Linux-Advocacy Digest #383, Volume #28 Sun, 13 Aug 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Reinventing Mexican food... why should anyone be so silly?!
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:25:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The simplest possibility in the way you present your posts is you
>consider yourself 'above' me and therefore you need to 'congradulate' me
>when I come across something that impresses you.
I'd have to agree. The question then, I guess, is, "Is the simplest
possibility the correct one?" Occam's often-misconstrued Razor aside,
judging from the amount of general trollery that occurs around here, the
chances are that I am simply trying to be sincere and honest in trying
to give you encouragement when you post things that are interesting and
well presented. I do the same thing for anyone else. If I were truly
arrogant (which is to say if I had no humility, which isn't the case in
the least, though I don't often posture with false modesty), then I'd
scarcely be able to admit that I'd greatly appreciate it (you might even
consider it something of a self-serving motivation) if others would
adopt the habit as well. I like getting positive feedback, and I'm
afraid I can't get very upset if you want to interpret my encouragement
to be some sort of self-aggrandizing condescension, as I can't quite
comprehend someone getting upset by my congratulations for impressing
me. Its not like I'm easy to impress. Or should I say, its not like
I'm impressed all that often.
>If you had the ability
>to state things without coming across as an arrogant asshole trying to
>show the 'lowly' me how stupid I am, then maybe I could take you
>seriously. As it is, you never did answer any question I posed to you
>beyond saying "I know I am right, and that is all that needs to be
>said." Now, you did manage to stretch that into page upon page of text,
>but you still said the same thing.
So I'm either insulting you by pointing out that you merely missed the
subtlety of the response, or I'm being arrogant in stating that maybe
your questions were just too simplistic to be worth settling for, or I'm
just wrong and have to admit I'm baiting you because I think I have a
great and powerful intellect and you don't? Those are my choices?
What I'm trying to say, Nate, is that you are pretty accurate and I'm
pretty deserving as far as your comments go, from what I've been told.
You aren't the first to notice that I often take an almost insane amount
of time to *not* answer a question. I wouldn't go so far as to say I
never answered any question you posed. I certainly responded to all of
them. And, yes, there are times when the fact is the question doesn't
have a valid response, or wasn't stated clearly enough for me to try to
provide one. I'd be disappointed to think you might be accurate in
saying that I never answered a single question you posed, though I don't
actually recall you actually asking many straight-forward questions.
I'm not the only one who comes across as arrogant on Usenet. In case
you haven't noticed, its freaking pathetically common. We *all* sound
like flaming assholes much of the time. Its that damn lack of visual,
auditory, and even environmental cues. I doubt you'll forgive me for
saying so, but I must point out that you do yourself seem a bit
arrogant, most specifically in the very first 'Look, you can avoid
Windows problems if you're not clueless or a jerk' message which began
our interaction, and that did indeed contribute to my reply. Not to
mention which, I *am* fricken arrogant about my ability to troubleshoot
human/computer system failures and operations, and I have a right to be,
whether you know it or accept it or not. So it certainly isn't too
surprising the way that thread turned out.
But the part that you will find annoying, I think, is when I observe
that as a sort of passive-aggressive defense tactic, you also do
something else that most posters don't do, and that's whine. You act
like somebody is flailing you in public and you cry and moan about how
mean they're being. I'm not sure if its just a touch of low self-esteem
(which is not just common but endemic; it is only the way your words
reflect it which is somewhat distinct) or frustration at what you see as
wide-spread and rampant aggressiveness in posters. The fact is, though,
that if you're not at least a bit aggressive, you generally don't post,
so it isn't too surprising that Usenet seems filled with assholes. And
like I said, chances are you just haven't recognized that *everyone
sounds like an asshole on Unix* at some point in time. Some of us more
routinely and persistently than others, of course. Personally, I
assuage my guilty feelings when I think I've crossed the line by
recognizing that I'm *always* going to be more than willing to consider
the validity of everything that anyone says irrespective of their
history, attitude, or context. Which isn't to say I'll necessarily
consider it very long, and when everything that some particular person
says almost immediately exhibits fatal flaws in reasoning, I lose
patience a bit quicker than some (but hold my temper a bit longer than
some, as well).
You, by the way, have never made it anywhere near that list. But I
suppose you'll take that as an insult inspired by arrogance and hidden
behind a compliment.
>I'm not in general thin-skinned. But someone that goes so far out of
>their way to attempt proving their superiority without providing any
>valid reasons at all seems to be beyond contempt in my opinion.
My oh my. That would be a scathing attack, I'm sure, but for the
passive-aggressive phrasing (the "but" prefaces a victim's plea turned
indictment) and the fact that it is entirely off target. I can assure
you that you are of the opinion that I believe I enjoy any particular
superiority or that I engage in discussion in order to prove anyone
else's lack of it is entirely the fabrication of your perception.
