Re: [cpe:4537] Tim May's defensive racism (was: about RC9) (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:49:44 -0600 From: TruthMonger <tm@dev.null> Subject: Re: [cpe:4537] Tim May's defensive racism (was: about RC9) (fwd)
Austin redneck hippie, Jim Choate, wrote:
OH, that is truly funny... Just 'cause I happened to be raised by hippies doesn't mean I am a hippie. Backfield in motion...Sugar Sugar...
From: TruthMonger <tm@dev.null> Subject: Re: [cpe:4537] Tim May's defensive racism (was: about RC9) Electronic communication is a bare-bones ASCII interpretation of our intended communication. i.e. - stripped of intonation and other physical gestures which convey a meaning beyond the mere words we speak, in themselves. Although there are some rudimentary ASCII images (:>) which can be used to add elements of shared emotional or conceptual constructs to the message we are attempting to convey.
The Medium IS the Message.
You clearly don't read real books...especialy those of the great authors of the world.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, had no idea what it meant...
Exactly. Thank you for being so obliging.
People who believe the spin doctorism 'The medium is the message' usualy spend their time watching television or working for it.
Those who *do*not* believe 'The medium is the message' usually think that Socrates' world-veiw would have been exactly the same if he had been using the InterNet as his means of viewing and communicating with the world.
Who's Socrates? A more interesting question is whether the technology would have impacted his base psychology... I know this, way down deep there is a fundamental dialog between people and all the technology in the world doesn't change that. Those base topics are what define human societies. If this weren't so then how can the human experience be so stable over recorded history & cultures? Why do we discuss the exact same sorts of questions all societies & individuals have asked? But, to counter your suggestion, please be so kind as to demonstrate your evidence where the method of expression might have changed the basic fundamentals of his dialogue? What are those fundamental issues that you claim have changed so radicaly? While your'e at it, how about extrapolating that nifty keen cliological analysis to say 500 years into the future and explain your own biases and bigottries? You can leave the whip and chains out of the dialog, those never change. I would propose that there are more fundamental issue than the level of technology. For example, consider the impact of experimentation on a basicaly experiential world-view as that commen in ancient Greece. As another example, consider the reaction when pi was shown to be irrational and this knowledge was banned upon pain of death. Clearly we have the technology yet we have not escaped the more base human experience. The reality would seem to indicate that no, the most base messages of Socrates, Sun Tzu, Christ, or the cypherpunks are still the same old ones... - People are people, people are strange - What makes one person happy is guaranteed to piss somebody else off - Most people will never figure the first two out even if you tell them the answers
Until the email/communications medium evolves to allow us the ability to add not only smiles and winks, etc., but also chagrin, doubt, self- doubt, etc., to our online communications, the medium will remain an impediment to conveying the totality of our true message, as opposed to being merely an electronic version of 'pidgin Englich'.
This could happen provided we got rid of television and made graphics harder to print...
Right, Jim. Give us your prediction of when this is going to happen... (Yes, I *am* laughing at you...thanks for asking.)
Uh...like cold day in hell... I'm beginning to think your attention span is tuned to those 30 second blip-verts...and who asked? Are the voices back already?
Reality is that even when the medium evolves to the point where we can use it to convey the totality of what we are trying to convey, that
"convey the totality"? What kind of double-speak bullshit is that? Look junior, the absolutely *ONLY* way to express the 'totality' of an experience is to be the one doing the experience. You can pop all the moddies and daddies you wanna but it's still a pale imitation; a rose it is not in any language. Now unless you have just instantly warped our happy assess into the far flung future we are a long walk from plugging brains together, nic's & protocols not withstanding.
after we have done so the 'powers that be' will flash a graphic of us on the computer screen, making us look for all the world like a drug-dealing, terrorist pedophile. There will be few sheeple with the dicrimination to recognize that, in your case, it is true, in 'my' case, it is not.
Not that I'm a troublemaker...
Well that's good, you shouldn't be as disappointed at your steady failures. My suggestion, don't quit your day job, assuming your old enough to have a job. They can't tell you're a dawg on the Internet. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
Jim Choate, dipping into Hettinga and Young's drug stash, wrote:
From: TruthMonger <tm@dev.null> Subject: Re: [cpe:4537] Tim May's defensive racism (was: about RC9)
People who believe the spin doctorism 'The medium is the message' usualy spend their time watching television or working for it.
Those who *do*not* believe 'The medium is the message' usually think that Socrates' world-veiw would have been exactly the same if he had been using the InterNet as his means of viewing and communicating with the world.
Who's Socrates?
He's the guy who edited this post so that those reading it will be very confused as to who said what...
I know this, way down deep there is a fundamental dialog between people and all the technology in the world doesn't change that. Those base topics are what define human societies. If this weren't so then how can the human experience be so stable over recorded history & cultures? Why do we discuss the exact same sorts of questions all societies & individuals have asked?
What you say is true, but the fact of the matter is that our current misperceptions are defined by the medium through which we miscommunicate. True communication goes beyond the medium it passes through, but is nonetheless limited by the capacity of the medium to convey what we are trying to express. (As well as by the capacity of our experience to interpret what we are receiving via that medium.)
But, to counter your suggestion, please be so kind as to demonstrate your evidence where the method of expression might have changed the basic fundamentals of his dialogue? What are those fundamental issues that you claim have changed so radicaly? While your'e at it, how about extrapolating that nifty keen cliological analysis to say 500 years into the future and explain your own biases and bigottries? You can leave the whip and chains out of the dialog, those never change.
