Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Bryon Daly]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

It Destroys _All Context_ in a conversation.
Not necessarily.  Though I prefer the interleaved style, at my work, the
most common practice is top-posting, particularly in regards to things like
cross-department email threads.   The one big benefit I see is that
frequently additional people get included in the discussion midway along,
and it's often a lot easier to pick up the discussion by just reading the
separate message bits bottom-top than it would be to decipher all the 's
and snipped up paragraphs, where the original context might be
entirely missing.
Also, I've found that a surprisingly large number of people seem to find the
nested >>>'s somewhat confusing, particularly if they're not the type to 
spend
time on message boards or USENET, etc, where this is common expected
practice.

It Inflates messages with unnecessary-unwanted commentary that isn't
being replied to, as people who top-post don't delete the un-replied to
portions of messages, which can be 20k, for a 1 line response.  Some
people still have to pay for their access, and you just cost them money
by top posting.  Messages also get stored on various computers, and so
you are costing money in terms of  storage space, that should have been
unnecessary in the first place.
Bottom posters can be guilty of the same thing.  It's not that uncommon to 
see
a full quoted email, with a one of two line comment at the bottom.   I've 
seen
long threads of bottom posters where no one deletes anything, and you have 
to
scroll through 20K of text just to see anything new.  To me, that's no 
better than
top-posting.

People do not read from the bottom up, and any newcomers that stumble in
where there is top-posting will not understand the context of messages
they come across, because the start of the message is at the bottom.
When interleaving comments, people frequently snip out parts of the quoted
message they aren't concerned with, so the context is spotty in any case.
If you are too lazy to properly snip un-responded-to commentary then I am
unwilling to engage in meaningful conversation with you, esp one that
destroys context in every single damn message.
If everyone used top-posting, the context remains fully intact.  So in a 
discussion
with a top poster, you must resort to being a top poster as well if you care 
about
preserving context.  You will be assimilated...

What you should instead compare it to is Weblog Comments, which just so
happen to follow what format?
I've seen some weblog comments and some message boards that have newest
messages first.
Overall, I prefer the intralinear style, but it really isn't worth getting 
worked up over.
Many/most top posts are short comments that don't really need the full 
discussion
context if you're going to reply to it.  If not, then go ahead and 
interleave your reply
anyway.  No biggie.

-bryon

_
Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up 
Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Doug Pensinger]

The Fool wrote:

It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's Bad Netiquette.
etc. etc.

But you know, Fool, its not as if he led his country into war under false 
pretenses. 8^)

Next time, how a bout a friendly, off list message letting him know what 
he's doing wrong and why.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Introducing Fenris

[Michael Harney]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Introducing Fenris


> In a message dated 2/12/2004 10:35:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Fenris
> >
> >
> > P.S.  No, I have not gone completely insane, I just find it easier to
say
> > certain things in a character other than myself at times (three years of
> > Theater in High School will do that to you) ... besides, it makes the
> > discussion more interesting.
> >
>
> And putting Fenris in the subject line makes me think it was from the H.
Beam
> Piper list.

Fenris is just a damn cool name for a wolf, and my nighmare culmination is a
wolf character.


> As to the other subject matter, AOL has a nice big delete button.

Not using AOL, and probably never will again.  It's one of my least favored
ISP's.

Deleting is easy, yes, it's knowing what to delete that is the hard part.
If I could use custom filters based on regular expressions, I could probably
catch 98% of the unwanted messages, and only lose about 2% of messages I
might actually be interested in, but the e-mail program I use (Outlook
Express, sometimes called Look Out Express) does not have support for
regular expression filters.  Considering that the Internet Explorer Browser
has Regular expression support in its implementation of Javascript, I find
it surprising that it does not have such support.

Anyone know of any free Windows email programs that have regular expression
support in email filtering?

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[The Fool]

> From: David Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Fool,
> 
> Replying off-line.
> 
> > Top-posting is never acceptable in any forum of communication, email,
> > newsgroup, weblog, or otherwise.
> 
> You are wrong. What is acceptable is determined by general agreement o 
> the parties concerned, and not by how loud one person can yell or by
how 
> hard he tries to make himself feel better by putting down others.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's Bad Netiquette.

It's Bad Grammar.  It breaks 2400 years of the format of replying point
by point in a dialog.
 
It Destroys _All Context_ in a conversation.

It Inflates messages with unnecessary-unwanted commentary that isn't
being replied to, as people who top-post don't delete the un-replied to
portions of messages, which can be 20k, for a 1 line response.  Some
people still have to pay for their access, and you just cost them money
by top posting.  Messages also get stored on various computers, and so
you are costing money in terms of  storage space, that should have been
unnecessary in the first place.

Also People Here Assume when you post that you are actually responding to
commentary and they then scroll through the entire remaining quoted
commentary looking for new commentary, which isn't there.  A complete
waste of time for every single person reading your message.  But if it
becomes known that you are a blatant top-poster, noone will ever look
through your posts to find proper point-response commentary you may have
made.  See you just made everybody else lazy too.

People do not read from the bottom up, and any newcomers that stumble in
where there is top-posting will not understand the context of messages
they come across, because the start of the message is at the bottom.  

Because these are conversations that more than one person tend to be
engaged in.

Propagation Delays can cause messages to come out of order, sometimes by
days (or months), further destroying context within a thread.  You can't
rely on threads being in order.  Context is almost never perfectly
reliable.  This isn't a chatroom.

If you are too lazy to properly snip un-responded-to commentary then I am
unwilling to engage in meaningful conversation with you, esp one that
destroys context in every single damn message.

> As it turns out, almost all weblogs operate by placing the most recent 
> entry at the top. They are *entirely* based on top-posting.

False analogy.

Weblogs are individual commentary, usually without any relationship.

What you should instead compare it to is Weblog Comments, which just so
happen to follow what format?
 