You seem to have a little voice in your head that gleefully insists that
every thing I say is determined by an effort to prove you wrong. You
are assigning hostile and malicious intent that *simply isn't there*.
To clarify what seems to be the nature of your "thin skin" in my
opinion, consider that the purpose of discussion, debate, even argument,
is to provide information and questions in an effort to allow all sides
to *decide* what is right and what is wrong. Not who is right or who is
wrong, I must stress. Not unless you succumb to ad hominem attack.
I've got some rather arrogant-sounding things to say about ad hominem
attack, by the way, concerning its relationship to insult, invective,
and insinuation, but I'll save that for another time. Feel free to ask,
if you're interested in hearing it.
>You do
>just that. You are right in your mind.
Well, duh. I'd be pretty stupid if I posted opinions that weren't right
in my mind. I wouldn't be in my right mind, in fact, if I were did not
believe that I am right in my opinions. Your mistake (oops, I've
insulted you again, haven't I?) is that you assume (yes, assume) that
because I believe I am right, I cannot be convinced that I am wrong.
This certainly isn't the case, and I stand on my record on that. I've
been posting to forums and newsgroups for more than a decade, and have
learned something (which means I must have been wrong about something)
from just about every discussion I've ever engaged in.
Forgive me for not being so afraid that I'm wrong that I don't qualify
every word I say in endless obsequious deference to post-modernist
"democratic thinking". I *do* think harder than most other people. I'm
not being arrogant when I say that; I'm rather reticent to point it out,
in fact. It is a neurobiological problem and a flaw in my character; I
can't stop thinking. Now, if only I were able to decide what I think
about, it might be useful. As it is, it makes me smart but useless, for
the most part. I'm generally too busy thinking to get much else done.
I've heard other people who have Attention Deficit Disorder like I do
have somehow managed, but I won't try to take credit for their efforts
by naming them. Not all of them are very smart, and many have far more
serious conditions than I do, but there seems to be a thread of a
"unique perspective" that we all share.
I'm not afraid to be wrong, which makes me sound arrogant, like I mean
I'm always right. But I'm not, and I know it, and I admit it on regular
occasions. But you don't hear that; you hear some little voice in your
head which reduces all my effort and angst and agony to pretentiousness.
>And to you, that is all that
>proof you need. Arrogance can only take you so far. And it is the
>number one problem I have with you. Combine that with your total
>inability to even *consider* the possibility that another opinion can
>exist, and you are going to piss me off.
So let me get this straight; it isn't that I don't agree with your
opinion, or that you won't consider the possibility that my opinion is
right, but the fact that I won't consider the possibility that another
opinion can *exist*? Assuming that you meant what I would have said
(I'll leave it for you to decide if that means I think it is the 'right'
way) as "consider the possibility that anyone else's opinion is valid",
I'd have to say you're still mistaken. But how can I even hope to
figure out if someone else's opinion is valid if they won't try to
defend it with reason and information, but just get all whacked out
because I sound like I'm trying to "prove I'm right?"
I have to say that the more I think about this, the more I'd
characterize your position and statements as post-modernist democratic
thinking. Again, this makes me arrogant because it sounds like an
insult, not just the audacity to insist I can characterize you, but that
I use such an awfully deconstructionist approach to begin with, and then
describe it in convoluted phrases, and compound that by using
"post-modern", "democratic", and "deconstructionist", all of which make
me an elitist, as well, I presume. And on and on it goes.
Unless you are truly curious what "post-modernist democratic thinking"
is, and why I say it like its a bad thing, and can get past the
resultant demand from that little voice that its a condescending insult
and instead ask me to explain it. You might find it interesting, but
that's not for me to say.
;-)
>I won't switch newsreaders just to *PLONK* you, although I may consider
>it in the future if you continue to harras me and try to point out my
>shortcommings (and then deny your attempts as you have here). But from
>this point forward, I will ignore you.
I do hope not. I will readily agree that I am pointing out your
shortcomings (or trying to, if you insist.) I notice you're pointing
out mine, as well. You posts your message and you takes your chances,
as far as I am concerned. I would apologize, but I didn't start it. At
least I don't think I did. But I do have to admit that this could be a
blind-spot, or at least a "unique perspective". It occurs to me that I
might often seem to open the doors to meta-discussions when I make
reference to the cognitive issues which I think of as something of a
vocation. But this brings us back to the issue of ad hominem attacks.
You are probably quite convinced that when I first used the phrase
"conceptual glitch", you considered it some insulting indictment, an ad
hominem attack. In truth, I didn't even mean it as an insult. But once
I said it, and you formed that opinion, you weren't going to listen to
any explanation I had that I'd been using the term for several years in
my work of trying to ascertain why people have problems troubleshooting
modern technology and figuring out how to teach them to do it better.