The whips and chains are the best part... The Eskimos have something like 30 different words for "snow." If you or I want to 'talk snow' with an Eskimo, our "method of expression" (language) will be affected by the "basic fundamentals" by which our differing languages are constructed. If we filter these already obvious differences through different medium of communiations (words, pictures, ASCII characters, etc.), then the "fundamental issues" will "change radically" according to the number and type of filters that our communications are interpreted through. 500 years from now, my own biases and bigottries will be revealed by the stripping away of the current commonly understood methods of misdirection by which I attempt to disguise them, as well as disguised by the the future misunderstandings of the unique meaning that my current commonly understood methods of communication convey to those steeped in the the peculularities of our era. i.e. - People drunk on Scotch, 500 years in the future, will understand what I just said, whereas even I, myself, am unlikely to understand it in the morning, once I sober up.
I would propose...
Thanks, but I don't go that way...
- People are people, people are strange
- What makes one person happy is guaranteed to piss somebody else off
- Most people will never figure the first two out even if you tell them the answers
Young and Hettinga are going to be really pissed when they find out that you've been dipping into their 'stash'...
I'm beginning to think your attention span is tuned to those 30 second blip-verts...and who asked? Are the voices back already?
Nope. I'm wearing the aluminum foil hat...
Reality is that even when the medium evolves to the point where we can use it to convey the totality of what we are trying to convey, that
"convey the totality"? What kind of double-speak bullshit is that?
I was hoping that I could slip that one by you.
Look junior, the absolutely *ONLY* way to express the 'totality' of an experience is to be the one doing the experience. You can pop all the moddies and daddies you wanna but it's still a pale imitation; a rose it is not in any language. Now unless you have just instantly warped our happy assess into the far flung future we are a long walk from plugging brains together, nic's & protocols not withstanding.
Whoa! Sounds like you took a few too many of the 'red' ones...
My suggestion, don't quit your day job, assuming your old enough to have a job. They can't tell you're a dawg on the Internet.
I'm a 13 year-old dawg, and I'm not wearing any panties. (91 in people-years.) SaggingTitsMonger
TruthMonger wrote:
The whips and chains are the best part... The Eskimos have something like 30 different words for "snow." If you or I want to 'talk snow' with an Eskimo, our "method of expression" (language) will be affected by the "basic fundamentals" by which our differing languages are constructed. If we filter these already obvious differences through different medium of communiations (words, pictures, ASCII characters, etc.), then the "fundamental issues" will "change radically" according to the number and type of filters that our communications are interpreted through. 500 years from now, my own biases and bigottries will be revealed by the stripping away of the current commonly understood methods of misdirection by which I attempt to disguise them, as well as disguised by the the future misunderstandings of the unique meaning that my current commonly understood methods of communication convey to those steeped in the the peculularities of our era. i.e. - People drunk on Scotch, 500 years in the future, will understand what I just said, whereas even I, myself, am unlikely to understand it in the morning, once I sober up.
I would propose...
Thanks, but I don't go that way...
- People are people, people are strange
- What makes one person happy is guaranteed to piss somebody else off
- Most people will never figure the first two out even if you tell them the answers
Young and Hettinga are going to be really pissed when they find out that you've been dipping into their 'stash'...
I'm beginning to think your attention span is tuned to those 30 second blip-verts...and who asked? Are the voices back already?
Nope. I'm wearing the aluminum foil hat...
Reality is that even when the medium evolves to the point where we can use it to convey the totality of what we are trying to convey, that
"convey the totality"? What kind of double-speak bullshit is that?
I was hoping that I could slip that one by you.
Look junior, the absolutely *ONLY* way to express the 'totality' of an experience is to be the one doing the experience. You can pop all the moddies and daddies you wanna but it's still a pale imitation; a rose it is not in any language. Now unless you have just instantly warped our happy assess into the far flung future we are a long walk from plugging brains together, nic's & protocols not withstanding.
Whoa! Sounds like you took a few too many of the 'red' ones...
My suggestion, don't quit your day job, assuming your old enough to have a job. They can't tell you're a dawg on the Internet.
I'm a 13 year-old dawg, and I'm not wearing any panties. (91 in people-years.)
SaggingTitsMonger
Innuit words for snow.. Aniugavinirq: very hard, compressed and frozen snow Apijaq: snow covered by bad weather Apigiannagaut: first snow of Autumn Apimajug: snow-covered Apisimajug: snow-covered, but not snowed in Apujjag: snowed-in Aput: snow Aputiqarniq: snowfall on ground Aqillutaq: new snow Auviq: snow block Katakaqtanaq: hardcrust snow that gives way underfoot Kavisilaq: snow roughened by frost Kiniqtaq: compact, damp snow Mannguq: melting snow Masak: wet, falling snow Matsaaq: half-melted snow Mauja: soft, deep snow footsteps sink in Natiruvaaq: drifting snow Pirsirlug: blowing snow Pukajaak: sugary snow Putak: crystalline, breaks into grains Qaggitaq: snow ditch to trap caribou Qaliriiktaq: snow layer of poor quality for an igloo Qaniktaq: new snow on ground Qannialaaq: light, falling snow Qiasuqqaq: thawed snow that refroze with an icy surface Qimugjuk: snow drift Qiqumaaq: snow with a frozen surface after spring thaw Qirsuqaktuq: light snow Qukaarnartuq: crusted snow Sitilluqaq: hard snow" SnowMonger (even though not anonymous..yet, subscribing to the DrunkMonger tendencies)
participants (3)
-
Abstruse -
Jim Choate -
TruthMonger