- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Michael Gurski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It's that wonderful season again, when all the assholes are out in force, and people feel obligated to purchase merchandise to give to each other. For various reasons, I don't believe in credit cards, and yet, trying to pay for something by personal check at the local Hecht's, they either *require* a credit card, or go through the Nazi check-warranty company Equifax. However, it doesn't stop there...only SOME departments seem to have this requirement (Electronics/Luggage not requiring). Is it legal to require credit cards? |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1(a)umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMr2dZiKEMrE5tbrdAQGNEwQAjxsj387SAbEQnGr+8j0z12cWpREK/Y8U e5xCYMMwJ6J+rLip05nZ8uMHfY/anfGW5m2mMrvsVOggMh5Sv9Ljrw3u4uFl66B5 yU3iU3couXIZx5Dv1QhGdOSZPRpIo7wZGwCGtF4z9TM+cUzEUzA8LMDgavG8fY0D T+yrGuzhSzg= =aQ97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Re: the word is "NIGGAZ"
by jlucas4＠capital.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Actually the word is "niggus." "Niggaz" is the white man's nasal rendition of this term. It can alos be spelt "niggas," but this form implies a different context. context. "Niggus" is used often within gangsta rap music in an effort to rhyme with difficult words when no other way can be found. "Niggas" would be referring to other black fellows in a friendly way. More or less. Gangsta J ************************************************************************** # Gangsta J # "Dead bodies pile up, an' it's plain to see, # # j(a)hardcore.gangsta.com # it's because o' me. I'm the girl killa, the # # Brownsville ghetto # throat slitta, the cunt rippa" - J # **************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Just saying someone has a Southern "accent" is prejudicial and ignorant. > It's true that anyone, Southern or otherwise, can slur words so they're > not clear, but on averages, Southerners who speak clearly with their > native inflections and pronunciations are easier to understand than your > typical Yankees, whose speech is generally thin, nasal and rather pinched- > sounding. Yeah. But I can't understand people with Southern Accents therefore I won't hire them. > People talked about hate in the South in the 1960's. What a crock. > Apartheid, sure, no doubt about that. But hate, well, I grew up in > the North and I lived for a few years in the deep South, and the people > in the South don't hate like the Yankees do, on average. Wow. You must read completely different history books than the rest of the world. > If you want to see how hate works, look how the big-media organizations > have descended on Southern radio and TV and have been telling them that > they speak wrongly, and that Southern "accents" are something to be > ashamed of. Damn the liberal media! (That was a sarcastic statement - do you know how right-wing that sounds).

2 1

Ebonics
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to conclude this Ebonics issue. The main problem is understanding. Some people have bad accents, either Southern or Ebonic, both of which are often difficult to understand. I am not disputing the fact that everyone should learn a standard language, but I object to the racial undertones of the messages - that black people are stupider than white people, and gross ignorance of environmental conditions. Whatever. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Ebonics
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > No. Speaking in Ebonics is the same as speaking with an accent. You can't > > control their expression; you learned to speak with a Southern accent as a > > child, while other people learned to speak with an Ebonic accent (?). By > > condoning speaking in a Southern accent, you condone speaking in Ebonics. > > Whatever rational basis your arguments may have had were eradicated by the > ludicrous logical conclusion drawn above. Hehe. What I mean to say is that since both Ebonics and a Southern accent are learned during early childhood, you have no control over how you talk. You can't penalize someone for speaking the way they were taught. > > I can't understand thick Southern accents. No matter how smart you are, > > I'm not going to hire you because I can't understand you. How do you feel? > > Oh so sad. Let me make this clear, an accent is far different from > grammatically incorrect speech. I can speak with grammatic perfection and a > drawl so heavy it'll make your eyeballs hurt. Yeah. I thought the issue was understanding in the workplace; no matter how gramatically correct your are, I can't understand you and so I won't hire you.

2 1

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:04 PM 12/21/96 -0800, Jamie Lawrence wrote: >Are you honestly arguing that a system of communication >acknoledged and taught in a public school is satisfying >a 'need or desire to communicate in a private way"? Actually I meant my tongue to be relatively firmly in cheek. However, some sub-cultures from which ebonics comes did have a need and desire to communicate quickly and privately. >Or that Ebonics has anything to do with communicating >in the presence of a police officer? Often times in some areas of this country, people distrust the police. They do form ways of communication that is not easily understood to avoid what they see as police interference. I am not defending use of communication privacy techniques in the name of the four-horsemen but... > >Or that either of the above has anything to do with crypto? > As Tim and others have said repeatedly, there is no on/off topic here. Want pure code goto coderpunks; want moderation goto cryptography. I am just trying to counter some of the statements made here. Sometimes people view cpunks as some sort of borg-like mind with no dissidents. I sometimes reply to let people know that might not be so... Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCUAwUBMr2ztLpijqL8wiT1AQFZHAP43SqA3CGpt46zs8esSYNPvw3Iyf/No2y6 7yQ1ij2UN/jD2rFh8CPJE+MS59YOlXiItsBDQLZoGJRhWS/dVJ8LHkeMvZHwHD1l Yf01COkpB6K7HMj0pFjVvdpigbekWzGrTh5juIRg/xhkLhUqJJfN5eWlgif29Fnd EzgHGGBBQA== =QyMm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 23