> > Bottom-posting is a perfectly acceptable practice.
> 
> Yup. Never said it wasn't. Try reading the actual content of my
message. 
> The fact that people on Brin-L seem to prefer intralinear posting is 
> simply my observation.
> 
> > Is being a dim-witted top-poster the Meme of the clueless AOL newbie?
 
> 
> Perhaps it is, perhaps not. I wouldn't know. Funny you should mention 
> AOL, since I've never posted to this list from AOL, and neither did 
> Travis. I guess it's just easier than thinking.

Top-posting makes one look like an AOL newbie using numbers 4 letters and
unable to write.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Introducing Fenris

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 2/12/2004 10:35:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Fenris
> 
> 
> P.S.  No, I have not gone completely insane, I just find it easier to say
> certain things in a character other than myself at times (three years of
> Theater in High School will do that to you) ... besides, it makes the
> discussion more interesting.
> 

And putting Fenris in the subject line makes me think it was from the H. Beam 
Piper list.

As to the other subject matter, AOL has a nice big delete button.

William Taylor
-
All the world's a stage---
with two of the horses lame, 
the driver with three arrows in his back, 
the indians to the rear and gaining and
there's no cavalry in sight.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Introducing Fenris

[Michael Harney]

Hello, I am Fenris, the culmination of Michael's Nightmares.  I've come here
today to make an announcement.  Michael has no further interest in the bulk
of this discussion.  It seems that reading the constant/perpetual political
"discussions" (in quotes to denote sarcasm as those so-called discussions
are typically more like pissing contests and nit-picking competitions) makes
him feel ... what's a good word or phrase for it?  Emotionally unstable, for
lack of a better word/phrase.  He would rather not have the influx in his
mailbox, and has all but stopped reading any of the listmail as a
consequence.  He could filter his own mail, but feels it will probably
inadvertantly filtering posts he might want.  As an alternative, he asked
that I discuss the following possibility with the list:

If it is not too much trouble to Nick, could there be a few new header
filters added to the list:
1) "politics:" - any discussion regarding politics, including but not
limited to posts criticizing/plauding politicians.
2) "religion:" - any discussion regarding religious issues, including but
not limited to criticisms/endorsements of religion(s).
3) "environment:" - any discussion that falls under the topic of the
environment.

If this is not too much of an inconvenience for Nick, and the other list
members are willing to adopt these headers,  we would really appreciate it.
Even if it is inconvenient to Nick, and he is unable to assist, adopting
these headers without Nick's intervention would make things easier for
individuals (not just Michael) to filter/sort the discussions themselves,
with less fear of missing posts that they might want to recieve.

The list may not be as destablizing as mixing morphine analogues (which his
messed up metabolism makes from gluten products) and caffine to Michael, but
he is not able to cope with the list as it is.  He does not wish to leave or
filter all but "brin:" posts, but will probably do so if another solution is
not possible.

Best Regards,

Fenris


P.S.  No, I have not gone completely insane, I just find it easier to say
certain things in a character other than myself at times (three years of
Theater in High School will do that to you) ... besides, it makes the
discussion more interesting.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: Anatomy of a rape culture


> > From: David Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Fool:
> >
> > Don't use absolutes. Ever.
> >
> > Allow me to say that Top-posting is no worse than bottom-only-posting.
>
> Top-posting is never acceptable in any forum of communication, email,
> newsgroup, weblog, or otherwise.

I find it extremely ironic that you post on manners.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[The Fool]

> From: David Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Fool:
> 
> Don't use absolutes. Ever.
> 
> Allow me to say that Top-posting is no worse than bottom-only-posting. 

Top-posting is never acceptable in any forum of communication, email,
newsgroup, weblog, or otherwise.

> In my brief sojourn here, I have observed that most people practice and

> prefer a more sophisticated intralinear style of posting. Perhaps you'd

> like to attack bottom-posters, too, for failing to observe /that/ 
> convention?

Bottom-posting is a perfectly acceptable practice.
 
> Is 'being an anti-social pedant' one of Dr. Brin's memes?

Is being a dim-witted top-poster the Meme of the clueless AOL newbie?  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[David Land]

Fool:

Don't use absolutes. Ever.

Allow me to say that Top-posting is no worse than bottom-only-posting. 
In my brief sojourn here, I have observed that most people practice and 
prefer a more sophisticated intralinear style of posting. Perhaps you'd 
like to attack bottom-posters, too, for failing to observe /that/ 
convention?

Is 'being an anti-social pedant' one of Dr. Brin's memes?

Dave

The Fool wrote:

From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

How about freedom?

-Travis "as a cause I mean" Edmunds



Don't top-post.  Ever.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: another item

[John D. Giorgis]

>That's almost too incredible to believe.  If this is at all true then the 
>Bush administration is at the very least indirectly responsible for the 
>9/11 attacks.  

And I am sure that a story of this magnitude is being broken by the crack
reporters of the Macon Daily.

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

Microsoft Source Code Leaked Over Web

[Robert Seeberger]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040213/D80M46CO1.html

Microsoft Corp. said late Thursday that portions of its Windows source
code - the tightly guarded blueprints of its dominant operating
system - had been leaked over the Internet.
Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla said in an interview with The Associated
Press that some incomplete portions of the Windows 2000 and Windows
NT4 source code had been "illegally made available on the Internet."

Access to the source code could allow hackers to exploit the operating
system and attack machines running Windows, which is used on hundreds
of millions of computers worldwide.

The company was made aware of the leak on Thursday and is
investigating, Pilla said. He did not know how much of the code had
been leaked or how many people may have gained access to it. The
company could not immediately pinpoint the source of the leak, and has
contacted law enforcement authorities, he said.

Pilla said there was no indication the code leak was a result of a
breach of Microsoft's corporate network. There was no known immediate
impact on Microsoft customers, he said.