So it always seems to me like I get "dragged in" to these endless
meta-threads, though I guess it must seem to many others that if I don't
actually start them, I certainly invite them. Could be, of course, that
this is true.
>Thanks for the memories bitch. You're a real fuck-wit. I don't
>normally resort to insults, but in your case I'll make an exception.
That's OK. I don't really mind insults hardly at all. Particularly
ones like that, which strike me as quite humorous (more condescension,
as I chuckle while someone calls me a fuck-wit.) "Thanks for the
memories bitch?" I love it. ;-)
No, its the ad hominem attacks I can't stand. Insults are no problem.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. Dipshit. ;-)
[I'm laughing with you, Nate, I hope, not at you; honest. I promise.]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Reinventing Mexican food... why should anyone be so silly?!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:57:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yea, but in Brooklyn NY we got the best damm Pizza in the entire
> world....Not of that Chicago crap deep "grease" dish crap either.
>
> I suggest Vinnie's on 86th St and 4th Ave in Bklyn. If you are in
> Manhattan, then Ray's in the village is best.
>
> claire
>
> P.S. NOBODY on L.I eats Chowda......nasty stuff, especially the white
> variety....
Thanks for confirming your haunts and locale, Deadpenguin/Steve/Simon/etc.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:00:30 -0400
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Robert Moir wrote:
> [...]
> > > Whatever.
> >
> > No...not fucking "WHATEVER"... what I described is an accurate
> > representation of the Microsoft model.
>
> *in your opinion*
No...in REALITY.
> Like I said, "Whatever" - I wont change your mind anytime soon, and you wont
> change mine. So yes, "Whatever". There it is again "Whatever"... just deal
> with it... ok?
"Whatever" is the refuge of the weak-minded.
>
> > > You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have
> >
> >
> > Adherence to a lie is not victory, ashole.
>
> Wow, you can't even insult correctly, let alone respect the right of others
> to hold opinions different to yours. I can see its a waste of time to hold a
> debate with you. I also assume you know the weakness of your position (that
> others cannot have their own opinions) if "ashole" is the best you can
> manage as a rebuttal.
>
> btw... whats with the signature? Have you EVER posted a post where your
> content is longer than the sig? I wont ask if you have managed a post where
> the content is more interesting than the sig because we all know the answer
> to that.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:01:03 -0400
Otto wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Leonardo wrote:
> : >
> : > Aaron Kulkis, a "Unix System Engineer". WOW!
> : >
> : > What a joke you are. You haven't done much with your life as you have
> ended
> : > up being a pathetic unix systems engineer who speds his whole life on
> : > c.o.l.a.
> : >
> : > Have a nice life!
> :
> : My life is a perpetual vacation....
>
> Sounds like a perpetual trip to the unemployment office.....
Of course not. My work is very vacation-like.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:02:27 -0400
Pan wrote:
>
> Once again, you start out talking about something relatively
> interesting... whether or not communism is currently practised in russia
> ( In my opinion, it has only ever been practised in name only ) and then
> descend into nothing more than a litany centered on you bashing someone.
>
> I'd be happy to take issue with your notion of what does and does not
> constitute communism. More to the point, why soviet russia was not
> communist in any true sense of the term, why communism ~= human slavery,
> and why americans, esp. those educated during the cold war, often have
> trouble grasping that point.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Communism is the opposite of Libertarianism.
>
> Depends on how one defines communism, I suppose. If one equates
> communism with totalitarianism, then perhaps you have a case. IMO,
> communism is a historical stage that has nothing to with totalitarian
> rule.
>
> FWIW, I see libertarianism as not much more than idealistic world view
> dreamed up by people who are reaping the fruits of a mixed economy but
> who don't like paying taxes and who have forgotten how much of their tax
> money has actually gone to creating an infrastructure that makes
> possible an environment of economic prosperity through social and
> political stablity.
>
> If anything has been proved conclusively in our grand public experiment
> it is that neither corporations nor individuals can be relied upon to
> voluntarily pay for public goods such as roads and other public
> infrastructure, they cannot be relied upon to look out for the general
> welfare. There is a reason that without exception, every one of the
> strongest economies in the world has a welfare state.
>
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
>
> > > each other, perhaps it's time for the 2 of you to consider switching to
> > > email or at least to alt.we.can't.keep.our disagreements.civil
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY NOT!
>
> Sure, why bother with civility?
>
> personal attack snipped...
> personal attack snipped...
Loren Petrich forfeited all rights to civility when he decided
to side with totalitarians.
> --
> Salvador Peralta
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
