The sci.electronics.design pledge

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:34:15 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
<frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:

"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2el8n0l6on236vquusm49ggr1529oce85f@4ax.com...

Sorry, John, but Kev and his acolytes had to go. The guy is completely
impervious to reason, totally blind to his own inability to string two
meaningful sentences together and rude and arrogant to boot! No loss
behind this monitor! YMMV, of course.

Hmm - Feel a Project coming up:

May Be one can hack Spambayes into service as an intelligent News Proxy,
recognising the kind of postings one likes and killing - the rest ;-)

Excellent suggestion. Go for it!


--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:00:55 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> says...

Wasn't there some movie some years ago where Marcel Marceau was the only
one who spoke?

Mel Brooks' _Silent Movie_ IIRC.

Oh. Mel Brooks. That must be why I've thrust it out of my memory banks.
Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching an old circus geek blow
himself.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:02:11 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:00:55 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> says...

Wasn't there some movie some years ago where Marcel Marceau was the only
one who spoke?

Mel Brooks' _Silent Movie_ IIRC.

Oh. Mel Brooks. That must be why I've thrust it out of my memory banks.
Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching an old circus geek blow
himself.

---
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Talk like _that_ certainly won't heal the world.
--
John Fields

 

[Chaos Master]

Quoting Spehro Pefhany [speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat], that posted to
sci.electronics.design on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:23:18 -0400 under article
<rd5hn0lq2gabhjmbu58jfb5hk0rqj3tknp@4ax.com>:

Is the Resende uranium enrichment plant a big deal in the local news?

No.

[]s
--
Chaos MasterŽ, posting from Brazil.
"I know the difference between myself and my reflection. "
-- Evanescence, "Breathe No More"
http://marreka.no-ip.com | http://tinyurl.com/46vru | http://renan182.no-ip.org

 

[Chaos Master]

Quoting Rich Grise [rich@example.net], that posted to sci.electronics.design on
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:15:52 GMT under article
<pan.2004.10.22.06.21.55.165141@example.net>:

Yabbut, when you know how to Party, the rest, pretty much, is conversation. ;-)

Is it true that you can see tits at Carnivale and you don't even need beads?

Yes. IMHO, the so-called Carnivale is a real "porn party".

[]s
--
Chaos MasterŽ, posting from Brazil.
"I know the difference between myself and my reflection. "
-- Evanescence, "Breathe No More"
http://marreka.no-ip.com | http://tinyurl.com/46vru | http://renan182.no-ip.org

 

[Clarence]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5bscn0l2drgu701di3eetfs91c6gpgkh0o@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:41:34 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"ChrisGibboGibson" <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019202951.22466.00001141@mb-m06.aol.com...
"Clarence" wrote:

Go away, I'm just exercising the dog!

---
Taking her for a walk with Madam Palm and her five daughters?

Clearly this was not addressed to you.
You ARE the Dog, after all this time I thought you would need to take a "John
Fields" in the gutter!

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:
John Fields wrote...
Rich Grise wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> says...

Wasn't there some movie some years ago where Marcel Marceau
was the only one who spoke?

Mel Brooks' _Silent Movie_ IIRC.

Oh. Mel Brooks. That must be why I've thrust it out of my memory
banks. Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching an old circus
geek blow himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... Talk like _that_ certainly won't heal the world.

A guy doesn't judge a Mel Brooks movie, it judges him.

YOW!!! Very nice.

--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:33:14 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:18:08 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:57:31 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:02:11 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:00:55 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> says...

Wasn't there some movie some years ago where Marcel Marceau was the
only one who spoke?

Mel Brooks' _Silent Movie_ IIRC.

Oh. Mel Brooks. That must be why I've thrust it out of my memory
banks. Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching an old circus geek
blow himself.

---
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Talk like _that_ certainly won't heal the world.

How do you know?

---
Reducto ad absurdium.

One insult begets a stronger retaliatory reply and the spiral of injury
grows out of control until it ends in death.

Well, I tell you what. If Mr. Brooks shows up at my door and demands an
apology, or makes a movie making fun of me, or whatever, I'll have to
deal with the situation on its own merits, now won't I?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:26:32 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:29:43 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Well, I tell you what. If Mr. Brooks shows up at my door and demands an
apology, or makes a movie making fun of me, or whatever, I'll have to
deal with the situation on its own merits, now won't I?

---
Yes, of course, but that's if and then...

The point is that that "circus geek" crack wasn't about healing, it was
about hurting, and had you never made the statement real in the first
place, you wouldn't have to be taking time out of your life trying to
negate its impact, nor would you have to clutter your mind planning for
an infinite number of ways to defuse future altercations which might
come about because of your having made it.

Reducing the noise is a good thing.

Oh, bullshit. You're talking about prior restraint, and that's what
got us all into this predicament in the first place.

I'm assuming he's a grown-up, and able to handle words. If he takes my
words personally, and decides that they hurt him, he needs to look at
what old hurt I've triggered the repressed memory of.