Microsoft has previously shared some of its source code with some U.S.
government agencies, foreign governments and universities under tight
restrictions that prevent such organizations from making it publicly
available. But the company has generally argued that the blueprints to
its operating system are proprietary, and shouldn't be made public.

Still, because some people outside Microsoft have had access to the
code, analysts said it wasn't too surprising for such a leak to occur
at some point - either intentionally or unintentionally.

"It seems unlikely this is going to create a material, significant
security problem, said Rob Enderle, a technology expert and principal
analyst with the Enderle Group. "It's more embarrassing than anything
else because it makes it look like Microsoft can't control its code."



xponent

Codelostomy Bag Maru

rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: another item

[Doug Pensinger]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:05:10 -0800, d.brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi folks.  Thought I'd share this.

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=5831

In fact, I do not blame W.  How could I.  He was probably not involved 
in this decision, since the 9/11 attacks disrupted the longest idle US 
presidential vacation in living memory.
From the article:

"According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush 
Administration âSpikeâ of the investigation of Dr. Kahnâs Lab followed 
from a wider policy of protecting key Saudi Arabians including the Bin 
Laden Family."

That's almost too incredible to believe.  If this is at all true then the 
Bush administration is at the very least indirectly responsible for the 
9/11 attacks.  No wonder they aren't cooperating with the investigation.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:

There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert.
People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in 
condemming those who are still X.  I don't think this is just a 
Christian phenomenon.
Ha.  Like ex-smokers.

--
Doug
Smoke free for ~15 years. 8^)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Doug Pensinger]

Jan wrote:


Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical
context. In the 17 & 1800s there was much disdane for Jewish
comunities becouse they did something specific that was considered at
the time to be immoral. They lent or barrowed money for intrest. Now
we do not think anything of such a practice becouse it is no-longer
considered by our culture to be vial. But you must take anti-semitism
at the time in context. The very ability to borrow or lend money for
intrest introduces time value of money. It means that if anyone is
borrowing or lending for intrest then everyone has to lend for
intrest, or face a devaluation of the money they do have. Most of the
issues which we not look on as anti-semitic had to do with the fact
that none but Jews were religiously allowed to engaged in this
practice. The resentment then came from the fact that one group was,
by doing something akin to being illegal, taking money away from
everyone else.
Baloney. They all had the power to outlaw usury if they didn't want the 
Jews to practice it.  It's not as if the Jews had a lot of political 
power.  They wanted the utility of borrowable money, they used the Jews 
for this purpose and then they turned around and used the fact that the 
Jews benefited from it as an excuse to persecute them.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Maybe the truth will set him free

[Erik Reuter]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 07:40:50PM -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote:

> Will apologies from the list be forthcoming also?

Do you mean to imply that his due-process rights were not violated?




-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/12/2004 5:35:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the concept
> that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family?  I'll agree
> that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many writings
> of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that having
> Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.
> 
> It is my understanding that he was an anti-Semite. His grandfather was a well 
known rabbi and if I remember correctly his father converted to Christianity 
and  became at least moderately hostile to Jews. I think Marx viewed Jews as 
primary members of the bourgeoisie and therefore enemies of the people. Some of 
this was intellectual but part of it was anti-semitism of the usual type 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Travis Edmunds]

Excuse me?


From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anatomy of a rape culture
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:23:57 -0600
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How about freedom?
>
> -Travis "as a cause I mean" Edmunds
>
Don't top-post.  Ever.

Is 'freedom' one of dr Brins 4 memes?  No.  Perhaps you should go find
out what these 4 memes are if you are going to post on a Brin list?
Rapists rape for many reasons.  Mostly because they have a disconnet with
what they are doing.  They don't really understand that what they do is
wrong.  They do it out a sense of entitlement.  They do it to have power
over someone, to delight in the belittling of others and the infliction
of violence.  THey do it because it was a selected for trait before
civilization and culture evolved.
Do they do it because they can?  Assuredly they do, but that is not the
ROOT of why they do it.
>
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> ><>
> >
> >...
> >So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we
> >live in a "rape culture" (defined as "a culture in which rape is
> >prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs
> >about gender, sexuality, and violence"), then what are those
fundamental
> >attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?
> >
> >I'd identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity,
> >cultural disdain for women, and our society's conception of sexuality
as
> >something possessed exclusively by women.
> >...
> >
> >---
> >I would think this ties greatly into David Brins 4 Primary Meme's,
> >particularly Machismo.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Ronn!Blankenship]

It's a free country and I'll top-post if I want to . . .

At 06:23 PM 2/12/04, The Fool wrote:
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How about freedom?
>
> -Travis "as a cause I mean" Edmunds
>
Don't top-post.  Ever.

Is 'freedom' one of dr Brins 4 memes?  No.  Perhaps you should go find
out what these 4 memes are if you are going to post on a Brin list?


I failed to notice _any_ reference to Brin or his "four memes" in the blog 
article or any of the responsesª.  Did I miss such a reference?  If not, 
when did "on-topicness" become a requirement for this of all lists?  And 
what happened to the philosophy that "All is Brin"?

_
ªThough I was sorely tempted to "get [the one responder] started about the 
Mormons."

A Word To The Wise:  Don't Ever Tell Me To Don't Ever Do Something When I 
Have The Crud This Bad If You Don't Want Me To Be Even More Contrary Than 
Usual Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re:_Brïn:_LotR_and_Conservatives_[Attn_ Debbi]

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:22 PM 1/30/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:

> >Forbidding saving of the mother's life in favor of
> > the unborn, if the mother's life is at stake
> >(unless they've amended that since last I looked?)
 
> Is that exactly what it says, or is that a
> paraphrase or interpretation of 
> what it says?  If the latter, what is the original
> statement?
> 
> (Not an argument, just a request for clarification.)

