> unsuccessful one for that matter...)
>
> At least one in an Italian newsgroup (unsuccessful).
In Denmark Bo Warming got a fine for making racist remarks
on the usenet group dk.politik (dk.poilitics).
He's so unpopular that there is a FAQ about him
http://www.cs.auc.dk/~hans/bo-warming.OSS.html
One of the questions:
How do I start a lawsuit against him.
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
"Jens Axel S�gaard" <······@soegaard.net> ha scritto nel messaggio ······························@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> In Denmark Bo Warming got a fine for making racist remarks
> on the usenet group dk.politik (dk.poilitics).
Oh. The Italian fact I was referring to, instead, just rose
out of personal bickering. Pretty mild stuff in comparison
to cll, I must add.
P.
Coby Beck:
> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit over
> a usenet posting. [...]
i cannot remember one since early eighties, but it may be that things never
went that far (at least in the groups i care to read). i dimly recall seeing
one retraction posting as a result of the offended party getting his lawyer
to contact the offender. maybe google may turn up something...
> I've certainly seen threats.
yup, there has been many of those...
oz
--
We've had a Main Bus B undervolt. -- Jim Lovell (Apollo 13)
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> wrote in message
> ····························@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
> >
> > "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
> ···················@pc022.bln.elmeg.de...
> > >
> > > (In the last German newsgroup I read people were
> > > constantly talking about sueing each other. And that was a technical
> > > newsgroup! I couldn't stand it anymore.)
> >
> > In the US it is extraordinarily difficult to win a slander
> > or libel suit. You have to prove that the allegation was
> > false, that it damaged your reputation, that the person
> > who made the allegation knew (or ought to have known) it
> > was false, *and* that he made the allegation to discredit you.
> > Even *then*, if it was a joke, parody or satire, or you are
> > a `public figure' forget it.
>
> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful
> lawsuit over a usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for
> that matter...) Given the level of discourse on usenet that
> would be an extraordinary thing, IMO. I've certainly seen
> threats.
I don't know of any cases, either, except for people who post
child pornography or warez, of course. But that doesn't mean
that it is impossible, or only unlikely that it is going to
happen. People get sued and convicted in Germany all the time
for saying things in public that shouldn't be said, according to
law. Slander or libel cases are often /won/ in Germany. Then
there are several laws about political things you are not allowed
to say aloud, like denying the Holocaust, or ``Volksverhetzung''
(``incitement (of the people)'', according to my dictionary), and
some similar things. Also, depiction of several Nazi-symbols
(officially: ``anticonstitutional symbols'') can get you busted,
which also includes some symbols that have no connection to the
Nazis but happen to be popular among Neo-Nazis (there are some
funny cases like the one with the skinhead who had a swastika
tattoo on his forehead, which had to be removed according to
court, which was done but unfortunately left a swastika-shaped
scar on his forehead, which led to another trial :-> (This
actually happened) People regularly go to prison for these
things.
The most interesting section, though, is another one, which
strangely is unknown to most people in Germany: The law dealing
with ``Religionsbeschimpfung'', something like ``slander on
religion'', or ``swearing at religion'', or ``abusing religion''.
Here, too, people get convicted every now and then, but most
people don't know about this. There are a few famous cases,
though. The most famous ones were against the well-known
historian Karlheinz Deschner, who wrote several books about the
historical crimes of the Christian church. During the trial he
could prove every single one of his claims, though, and wan all
trials. Other people, less brilliant historians, apparently,
lost, though. Some satirical magazines like ``Titanic'' get
convicted every few years, too. The well-known daily newspaper
``taz'' was sued, but I don't remember whether they were actually
convicted.
So, I cannot see any reason why you wouldn't win cases about
Usenet-postings, at least in Germany. Heck, you can even get
convicted if your homepage contains a link (sic!) to another
webpage which is considered illegal in Germany.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xC66D6E6F
* "Coby Beck"
| I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit
| over a usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for that matter...)
| Given the level of discourse on usenet that would be an extraordinary
| thing, IMO. I've certainly seen threats.