Or pout.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <4173A33A.8090803@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:


Guy Macon wrote:

Who here will take the following pledge?

I [insert name here] do solemnly pledge that once the election
is over, my man has won or lost, and the opponent has dropped
all lawsuits challenging the result and accepted it, I will
GIVE IT A FSCKING BREAK in sci.electronics.design and will
talk about SOMETHING ELSE for a change.

Who is with me?

Unfortunately the elections may not be the end of it. If a certain
criminal is declared winner then the battle to cripple the p.o.s. to no
end will have begun.


The divisiveness will not be mended by either a Bush or Kerry win. In
fact, it is likely that the situation would worsen after a change to
Kerry. There is even more motivation to impede the extreme dishonesty
associated with Kerry (to protect the nation) rather than just manifesting the
random immature rants of now fully exposed visceral hatred against Bush.

John

We not only want to get rid of Bush- but also people who have your
particular disorder...

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:
[some stuff]

Hey - when I said, "a lamer like you", I was caught up in the moment, OK?

I really meant "a lamer like $POLITICO".

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Or come to the conclusion that someone more highly developed would have
had no need to offend or to offend accidentally.

Offense is only taken by the one who takes offense.

A wise man is never insulted, for the truth will increase his wisdom,
and an untruth is not worthy of note.

Go Forth and Experience, O Child of Infinity.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Guy Macon wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> says...


perhaps you might like to do a word count of all the
complaining-about-political-posts posts you have made, and think about
the engineering text(s) you could have written instead.....


Do I get to count posts complaingning about my complaining about
political posts too? We might have enough volume to justify
creating a nmew newsgroup! Oh. Wait. That won't work. It
would get filled with political posts, because the political
posters think *every* newgroup should be full of political posts.

I was waiting for that, having proposed an essentially circular
argument. But seriously Guy, I'd far rather read about your engineering
exploits.....and I do have to agree with what Rich Grise said in another
post - this is basically where designers hang out "after" (read as
during, when bored) work, so its hardly surprising that so much shit
gets spouted.

What amazes me the most is the bipolar (very deliberate word choice
nature of US politics - you are either democrat (oops isnt USA a
republic not a democracy?) or a republican. Here in NZ we use the terms
left-wing and right-wing (referring, I presume, to turkeys

Personally, I take an engineering approach to politics - I just want
things to work, and well - systems, legislation, government departments
etc. I dont give a fuck what party comes up with an idea - bad ones I
dont support, good ones I do. Alas, few politicians seem capable of
having good ideas, whereas dangerously stupid ideas flow thick and fast.

Cheers
Terry

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:52:43 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:01:01 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


Oh, bullshit. You're talking about prior restraint, and that's what got
us all into this predicament in the first place.

---
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it seems like you're trying to
change the subject.
---
Not at all. I'm claiming that I believe that I've heard you assert that
I'm somehow supposed to read this guy's mind, and modulate my expression
based on what I judge, based on your criteria, might hurt his feelings,
before I even find out what his feelings even _are._

---
What I've asserted is that it seems to me that, for someone who is
desperately begging for peace, your actions are at cross-purposes with
your expressed desires. You certainly profess to have the sensitivity
to know the difference between an inflammatory and a non-inflammatory
statement and yet you _decided_ to use a rather gross, insulting
visual to denigrate Mel Brooks' work and cast aspersions on him. My
point was, and is, that that's not the way to peace. As you know, if
you wanted to say that you found Brooks or his work distasteful, or
boring, or whatever, there are ways to do that (as you did in one of
your follow-up posts) which are emotionally neutral and, yet, can be
used to make a point quite nicely. Which is all I'm really trying to
do at this point. That is, inform you of what seems to me to be an
inconsistency between your talk and your walk. No insult intended,
just stuff for you to look at and maybe think about.
---

I'm assuming he's a grown-up, and able to handle words. If he takes my
words personally, and decides that they hurt him, he needs to look at
what old hurt I've triggered the repressed memory of.

---
I see. So, no matter what you say or how you say it, it's not your fault
if what you say hurts or offends someone, it's theirs.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but what is it that words are
supposed to do again?

---
In the context of promoting peace, convey meaning without rancor.
---

Curious how someone who says he wants peace wants it with restraints on
everyone but himself.

When, exactly, was it that I advocated "restraints" on anybody?

---
I think most of your posts advocate restraint in that you want
everyone who disagrees with your point of view to refrain from doing
that and to hitch their wagon to your star.

Specifically, you want the killing to stop, which requires that one
restrain their trigger finger, all the way from the grunt at the front
to the commander in chief.
---

Seriously. I'm calling your bluff on this one.

---
Bluff??? LOL!
---

I will not apply prior restraint on myself, because to do so would be to
assume a position of such arrogant superiority that I would be claiming to
know better than the individual himself, what he might like or not like.