>From a medical standpoint, "partial birth abortion"
isn't even a term that is used; very-late-term
pregnancy terminations, in the eyes of most (if not
nearly all) of the medical community should *only* be
used if the mother's life is in clear and immediate
danger (such as uncontrollable, runaway eclampsia). 
While I personally am unaware of a situation in which
some other abortion/induction procedure would not be
more suitable in a 'life-of-the-mother' case, that
does not mean it doesn't exist. 

But yes, the wording specifically states that "There
exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress
has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth
abortion is not required to contain a `health'
exception, because the facts indicate that a
partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve
the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a
woman's health, and lies outside the standard of
medical care."

Yet this document goes on to note "Indeed, unlike
other more commonly used abortion procedures, there
are currently ***no medical schools*** that provide
instruction on abortions that include the instruction
in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum." 
[emphasis mine]

Thus, this act forbids a specific procedure that is
***not even taught,*** as defined in the text.  I see
this law as superfluous and unnecessary; I think it is
a wedge to forbidding other abortion procedures in the
future, and eventual outlawing of all abortion.

This is both text and ("conservative") commentary on
the act:
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html

While I disagree with the AMA on multiple issues, here
is one of their earlier comments about "partial birth
abortion:"  [more recent comments are "abstract not
available" on PubMed]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10404899&dopt=Abstract
"The three articles by Dr. Gans Epner, Drs. Sprang and
Neerhof, and Dr. Grimes centered around the issue that
criminal laws against so-called partial-birth abortion
go beyond banning any one abortion procedure or just
"late-term" procedures. It is noted that even the
authors gave different definitions of "late term". In
addition, neither the phrase "late term" nor "intact
dilation" and evacuation is present or defined in any
of the partial-birth abortion laws passed in 27 states
or in the federal bill. Evidence shows that 17 courts
across the US have blocked partial-birth abortion laws
as unconstitutional, finding such laws could, at any
point in a pregnancy, outlaw an abortion performed
using the most common and safest procedures. In these
terms, the endorsement of the federal partial-birth
abortion law by the American Medical Association gave
credibility to the deception that partial-birth
abortion legislation is a ban on the intact dilation
and extraction procedure. Moreover, it has endorsed
government intrusion in a private medical decision and
sanctioned a law that subjects physicians to criminal
prosecution for providing necessary health care." 

Debbi

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[William T Goodall]

On 13 Feb 2004, at 12:29 am, Dan Minette wrote:

Not just Jewish grandparents, Jewish parents too, and Jewish brothers
and sisters, and Jewish children.
His dad didn't convert to Christianity?
Yes, and Karl was an atheist. Does that mean he couldn't be Jewish too? 
There are plenty of atheist Russian Jews living in Israel. Are they 
frauds?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Dan Minette]

>
>
> Then there is the question of what it means to be anti-semetic. There
> is a teacher here localy who stated:
>
> "And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're
> killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them
> It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews."
>
> Thsi guy is being investigated for anti-semtic remarks and will most
> likely lose his job. However, how exactly can this remark be called
> anti-semetic.

Well its a lie about Jews.  That's a real clue.  Hitler killed 2/3rds of
European Jews without them posing a threat to their fellows.  The
government of Israel has killed thousands Palestinians during a war in
which they have also lost thousands.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Maybe the truth will set him free

[Kevin Tarr]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4319003

U.S. Engineer Gets 7-Year Sentence in Taliban Case
Mon February 9, 2004 05:43 PM ET
By Teresa Carson

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - A former software engineer who stunned friends 
and co-workers by admitting he tried to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan 
drew a seven-year jail sentence in federal court on Monday after 
apologizing for his role.

"I regret my actions," Maher "Mike" Hawash, a 39-year-old former Intel 
Corp. employee, told the courtroom. "I wish to ask forgiveness from my 
family for the pain I have caused them, and to my friends, my friends in 
the community and in the United States."

Kevin T. - VRWC
Will apologies from the list be forthcoming also?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Anatomy of a rape culture

[The Fool]

> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> How about freedom?
> 
> -Travis "as a cause I mean" Edmunds
> 

Don't top-post.  Ever.

Is 'freedom' one of dr Brins 4 memes?  No.  Perhaps you should go find
out what these 4 memes are if you are going to post on a Brin list?

Rapists rape for many reasons.  Mostly because they have a disconnet with
what they are doing.  They don't really understand that what they do is
wrong.  They do it out a sense of entitlement.  They do it to have power
over someone, to delight in the belittling of others and the infliction
of violence.  THey do it because it was a selected for trait before
civilization and culture evolved.

Do they do it because they can?  Assuredly they do, but that is not the
ROOT of why they do it.  

> 
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> ><>
> >
> >...
> >So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we
> >live in a "rape culture" (defined as "a culture in which rape is
> >prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs
> >about gender, sexuality, and violence"), then what are those
fundamental
> >attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?
> >
> >I'd identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity,
> >cultural disdain for women, and our society's conception of sexuality
as
> >something possessed exclusively by women.
> >...
> >
> >---
> >I would think this ties greatly into David Brins 4 Primary Meme's,
> >particularly Machismo.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

A little humor.

[Travis Edmunds]

The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and complications 
from repeated pokes in the belly. He was 71. Doughboy was  buried in a 
lightly greased coffin.

Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. 
Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess 
Twinkies, and Captain Crunch.

The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man 
who never realized how much he was kneaded.  Doughboy rose quickly in show 
business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not 
considered a very "smart" cookie, wasting much of  his  dough on half-baked 
schemes. Despite being a little flaky at times, he  still, as a crusty old 
man, was considered a roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife, Play Dough, their two children - John 
Dough and Jane Dough and they had one in the oven. He is also survived by 
his elderly father, Pop Tart.
The funeral was held at 3:45 for about 20 minutes

-Travis "not my brainchild/probably seen it before huh?" Edmunds

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?