Today (2002-06-03) the Norwegian state attorney brought indictments
against a 56-year-old psychologist (a behaviorist, of course) who has
been busy harrassing and persecuting a large number of people his entire,
however brief, existence on the Net, three of which filed charges last
year. His behavioral problems is well covered by the penal code, so this
is no libel suit. The key to a successful case is instead that he has
been persecuting people who have once disagreed with him, abusing his
skills as a psychologist in order to inflict prolonged personal harm.
Unlike harrassment, which is silly, persecution requires prolonged and
directed attacks even in the absence of retaliation or response. (We
have a pretty decent and good old Viking-style rule in Norwegian law: If
you think somebody said something wrong about you and you retaliate, you
have no grounds for redress at all and any supposed libel is laughed out
of court. If you are "harrassed" and retaliate, you do not need the
court to protect you, because the person _you_ attacked has as least as
good reason to seek protection as you did. If you _ask_ somebody to stop
doing something hurtful to you and they _persist_, however, you have
cause for a charge of persecution.)
Brought to a psychology forum by a psychiatric patient with a serious
grudge against psychiatry as such, he first attacked anyone who disagreed
with his outrageous claim that psychiatry is the root of all evil (an
opinion commonly held by stark raving mad psychiatric patients who need
someone to blame for their pain), then that his pet psychological theory,
radical behaviorism -- basically regarding humans as soul-less automatons
who only respond to their environment -- was the only "scientific" theory
of psychology (which is undiluted hogwash), then that anyone who opposed
his increasingly insane and hostile behavior as a perpetual newbie should
be terrorized for months in order to defend the non-learning of "newbies"
everywhere, upon which he garnered a following of past and present mental
patients with incurable problems and nothing left to lose, notably several
psychiatric patients whose vociferous agreement on the evils of psychiatry
would probably form sufficient material for a whole conference.
It has all the markings of a landmark case and may well define freedom on
the Internet more than the Jon Lech Johansen case (the DVD "cracker" who
has angered Hollywood so much by trying to play a rightfully owned DVD on
a rightfully owned computer that had not succumbed to Microsoft). [It is
not that Norwegians are such law-breaking people, it is that we tend to
ignore bad laws and fight it out. Viking blood and all that, although it
tends to be more blood than Viking when all is said and done.]
The perpetrator has lost his license to practice (to the extent that the
quack psychologists need any here), has lost his job as a teacher of some
special psychiatric nurses (even though he is touted as an authority on
behaviorism in Norway, he is unable to modify his behavior such that
people will work with him), lost his computers (because he managed to
seriously piss off the courts, too), and long ago lost his mind, which is
intimately related to his reason for being on the Net at all. He was
very closely associated with an important case in Norwegian psychiatric
care law, the Arnold Jukleroed case, in which a highly religious nutjob
protested the shutdown of his daughter's school, on the way to which she
had been sexually assaulted (a fact that surfaced only when the current
perpetrator was instrumental in causing the psychiatric patient that
brought him onto the Net in the first place to publish the Jukleroed
journals in their uncensored form, a breach of professional ethics that
will likely cause further indictments), and subsequently demonstrated
beyond all reasonable doubt that he was suffering from an affliction
known as "paranoia querulantis" (see ICD-10 or DSM-IV-R), in which an
initially reasonable quest for acceptance of wrong-doing and reparations
from the government (usually) went far beyond the reasonable into an
obsession that would end with his quest to be cleared of his psychiatric
diagnosis (!) and for which he paid with his life by spending his last
few years living in a tent outside the psychiatric hospital that refused
to clear his name (which was obviously correct, albeit slightly unwise),
until he weakened and died of pneumonia. The perpetrator was probably
the single strongest reason that Arnold Jukleroed did _not_ give up his
idiotic fight and move home or accept hospitalization for his weakened
health, but continued to fight his obviously losing battle.
The Jukleroed "movement" has over the years fought for some important
changes in psychiatric care in Norway, but similar developments have
occurred independently in other countries without any similar incident
and have generally preceded changes here, so there is little reason to
believe that the Jukleroed case were a sine qua non for this development,
although the Jukleroed movement certainly believe in the seminal nature
of his case, denial of which is a major part of our perpetrator's furor.