---
I don't care what you do or don't do, all I'm doing is pointing out
what look like foibles in your "arguments" so that you can see
yourself through eyes other than your own. Besides, "prior" restraint
implies a knowledge of all the possible paths the present can take
into the future which, I think, is something which eludes most of us.

Such being the case, it would seem that even _attempting_ to exercise
prior restraint would be futile except in an environment with
perfectly predictable reactions to a finite number of stimuli. The
martial arts, perhaps?
---

Free Will is the part of him whose responsibility it is to respond to me,
so that I can learn how to deal with that particular individual. I
probably wouldn't relate to Mel Brooks himself the way I'm reascting to
you, for example, or to Fred Bloggs, or to John Dyson, or to Winfield
Hill, or to Spehro Pefhany, or anybody else.

---
True, but just declaring that the responder must take responsibility
for his reactions to your statements doesn't mean that he will. It
also doesn't mean that it's his fault if he doesn't. Many of us are
asleep and can't be held responsible for what we do.
---

A truly free will responds to each instant on its own merits.

---
True.
---

I stand on my assertion: If he's a grownup,
it's his responsibility to let me know that he doesn't like what I'm
saying, and if he's a babe in arms, then you're doing him a disservice by
bitching at me rather than going and rescuing his helpless ass.

Or pout.

Or come to the conclusion that someone more highly developed would have
had no need to offend or to offend accidentally.

Offense is what you take when a lamer like you tries to steal the show
by grandstanding to an empty stadium. ;-P

---
Hmmm... The obligatory one-up parting shot?

Oh, well, he couldn't help it.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:54:54 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:
[some stuff]

Hey - when I said, "a lamer like you", I was caught up in the moment, OK?

---
Sure. Not being judgemental but, in retrospect, that moment would
have been a good time to use restraint, no?
---

I really meant "a lamer like $POLITICO".

---
And we're not all cut from the same cloth?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:00:49 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:02:57 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Or come to the conclusion that someone more highly developed would have
had no need to offend or to offend accidentally.

Offense is only taken by the one who takes offense.

---
Not true.

If an arrow never takes flight, avenging the pierced heart of a friend
won't happen.
---

A wise man is never insulted, for the truth will increase his wisdom,
and an untruth is not worthy of note.

---
A wise man is never insulted.
---

Go Forth and Experience, O Child of Infinity.

---


--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:50:29 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

"If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it," the
master replied, "to whom does the gift belong?"

---
To the giver.

--
John Fields

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:10:54 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

"If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it," the
master replied, "to whom does the gift belong?"

---
To the giver.

And thus, we come full circle, eh?

Offense is only taken by the one who takes offense.

Jon

 

[john jardine]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:10n7dmar460b396@news.supernews.com...

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

I'm with you, but the British Elections are coming up early next year
(allegedly) and in the interests of balance, it's only fair that we
discuss them to death here, just as the US elections have been. Just
enjoy the brief, quiet interval.

I think I just might learn a bit about your elections so that I can
help you. sci.electronics.design obviously need at least 10,000
posts about British politics. Every sci.electronics.design thread
has to be about British politics. Let's start as soon as the US
election is over, someone has won/lost, and his opponent has dropped
all lawsuits challenging the result and accepted it. At that point,
we can make this sci.electronics.design.and.talk.british.politics!
Great fun! Invite all your British friends!

Aw, come on, give us a break!.

Us 'ere in the UK are steeped in politics 364/7. Election time just brings
more of the stuff. It's nice to get away from it.
Don't know about the rest of the guys here but I find it *very* difficult to
sustain a heavy political argument with an intelligent person.
Think it's something to do with too many of us living in such a small
country hence a respect for unwritten 'rules of engagement'.
regards
john

 

[Scott Stephens]

CFoley1064 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

Without a Doubt
By RON SUSKIND
Published: October 17, 2004

There's a reason why this "political" stuff is everywhere. Unfortunately, it's
probably just going to get worse. If you've got a minute, read the article.

What about Bush Sr.? I remember a profound skepticism regarding him and
his "New World Order". There was an interesting lecture on CSPAN by
Peter Barnett. At http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/pnm/pnm_index.htm or probably archived at
cspan.org.

Barnett doesn't say anything about being on a crusade. It's all about
the global economy, fiat currency and oil. Culture is a secondary
attribute, not the primary distinguishing characteristic of the conflict
being fought over in this WWIV. Both sides are abusing religion to
recruit warriors.

But it is simple, cheap and wrong, to blame Christians, Muslims and
religion for fighting about economic control and the consequences of
oppression.

After religion is purged from the culture, you are going to have to
supply a new philosophical framework for society, and it had better be
true to our nature as human beings, otherwise we are in for another
round of the same old shit you blame religion for.

At least our deluded fundamentalist president thinks he believes in the
intrinsic human desire freedom. That is a concept the leftists think
Pavlov or Skinner can beat or bribe out of the human soul. And good luck
finding leftist cannon fodder for the next war. They will be too busy
painting their finger nails, tanks and bullets pink to do any fighting.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************