>
> On 12 Feb 2004, at 10:44 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the concept
> > that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family?  I'll
> > agree
> > that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many
> > writings
> > of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that
> > having
> > Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.
>
> Not just Jewish grandparents, Jewish parents too, and Jewish brothers
> and sisters, and Jewish children.

His dad didn't convert to Christianity?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?

[Travis Edmunds]

Nice sentiments Dan. But how can we avoid angst? How can we avoid emotion? 
Especially since we are, to a fairly large degree, governed by our emotions.

-Travis "one things lead to another..." Edmunds

Meaning that, no matter what one says, it always opens up at least one more 
door.


From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified? Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 
11:48:58 -0600

There's a good general rule about attacking the idea put forth by someone,
not the person.  But, I've noticed that we all make exceptions to that
rule.  I was musing on when those exceptions are justified, and when they
are not.
Let me ask a number of questions:

If a preacher regularly preaches against adultery, does finding that he has
been cheating on his wife with multiple partners over the last 30 years
diminish his authority to keep on admonishing others?  Especially, if he
denies it? Does he need to publicly confront his own sinfulness before
continuing to admonish others for theirs?
If a popular expert on child rearing turns out to have really botched the
rearing of their own children, does that lower  one's opinion of their
work?
Is it fair to bring up that someone railing against those drug users was an
illegal drug user himself for much of the time?  Is it fair to point out
that he yells and screams about police action against him that was in line
with what he advocated for others?
Is it relevant to argue that a policy being advocated by one's political
opposition is in the personal best interest of themselves and their
friends? Is it a fair criticism to state they are doing it for personal
instead of public reasons?
If someone was given a bye from going to Viet Nam because of who his daddy
was; is that at all relevant his ability to talk about those who opposed
the war being unpatriotic?
If someone slides by a homicide conviction because of political
connections, is that at all relevant to any of his statements; even
statements criticizing his political opponents for using political
connections for personal gain?  Is there some need to acknowledge that he
did it too; especially since his case was a far more serious offence?
I'd like to propose that we still refrain from attacking each other's
motives for writing, but that some of the discussions of who's opinions we
respect can take in to account situations like I've described above.  I'd
also like to suggest that, when we do, we make the linkage explicit.  For
example, "I have a hard time accepting any claim  by Ted Kennedy of his
opponents using their political power for personal gain because he used his
political power to get off a vehicular homicide conviction without even a
trial.   He should either address his own sins in that manner or shut up
about the lesser sins of others."
or

"I have a very hard time taking anything Rush says seriously because he
uses the very loopholes he condemns for others.  He seems to be motivated
more by the right people getting by than a genuine concern about the
nation."
I'm proposing this as an aid to pleasant, spirited discussions, instead of
a rule I want enforced.  If someone wants to respond by personally
insulting me; I'm not going to try to get them censured.  It is merely my
opinion concerning how we can have more fun and less angst in our debates.
I would also, personally, like more arguments based on reason, and fewer on
emotion.  I get emotional too, don't get me wrong.  But, I enjoy trying to
find what the best solution is more than simply reinforcing my own ideas.
I try to be as hard or harder on demanding good arguments in favor of
things I believe in than those opposed.  In this manner, I hope to both
improve my understanding, and better support those things I believe in.  If
the arguments of an opponent are so strong that I cannot find sufficient
support, then I try to be open to changing my mind.  I know, for example,
that Gautam and I have changed each others minds on several points.
Dan M.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[William T Goodall]

On 12 Feb 2004, at 10:44 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the concept
that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family?  I'll 
agree
that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many 
writings
of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that 
having
Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.
Not just Jewish grandparents, Jewish parents too, and Jewish brothers 
and sisters, and Jewish children.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Anatomy of a rape culture

[Travis Edmunds]

How about freedom?

-Travis "as a cause I mean" Edmunds


From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "xBrin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anatomy of a rape culture Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:57:08 -0600
<>

...
So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we
live in a "rape culture" (defined as "a culture in which rape is
prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs
about gender, sexuality, and violence"), then what are those fundamental
attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?
I'd identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity,
cultural disdain for women, and our society's conception of sexuality as
something possessed exclusively by women.
...
---
I would think this ties greatly into David Brins 4 Primary Meme's,
particularly Machismo.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Move completed...

[Deborah Harrell]

...now comes the unpacking and putting away!  *After*
I catch up on some sleep (3 nights skipped in the past
8 days ); I _would_ manage to be moving in
the worst storm so far this winter season...  They
predicted "a couple of inches" of snow for yesterday;
it was closer to a *foot* in the hills where I now
live.

Lots of BrinL posts to catch up on, I see, and some
interesting discussions that I'd have liked to join;
perhaps I'll comment anyway.  Eventually.   ;)

Debbi
Boxes And Bundles And Sacks To Sort Maru

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Bill O'Reilly apologizes for backing Iraq war

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040211204252.aeycez8m.html

Bill O'Reilly, the news commentator who has called his legions of fans
to boycott France and any other nation that opposed the war in Iraq,
said he now regrets his support for the conflict.
The Fox News Channel's conservative talk-show host said he had wrongly
judged the need to invade Iraq.

"Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry," O'Reilly told ABC News,
according to a transcript of an interview released Wednesday.

On his show, "The O'Reilly Factor," the commentator had staunchly
supported President George W. Bush's argument for war -- that Saddam
Hussein posed a danger to the United States because he possessed
weapons of mass destruction.

And he vociferously attacked war opponents such as France, Canada and
Germany.

"I don't believe a word (French President) Jacques Chirac says. I
think he's a phony," he once said on his show.

But the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
contributed to O'Reilly's change of heart. O'Reilly had promised
viewers before the war began in March that he would apologize if no
illegal arms were found in Iraq.

"I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I, I was
at that time," he said.