Regardless of the importance of the case, the perpetrator's role has long
been well known by the psychiatric establishment and there is a strong
consensus that he let Jukleroed fight his own war, just as he used
another psychiatric patient to publish Jukleroed's journals after he
completely derailed a research project to publish them sans personal
details that would unduly tarnish the memory of unrelated people as well
as his surviving family members, who have changed their names and sought
to distance themselves from the case and the movement, except for a few
nutjobs who have acquired an uncanny taste for conspiracy theories.
Despite lack of evidence of any actual wrong-doing (other than unwisely
insisting on same), there is no doubt that pscyhiatry is a fairly young
discipline and has had some major problems, but, like other past ills,
reasonably intelligent and mature and _sane_ people work to get over them
instead of working to increase their own pain and suffering in order to
blame others for their role as victims. (There is an ongoing debate in
the United States that I will not name directly which is at least as
insane and which has lots of people believe in victimization to the point
that the very raison d'�tre of the United States as we know it from its
Civil War is denied and the lives lost of 350,000 soldiers who fought to
end this evil are attempted used to make the _vanquishers_ pay for evils
of the _vanquished_, a kind of blame-throwing and denial that at least in
Germany would lead to swift incarceration.) The lack of ability to get
over something painful is perhaps an all too human character flaw, but it
does not infrequently lead people to commit acts of evil that far surpass
_normal_ imagination and are most certainly so insanely exaggerated
compared to the initial cause that nobody could even dream of accepting
what they demand after it has reached its feverish pitch. (Some would
argue that terrorists have a similar, if not the same, mental problem.)
We actually see this problem exhibited here from time to time, where some
people who have not even been subject to any wrong-doing lose it and run
the whole gamut of purposefully destructive behavior in order to (pretend
to) seek redress for some irrelevant hurt feeling that they have to blame
somebody else for, and if those others do not recognize their "need" to
seek redress, such as by accepting "blame" for their hurt feelings (which
is itself pretty nuts, but _culturally_ acceptable in the United States
and Germany in particular), they go nuts in a _really_ big way. I still
remember a French nutjob who proved all too well what happens when you
install Internet at psychiatric hospitals -- or more generally, in France.
I find it most interesting that people who somehow become obsessive about
some peculiar irrelevancy, like using full names on USENET, can consider
their supposedly hurt feelings because somebody does not "obey" their
stupid rules a sufficient reason to attack someone who not only uses his
full name and disagrees with the stupid rule in a civil and courteous
manner, so one could reasonably expect them to be in the clear, for their
"hollow and self-righteous pose". I mean, what _possesses_ people who
respond in this way to mere disagreement over a rule? For once, I was
not the target of such a nutjob, but time and again, we see that people
who cannot handle disagreement of any sort not only blame others for this
peculiar character flaw, they use unlimited force in trying to hurt those
who "disrespect" their feelings and they will do absolutely _anything_ to
stop someone from hurting them, even though the only possible cause of
their pain is self-infliction and they prove to the whole world how evil
they are and how unable they are to stop.
Is there a cure for this illness? Yes, and it is simple: If you feel
hurt by something somebody says that is not _specifically_ directed at
your person and that should not rather be regarded as directed at what
you have actually done, it is your own goddamn problem: You _choose_ to
be hurt by it, and you can choose _not_ to. If it _can_ be directed at
your actions, it should be, and the way to avoid more pain is simply to
change your actions. (However, if reasonable efforts to change does not
work, you _know_ that it is personal.) Feeling personally hurt because
you get a negative response to something you have done is immature beyond
belief. Feeling similarly hurt by proxy (on behalf of someone else) _is_
insane, there are no two ways about it. There never were a more evil
person than he who rises to "defend" others from pain that never was.
(It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to defend others from physical
harm, but words are _not_ physically harmful, despite the ardent belief
of behaviorists, among other nutjobs; a word is hurtful only because the
listener chooses to accept it as such.) There is, however, a belief in
the American culture that an outrageous claim that words can cause
physical pain should be intellectual respectable, but it is the root
cause of the rampant victimization of the entire American population.