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to quote so much, in this case it seemed necessary. At 04:07 PM 12/21/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 5:49 PM -0600 12/21/96, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: > >>Are you talking about the School Board requirements? Are you still in High >>School, Tim? ;-) I have never heard you speak of children, so you might >>have a valid complaint if you have them in public schools (although home >>schooling is still an option). > >The principle is of interest to even those without schoolaged children! >Neither having schoolaged children nor living in the Oakland Public School >System district is a necessary condition for commenting on the foolishness >of "Ebonics" and other such scams. Only the most naive of commentators says >things like "If your children were not cannibalized by Jeffrey Dahmer, why >do you feel the need to comment on Dahmer?" > >(Sorry, Matthew, but I'm losing any remaining respect for your rhetorical >skills. I used to think we just disagreed politically, now I see more is >involved.) I apparently need to use those twirpy smiley faces more often (see above). I meant that to be funny which I guess it wasnt. One of your (Tim) prior posts clarifies much. That you hold out absolutely no hope for democracy actually lets me in on why you express yourself now like you do. My memory is that you werent always so clear in your expressions of disgust; this memory comes from several non-derogatory uses of the term "suits" when it came to cpunk political action in the past. I agree that democracy has myriads of flaws, but still hold out some hope for change. My comment about such inflaming language was of disappointment because Tim almost single-handedly helped me reconsider many of my traditional political thoughts. It is difficult sometimes to get past the anger in current posts (although I do understand and respect Tim's ability to be absolutely honest about his views which is refreshing.) Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMr22JbpijqL8wiT1AQHbIQQAhX7pj5JqkG55pWkexxn5qRMmlhme44lo ZsHXsfVNWhon2gqPBUvQT7BDEXJvTiiPGcfaAYL5GZV5FqpDOnuvyEBUOWwCoajK oFBHTgHeLL90MRi+py+k5rtofz5wA68M9LDqnNlIsISeTeq9vefBbGmeNIq3mrnv d/eqocuU1aM= =A/LN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You're confusing issues. As with similar confusions about "right to work" >(where the putative conflict is between Alice's right to hire whom she >chooses and Bob's putative "right to a job"), the confusion lies in what >one calls a right. I assume you are talking about right-to-work labor laws, in which case, it does not refer to the above. It has to do with union-membership (which you more than likely similarly disagree with...) I agree that there is rampant abuse of the word/idea of "rights" in this country and around the world. I similarly think that many political disagreements can be boiled down to this problem. >And just where did anyone in any of these posts call for outlawing any >particular language, pidgin, slang, creole, jive, or invented lingo? I was actually joking, Tim. My original response was sent before I knew of the Oakland initiative. I do not hail from California, the land of Proposition XXX, and find some of them silly. You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a dialect/language. And I do fear that many people subscribe to your line of thinking. So I do respond to some of your posts earlier than I sometimes should to present a different point of view. >Really, Matt, go back to Rhetoric 101 and learn how to argue. That's a good argument. Do they teach that ad hominem stuff in that class? ;-) Matt

3 2

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:30 PM 12/21/96 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >I never said that the government should force people to speak a certain >language. You are missing the main point: How do you expect to communicate >with an employee who can't speak any language that you can understand? It's >not arbitrary at all. In fact, it's rather simple. I have apparently been excrutiatingly unclear in my last post (tired folks should stay away from their terminals). I wasnt refrencing governmental action, but rather a flaw in some principles. I believe that the line of thought that we should all speak "proper" english leads to anti-libertarian results. What has been missing from my posts is the link to the chain of english-as-an-official-language regulation. Tim's argument for the ability to communicate is somewhat reasonable in an employment context (although it depends largely upon the employment). When it is couched in the terms of his post, it makes the link to the chain of reasoning above much easier to make. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMr28prpijqL8wiT1AQH70AP/TV7qcy3y26yeH+eNvm9MVBY0NfuBGokC uHS1NxpiIxl6NUTXIZTHKjlOd/pGM8JBgV6fp+7o+iruiJWBhE6mql+d/NAWjDiz RLJ8brwuy0sqG98GrwCKHjsc6Bf88v+DcxHxAs92uEqJ6aKeEuqXiITFwKrC9xjf euZxnLm0q6w= =OEgE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:30 PM 12/22/96 -0500, Mark Rosen wrote: > Hehe. What I mean to say is that since both Ebonics and a Southern accent >are learned during early childhood, you have no control over how you talk. This is not true. The recent commentary and interviews I've seen on this subject make it clear that the people speaking "Ebonics" are quite capable of speaking in standard English, and do so when they find it, er, convenient. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 3