When the interviewer asked him again about his new position, O'Reilly
responded: "Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over
and kiss the camera?"






xponent

About Face Maru

rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

A New Form of Matter: II

[Robert Seeberger]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/12feb_fermi.htm?list1119125

The sixth state of matter.


xponent
Not Three? Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Jan Coffey]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a 
convert.
> > > People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in
> condemming
> > > those who are still X.  I don't think this is just a Christian
> phenomenon.
> > > So, I'd postulate that folks who agree with the premise that 
its Jewish
> > > culture that's the problem, not Jewish biology, and that any 
Jew that
> > > renounced his/her traditon and accept another way of living 
(e.g.
> > > Christianity) are anti-Semetic, even though they will accept 
people who
> > > have Jewish ancestory as good folks and their equals.
> >
> > Not sure what this means.
> 
> I think you addressed it above.   I was rephrasing the question to 
try to
> make sure one of the way I phrased it made sense.  The above 
statement
> basically means that I think that folks who would persecute Jews 
who stayed
> Jews but accept converts to Christianity would still be anti-
Semitic;
> agreeing with what you've written in your reply.
> 
> So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the 
concept
> that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family?  I'll 
agree
> that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many 
writings
> of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that 
having
> Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.


Then there is the question of what it means to be anti-semetic. There 
is a teacher here localy who stated:

"And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're 
killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them 
It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews."

Thsi guy is being investigated for anti-semtic remarks and will most 
likely lose his job. However, how exactly can this remark be called 
anti-semetic. Just becouse one group has been a victem in the past 
does not make everything they do afterwards acceptable. Simply 
disagreeing with, being appaled by, or having beliefeds contradictory 
to a persecuted group, does not mean that one is racist, 
or "religionist" or both.

It is in fact a Jewish comunity and Jewish leaders who are calling 
for this investigation. This sounds like these leaders are saying 
that all non-jews must condone everything they do, or they are ant-
semetic. How is this not in it'self raceist.

So on the topic of anti-semitism, is it not debatable what is and 
what is not?

What about all the other persecuted groups? Native Americans 
(especialy those who endured the trail of tears, or worse those who 
were eradicated compleatly) What about that holicost? Does that mean 
that anyone who is uncomfortable with the Native American Army is 
anti-Native American? What about someone who talks bad about casinos? 
or smokeshops? 

If one is disatisfied with the actions of the IRA does that make then 
anti-Irish?

What of the Slaughtered chinese in WWII or the Japanese put in 
concentration camps who died of poor living conditions or returned to 
find their homes and belonging gone.

Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical 
context. In the 17 & 1800s there was much disdane for Jewish 
comunities becouse they did something specific that was considered at 
the time to be immoral. They lent or barrowed money for intrest. Now 
we do not think anything of such a practice becouse it is no-longer 
considered by our culture to be vial. But you must take anti-semitism 
at the time in context. The very ability to borrow or lend money for 
intrest introduces time value of money. It means that if anyone is 
borrowing or lending for intrest then everyone has to lend for 
intrest, or face a devaluation of the money they do have. Most of the 
issues which we not look on as anti-semitic had to do with the fact 
that none but Jews were religiously allowed to engaged in this 
practice. The resentment then came from the fact that one group was, 
by doing something akin to being illegal, taking money away from 
everyone else.

Never mind that this all now seems silly. For those christians and 
others of the time, it seemed as if one group was not playing fair. 
So much of the retoric we now read had little to do with a race or a 
religion, but specificaly with the practice of lending and borrowing 
money for intrest.

So were these statements what we would now regurd as racesist? It is 
undeniable that it grew to become raceism, and we can all agree that 
this was teribly teribly wrong. But unless you look at history from 
the perspective of the time, you may misjudge a statment through 
modern eyes as being racist, when in fact it was people worring and 
arguing over the introduction of time value of money. 

__

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?



> >
> > There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert.
> > People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in
condemming
> > those who are still X.  I don't think this is just a Christian
phenomenon.
> > So, I'd postulate that folks who agree with the premise that its Jewish
> > culture that's the problem, not Jewish biology, and that any Jew that
> > renounced his/her traditon and accept another way of living (e.g.
> > Christianity) are anti-Semetic, even though they will accept people who
> > have Jewish ancestory as good folks and their equals.
>
> Not sure what this means.

I think you addressed it above.   I was rephrasing the question to try to
make sure one of the way I phrased it made sense.  The above statement
basically means that I think that folks who would persecute Jews who stayed
Jews but accept converts to Christianity would still be anti-Semitic;
agreeing with what you've written in your reply.

So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the concept
that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family?  I'll agree
that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many writings
of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that having
Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/12/2004 12:40:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I would also, personally, like more arguments based on reason, and fewer on
> emotion.  I get emotional too, don't get me wrong.  But, I enjoy trying to
> find what the best solution is more than simply reinforcing my own ideas.
> I try to be as hard or harder on demanding good arguments in favor of
> things I believe in than those opposed.  In this manner, I hope to both
> improve my understanding, and better support those things I believe in.  If
> the arguments of an opponent are so strong that I cannot find sufficient
> support, then I try to be open to changing my mind.  I know, for example,
> that Gautam and I have changed each others minds on several points

I think that most of the examples you cite are examples of either human 
failings or hypocricy (when for instance one rails about something and engages in 
the same act). 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/12/2004 11:52:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Recurring discussions on Marx and anti-Semitism have raised some questions
> for me.  My father-in-law's mother's family was Jewish, back in the 1800s.
> They converted to Christianity in that century before emmigrating to the
> US.  Other parts of the family did not convert, and remained in Germany
> until many of them died in the Holocaust.
> 
> If I understand that Jewishness passes through the mother, then my
> father-in-law would, technically, be Jewish.  

He could claim to be Jewish if he chose to (he could for instance emmigrate 
to Israel and become a citizen.