All sorts of wacky notions of "protecting" people from hurtful words have
gained force in recent years, and are hailed as "progress". There are
laws that actually regulate what you can _say_ if some paranoid-neurotic
bystander can claim to feel bad because of it. Nobody need ever act on
it, no actual loss need ever occur, just holding opinions that some idiot
cannot deal with is enough. Protecting free speech is far less important
in some circles than protecting feeble-minded neurotics from the need to
seek treatment for their frail and fragile personality. The right to be
a helpless victim who can blame somebody else for everything and get paid
a lot for being hurt is far more important than the right to stand up for
your beliefs: in effect, you should _not_ stand up for your beliefs if
some neurotic somewhere can be "hurt" by it.
One likely outcome of this trial is that we will get mature and wise men
to hand down a ruling that a certain amount of tolerance for "pain" from
other people's words is required of all participants in any public forum
in the interest of unregulated and free speech, but that persistent and
directed, unprovoked and unrequited harrassment is not free speech so
protected. This may set an important precedent for how people can be
expected to deal with their own hurt feelings, and that those who do not
have the mental wherewithal to engage in public discourse refrain from
attempting to do so (and instead rely on letters to the editor where they
cannot experience the snickering over the readership's breakfast), and
still convey a message to those who feel a need to take revenge that not
doing so is significantly smarter than they think. This may even cause
such randomness as those who see "hollow and self-righteous pose" in
those who reject their "rules" to be dampened at the outset, and may lead
to a general dampening of the so often excessive oscillations of emotion
when some nutjob feels hurt and cannot handle it. But not that Americans
would notice until their own victimization parades have been rejected and
they can come to grips with expressions of opinions that "hurt" their
increasing number of professional neurotics, including their feeble-
minded president, who has obviously done more to weaken the spirit of the
American people than anything else in their entire history, particularly
the direct precursor to the approval ratings that, alarmingly, exceeded
his IQ. The only way you can look up to an intellectual midget is by
denying yourself the opportunity to stand on your own two feet. We may
yet see a change to this attitude and a desire even for modern Americans
to protect freedom more than fear, conformity and political correctness.
[ Those offended by the unbridled off-topicness of this article may be
eligible for a refund _only_ upon applying to the author by mail. ]
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.
In article <·························@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Coby Beck wrote:
> I am curious to know if anyone has ever heard of a successful lawsuit over a
> usenet posting. (or even an unsuccessful one for that matter...) Given the
> level of discourse on usenet that would be an extraordinary thing, IMO.
> I've certainly seen threats.
Heheh. Reminds me of that old, non-PC joke...
Q. Why is arguing on Usenet like running in the Special Olympics?
A. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
--
God is a comic playing to an audience that's afraid to laugh.
(Sorry about the late post, I'm trying to get up to speed with
comp.lang.lisp. Only some 500 articles to go...)
[ Nils Goesche ]
> So, you automatically killfile everybody who doesn't follow a totally
> arbitrary and nonsensical rule which is only known in Germany and
> nowhere else in the world.
To be fair, there's also a rule/convention/whatever in the no.* groups
to use full names. Or rather, it's stated in the FAQs for no.* that
full names should be used except in certain circumstances
(whistleblowing, incest victims asking for advice etc.), but this is a
point of quite some controversy. Some long-time posters on no.* tries
to enforce using full/real names, mostly by information, while some
other both long-time and newer posters protest this. These endless
quarrels were one of the main reasons I stopped reading the no.* admin
groups.
Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp
Thomas Strathmann <······@pdp7.org> writes:
> Using real names is a rule, not a restriction, and certainly not
> censorship.
And it's a pretty pointless one. In the US, you are able to change
your common name simply by telling people what you want to be
called. (And, googling around, shows that in Illinois at least most
government records can be altered to use the common name:
<http://www.uiuc.edu/unit/SLS/sl03003.htm>)
It's also possible to change the name with a court order. And I know
of at least one person who changed their name in that fashion to one
no less "real" than 'synthespian'.
--
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess [only] as long as he
keeps it to himself.... -- Thomas Jefferson
In article <···············@elaine0.Stanford.EDU>, Brian Palmer wrote:
> It's also possible to change the name with a court order. And I know of at
> least one person who changed their name in that fashion to one no less
> "real" than 'synthespian'.
c.f. "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" :)
(Yes, I know, he changed it back eventually.)