On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:23:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they
>> say and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.
> 
> Yeah. So far you have to do something really heinous like make a joke in
> order to get in jail.

Again, the exception, not the rule.  You don't seem to understand that 
one case in 100,000 does not a trend make.

> http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-
prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment
> 
> If that were just a single, isolated incident...

Hmmm, so you know of more?  You see a trend somewhere beyond a few 
isolated incidents?  Do tell.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:23:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they
>>> say and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.
>> 
>> Yeah. So far you have to do something really heinous like make a joke
>> in order to get in jail.
> 
> Again, the exception, not the rule.  You don't seem to understand that
> one case in 100,000 does not a trend make.
> 
>> http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-
> prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment
>> 
>> If that were just a single, isolated incident...
> 
> Hmmm, so you know of more?  You see a trend somewhere beyond a few
> isolated incidents?  Do tell.

Because yeah, I can see the parallels between a few isolated incidences 
like this and, oh, genocide.  Yeah, they're *so* alike, of course they 
should be compared.

You might just need to get this thing called a "sense of proportion".

Back in the twit filter you go.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Human stupidity never ceases to amaze me; as Einstein said: "2 things 
are infinite, The Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about 
the former...".

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Back in the twit filter you go.

Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
"lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
*everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

One would think that if you are done with a conversation, then the
rational thing to do is that you simply stop participating in that
particular conversation. Censoring everything I write just seems
senseless and childish.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings 
and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any good?

Been there, done that.

Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:34:58 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>>
>> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible
>> advantage could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts?
>> I just don't get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your
>> ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you
>> stop seeing *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.
> 
> Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings
> and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any
> good?

Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
and unwilling to listen to reason.

> Been there, done that.
> 
> Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

I usually don't either, but in Warp's case I make an exception.  By not 
replying, I'm not saying I agree with him.  I'm saying the argument is 
stupid, and if he wants to Godwin the discussion, I don't really care.

But yeah, usually I just walk away from it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2013 10:52, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you 
are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something 
relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood 
pressure. (I am entertaining the option that you may have a financial 
interest in a pharmaceutical that sells blood pressure and anti-stress 
pills. In which case your behaviour would not be stupid and childish but 
merely motivated by money, always the better option).

Anyway I wish you all a good 2014 with reasonable blood pre4ssure levels.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 01:55:23 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you
> are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something
> relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood
> pressure.

Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

And yes, technically, I don't set my reader up to not see the posts, but 
I score as ignored (but I read with ignored posts visible).  Usually, 
though, anything scored "ignore" is something I actually will just skip 
past without reading anything.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/29/2013 12:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a
> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's
> hyperbole at the best.
>

Err. No.. I think the former is a much saner claim than the later, given 
that, as it sits, the "Affordable Health Care" bill that passed based on 
"Letting a lot of corporations sell insurance in places they couldn't 
before, such as across state lines, in competition with each other, 
often by, first, pulling the rug out from under their own customers, by 
cancelling their existing policies."

Calling the US a socialist state based on that idiocy is a bit like 
suggesting that Purple is a shade of Yellow, or that there is a 
functional difference between water and dyhydrogen monoxide. That there 
are actually some idiots in congress, on Faux News, and especially in 
the so called "Tea Party", actually claiming this, isn't all that relevant.

That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as 
much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of 
other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its 
both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to 
plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

I think that should have been a :(


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message