But, he was raised Christian > by folks who were raised Christian.  Could he 
> be anti-Semetic?  
The fact of his christianity would not make him anti-semitic. If he acted in 
a prejudicial way against jews he would be anti-semitic. Anyone can be an 
anti-semite even (and not so infrequently) a jew.

Would a > policy of induced conversions: accepting Jews who converted to 
> Christianity as full citizens, but persecuting those who don't be anti-Semetic. 

Yes of course this would be anti-semitic. And this has happened throughout 
history. Famously in Spain where after much pressure many jews converted rather 
than face expulsion or death. Ironically these people were then called 
converso and many were still prosecuted. Some converted publically but privately 
remained jews but most did not. It was out of this that the notion of a "jewish 
race" was born. Basically a rationale for persecuting people who claimed to be 
christians (not coincidentally often rich people).

Counter example. In 19th century england many jews converted to christianity 
including Disraeli (or was it his father). These people moved easily in 
society and in many cases made sure their own children stayed Jewish. No one seems 
to care very much.

 Would > the Jews who converted and then participated in the persecutions be 
> acting
> in an anti-Semetic way.  If they didn't, but their children did, would they
> be anti-Semetic?  What about grandchildren, etc.

Yes to all of the above
> 
> 
> There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert.
> People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in condemming
> those who are still X.  I don't think this is just a Christian phenomenon.
> So, I'd postulate that folks who agree with the premise that its Jewish
> culture that's the problem, not Jewish biology, and that any Jew that
> renounced his/her traditon and accept another way of living (e.g.
> Christianity) are anti-Semetic, even though they will accept people who
> have Jewish ancestory as good folks and their equals.

Not sure what this means. 

> 
> Dan M.
> 
> 
> 
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

another item

[d.brin]

Hi folks.  Thought I'd share this.

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=5831

In fact, I do not blame W.  How could I.  He was probably not 
involved in this decision, since the 9/11 attacks disrupted the 
longest idle US presidential vacation in living memory.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?

[Dan Minette]

There's a good general rule about attacking the idea put forth by someone,
not the person.  But, I've noticed that we all make exceptions to that
rule.  I was musing on when those exceptions are justified, and when they
are not.

Let me ask a number of questions:

If a preacher regularly preaches against adultery, does finding that he has
been cheating on his wife with multiple partners over the last 30 years
diminish his authority to keep on admonishing others?  Especially, if he
denies it? Does he need to publicly confront his own sinfulness before
continuing to admonish others for theirs?

If a popular expert on child rearing turns out to have really botched the
rearing of their own children, does that lower  one's opinion of their
work?

Is it fair to bring up that someone railing against those drug users was an
illegal drug user himself for much of the time?  Is it fair to point out
that he yells and screams about police action against him that was in line
with what he advocated for others?

Is it relevant to argue that a policy being advocated by one's political
opposition is in the personal best interest of themselves and their
friends? Is it a fair criticism to state they are doing it for personal
instead of public reasons?

If someone was given a bye from going to Viet Nam because of who his daddy
was; is that at all relevant his ability to talk about those who opposed
the war being unpatriotic?

If someone slides by a homicide conviction because of political
connections, is that at all relevant to any of his statements; even
statements criticizing his political opponents for using political
connections for personal gain?  Is there some need to acknowledge that he
did it too; especially since his case was a far more serious offence?

I'd like to propose that we still refrain from attacking each other's
motives for writing, but that some of the discussions of who's opinions we
respect can take in to account situations like I've described above.  I'd
also like to suggest that, when we do, we make the linkage explicit.  For
example, "I have a hard time accepting any claim  by Ted Kennedy of his
opponents using their political power for personal gain because he used his
political power to get off a vehicular homicide conviction without even a
trial.   He should either address his own sins in that manner or shut up
about the lesser sins of others."

or

"I have a very hard time taking anything Rush says seriously because he
uses the very loopholes he condemns for others.  He seems to be motivated
more by the right people getting by than a genuine concern about the
nation."

I'm proposing this as an aid to pleasant, spirited discussions, instead of
a rule I want enforced.  If someone wants to respond by personally
insulting me; I'm not going to try to get them censured.  It is merely my
opinion concerning how we can have more fun and less angst in our debates.

I would also, personally, like more arguments based on reason, and fewer on
emotion.  I get emotional too, don't get me wrong.  But, I enjoy trying to
find what the best solution is more than simply reinforcing my own ideas.
I try to be as hard or harder on demanding good arguments in favor of
things I believe in than those opposed.  In this manner, I hope to both
improve my understanding, and better support those things I believe in.  If
the arguments of an opponent are so strong that I cannot find sufficient
support, then I try to be open to changing my mind.  I know, for example,
that Gautam and I have changed each others minds on several points.

Dan M.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Voting Machines Comprised in Election Simulation

[Julia Thompson]

http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1305

Short article with links.  First paragraph:

 RABA Technologies, at the request of the state of Maryland, has
 issued a report about the state’s Diebold voting systems, ATM-style
 DRE terminals using smart cards for voter access. The report
 criticizes in detail the methodology and assumptions of other
 security audits and the vague security guidelines issued by the
 FEC, state, and NIST.

Apologies if someone's already posted the link and I've been oblivious.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Is my father-in-law Jewish?

[Dan Minette]

Recurring discussions on Marx and anti-Semitism have raised some questions
for me.  My father-in-law's mother's family was Jewish, back in the 1800s.
They converted to Christianity in that century before emmigrating to the
US.  Other parts of the family did not convert, and remained in Germany
until many of them died in the Holocaust.

If I understand that Jewishness passes through the mother, then my
father-in-law would, technically, be Jewish.  But, he was raised Christian
by folks who were raised Christian.  Could he be anti-Semetic?  Would a
policy of induced conversions: accepting Jews who converted to Christianity
as full citizens, but persecuting those who don't be anti-Semetic.  Would
the Jews who converted and then participated in the persecutions be acting
in an anti-Semetic way.  If they didn't, but their children did, would they
be anti-Semetic?  What about grandchildren, etc.?

