From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 2 2:10:18 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E2437B420 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from post-21.mail.nl.demon.net (post-21.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B5243E4A for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:10:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cls@raggedclown.net) Received: from [212.238.197.102] (helo=mailhost.raggedclown.net) by post-21.mail.nl.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18U2Il-000Iap-00 for FreeBSD-chat@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 10:10:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.raggedclown.net (Ragged Clown Mail Gateway [dawn]) with ESMTP id 369E01668 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:10:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from willow.raggedclown.net (willow.raggedclown.intra [192.168.1.10]) by mailhost.raggedclown.net (Ragged Clown Mail Gateway [dawn]) with ESMTP id 5DEF4F04 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:09:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by willow.raggedclown.net (Ragged Clown Host [willow], from userid 1009) id AF5FC225D9; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:09:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:09:59 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson To: FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <20030102100959.GF12408@raggedclown.net> References: <200301020611.h026BC192518@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200301020611.h026BC192518@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Um, lol. If you are calling California a land of normal people, you > obviously don't live here. Lots of oranges though. > > >> It also means we lose most of our artists and free thinkers. > > Free thinkers, bah. They all got shot at Attica. > > That, also, does not necessarily follow, unless you are a strict > > structuralist, and believe in genetic predestiny. > > Labels. Nothing but labels. > Handy for, errmm labeling things. > >> I don't think you want that. > > > > That's irrelevent to the discussion, I think. > > But true regardless, I'd say. > > >> >> Grim. I don't buy this, of course, but it paints a grim picture. > >> > > >> > Human societies have always been, in the limit, In the limit ? If you are going to discuss things, use language morons like me understand. > >> >willing to turn > >> > to the use of force in order to achieve their ends. It is the > >> > nature of humans to do this. > >> Bollocks. It is the nature of humans to do as little as possible. > >> This is exactly why humans, as a race, have not evolved past the level > >> they are at. > > That level being ? George Bush ? Napalming babies ? Bringing the world to the edge of a hideous war (see George Bush above). Telling other countries not to have any of those naughty weapons, while possessing tons of them itself. A country that publicly electrocutes people ? You know even in Europe we worry about fundamentalism. But Europeans, in general, with the exception of the British Government, despise America. It is so fond of itself, so sure it is right. Interferes at every possible opportunity. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada...CIA involvement in bringing down goverments... And how can a country, so full of intelligence, lie to itself about itself ? How can the fiasco that brought George Bush to power occur in any so-called civilised country ? And all the fuss about Clinton's lies about his sex life, so you replace a man with an idiot. Actually Clinton once told a bigger lie, America *did* invent the transistor. It *did not* invent the digital computer. > > Spilt milk. If you feel strongly enough about it, then sell out > > for a short period of time (play by the rules as they are, rather > > than as you would prefer them to be), get rich, buy land, and > > establish your own little "Helstrom's Hive". > > I don't suppose you'll ever understand why I consider this irrelevant > and useless. > > >> > And your point in stating that is supposed to be what? > >> > >> There's two. Your definitions can't possibly be useful. You > >> ultimately believe in an objective reality. > > > > I'm not a nihilist, if that's what you're getting at... > > Again the labels. The point was, you still have a belief there. > You cannot verify objective reality, any methods you use are based > in the same thing you are trying to verify. > Strangely enough I had a discussion with my 15 year old son about this very topic the other day. You see this fallacy, is easily disproved. Stand outside my front door and let me drop a brick on your head. The pain may not be "objective", but it will hurt non the less. You both, if you are a both, or maybe this is "The Fight Club" ? Should study some Mayhajana Buddhism, particularly on the subject of relative and absolute reality. > >> >> Therefore all argument with you along this line of reality is > >> >> futile. It's like trying to argue me out of wanting to see True > >> >> Free Speech everywhere...quite impossible but perhaps entertaining at > >> >> times. > >> > > >> > Anytime someone uses "true" as an adjective, you know they are > >> > redefining something... > >> > >> Well...duh. ;) > > > > I suppose you've met Richard Stallman and Joy Beech, then? > > I've met and admire the former, I've no clue on the latter. > Your redirection aside, our arguments really are futile. Your > a