There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert.
People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in condemming
those who are still X.  I don't think this is just a Christian phenomenon.
So, I'd postulate that folks who agree with the premise that its Jewish
culture that's the problem, not Jewish biology, and that any Jew that
renounced his/her traditon and accept another way of living (e.g.
Christianity) are anti-Semetic, even though they will accept people who
have Jewish ancestory as good folks and their equals.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another Microsoft flaw

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Feb 2004, at 2:20 pm, William T Goodall wrote:

Shouldn't using Windows to run anything other than games constitute 
culpable negligence? It is quite obvious that Windows security is 
fundamentally broken and that Microsoft is incapable of fixing it. So 
using Windows to store or process any kind of sensitive information 
(banking, medical or whatever) is knowingly irresponsible and 
negligent.
It's started!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/35513.html

"What's wrong with Microsoft Windows security you ask? Well there will 
be an official judgment on this at some point. A 50-year-old female 
victim of identity theft is suing Microsoft over its inadequate 
security. The suit alleges that Microsoft's "eclipsing dominance in 
desktop software has created a global security risk" Dana Taschner, the 
lawyer who filed the suit, wants Windows PC users to launch a 
class-action suit together. It will be interesting to follow this one. 
"

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine, 
senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development 
team.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Anatomy of a rape culture

[The Fool]

<>

...
So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we
live in a "rape culture" (defined as "a culture in which rape is
prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs
about gender, sexuality, and violence"), then what are those fundamental
attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence? 

I'd identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity,
cultural disdain for women, and our society's conception of sexuality as
something possessed exclusively by women. 
...

---
I would think this ties greatly into David Brins 4 Primary Meme's,
particularly Machismo.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

High-voltage lines, negative ions and rats

[The Fool]

<>

High-voltage lines, negative ions and rats
Tests show how personal toxic cloud of ozone is created

By TOM PAULSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Based on experiments involving rats and ozone, scientists at the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory have identified a chemical reaction that
may explain higher rates of illness observed among some people exposed to
strong electromagnetic fields such as those produced by high-voltage
power lines.

The findings may also bode ill for those "negative-ion" air fresheners so
popular as health-inducing gizmos for home and office.

"There's been a lot of research into whether these electromagnetic fields
have health effects, but most studies have been inconclusive," said
Steven Goheen, an analytical chemist at the lab, part of the U.S.
Department of Energy, in Richland. 

While some epidemiological studies have found higher rates of cancer or
other illnesses among those exposed to strong electromagnetic fields,
Goheen said no studies have been able to suggest a cause. Perhaps for
this reason, he said, scientific interest in this once-high-profile
potential health threat has waned of late.

"It's hard to get funding for this kind of thing," Goheen said, adding
with a laugh: "It's hard for me to even get people to talk about it." 

So, while officially working on his well-funded protein studies at the
national lab, he and his colleagues recently launched a non-funded
"seat-of-the-pants" side project to explore an idea he first pondered
some 20 years ago.

The idea centers on ozone, a chemical in the air made of three oxygen
atoms rather than the "normal" pair that make up the oxygen we breathe.
(Note: The structure of ozone was described incorrectly when this article
was originally published.)

Before he came to the lab, Goheen had worked in California with other
scientists exploring the biological effects of negative-ion air
generators along with ozone generators.

"People used to think (breathing) ozone was good for you," he noted. It's
now generally regarded as a toxic pollutant, Goheen said, that causes
damage -- especially to the lungs -- because of its highly reactive
chemical nature. 

 
 
Negative-ion air generators usually don't produce much ozone and there is
evidence that negative ions do clean the air and may provide health
benefits. But these devices produce the negative ions by what's known as
a "corona discharge" -- a continuous release of electrons and charged
molecules. When an animal is put close to this electron flow within a
strong electric field, ozone levels skyrocket, the Richland team of
scientists found. High-voltage power lines sometimes produce corona
discharges as well. 

Goheen recalled an experiment done years ago by researchers in San
Francisco. They placed rats in a negative-ion chamber close to the air
generator, intending to prove that the negative ions provided longevity
and other health benefits. But the rats, instead, died prematurely.

"The results weren't published," Goheen noted. He asked a pathologist to
study the rats' lungs to see what might have caused the damage and they
found evidence of ozone toxicity. But because the negative-ion air
generators don't directly produce much ozone, it was still not clear what
had killed the rats.

Now, a few decades later, Goheen thinks he has found the smoking gun. 

It is the rats themselves that are producing the ozone in response to the
electromagnetic field, or EMF.

"We'd been looking in the wrong place," Goheen said. Scientists looking
for the health effects of EMFs were looking for toxic chemicals or
changes inside the body, he said, when the likely culprit was in the air
surrounding the body.

There's no reason why people exposed to the same strong EMFs, Goheen
added, won't do the same thing -- generate their own personal, toxic
cloud of ozone. 

In the experiment, published in the current issue of the journal
"Bioelectromagnetics," three rats were exposed in close proximity to a
device producing 10 kilovolts -- about what negative-ion air fresheners
produce. 

The ambient level of ozone in the air before the device was turned on was
about 10-20 parts per billion (ppb). 

When the electrical device was switched on, Goheen and his colleagues
reported ozone levels spiked as high as 200 ppb -- about twice the
"chronic" level allowed by federal regulators in a workplace setting.

Public health experts believe immediate damage or acute health effects
from a single exposure to ozone won't occur until the concentration
reaches about 5,000 ppb. 

Goheen also cautioned that the rats had to be placed much closer to the
electrical device than would be the case for most people and their ion
air generators. 

But he and his colleagues think their findings should at least prompt
scrutiny into this new potential link between EMFs and health. 

"Experiments (showing few or no health effects) have so far focused
mainly on the direct