How many of you are ready to run out and upgrade to Windows 8?

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:50:22 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:50:24 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
All would be revealed at http://www.lowfield.co.uk/archers/geek.html -
though I think that's many years old; I concocted my UMRA geek code
years ago after someone invented it, put it in my .sig, and forgot about
it. You've prompted me to (very slightly) edit it (from next time my
random .sig switcher operates).

Thinking about it: it was a tongue-in-cheek variant on the concept of
geek codes in general. They seem to have more or less disappeared,
though Wikipedia still has an article on them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code, which seems to take itself far
too seriously.

Thanks, it was fun & informative to read (OK, skim). Which I mean
seriously, BTW.

I think though that the article's author was more drily tongue in cheek
than serious, but it's hard to know. Maybe I was just projecting :-)

OK, I have saved the link. I assume that once I've understood it
adequately and demonstrated that I have done so, I will be awarded a
Master of Arts degree.

(-:

The article will surely earn a footnote in my master's thesis.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
I don't think the question of whether you interpost or bottom post (or
even, heaven forbid, top-post) is connected to whether you're
grammatical or not: I've seen good (and, more commonly, bad) grammar
etc. in both styles.
[]
(Has this post been difficult to follow?)

Yes it has. It's required that I break my usual procedures and latch
into ones that I've come to recognise as yours.
Fair enough, I suppose. We are all different, and Vive la différence!

We've both said that now. I find having all the reply at the bottom
means I have to keep scrolling back and forth to find the point being
replied to, and it's not always immediately obvious which reply goes
with what. But we're stuck in our ways, and won't change each other now!

Two points that I specifically disagree with.
1. You've included replies to different posters. That can lead to great
confusion.

I don't have any difficulty counting ""s, but YMMV.

2. You've assumed some logical connection between bottom-posting and
good grammar that certainly wasn't in either my intention or writing.
Just why you've done that, I can't say for sure. But I associate it

I've left what I said in. If you read it again, I think you'll see that
I said I _don't_ think where you post is related to either good or bad
grammar, and that I've seen both in all posting styles.

with sloppy thinking, and I also associate the interspersed reply style
with sloppiness.

If we're trading insults, I associate the all-bottom style with
laziness; however, I'd rather _not_ trade insults, and just agree to
differ.

Your question above about replying to more than one point.
I do one of two things; either put a sub-heading in, as I've done with
this paragraph;
or
make two separate postings, each snipped at the appropriate point.
[]
Fairy nuff.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

Right, well let's not argue then. I have a very serious problem plaguing
my mind, and maybe you have some view or advice.

I have a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; The First Circle. On the back
is an extract from a review by Nigel Dennis for the Sunday Telegraph;
late 1960s.
"It is the tone of this huge book that is so marvellously new. It has no
villains in it - which many people may think shows incredible tolerance.
It shows something else, really - that when the world is reduced to
guiltless criminals, freaks, narks, nuts and placemen, a loud laugh is
more crushing than a howl of agony".

And here we are, rolling back the curtains year after year on our recent
past; Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough, phone-hacking, MPs' expenses, bankers'
amoral greed. Cover-ups, turning-asides, leaving-it-to-others.

Well, here's my main concern. I was born in 1947 and grew up in that
post-WWII atmosphere. One of the big questions was responsibility for
the final solution against the Jews. Just a few Nazi leaders, or the
whole German people? I remember a film documentary favouring the latter,
interviews, going along the railway lines leading to the death camps etc
etc. Their conclusion was that it must have been very widely known, and
simply ignored and thus sanctioned.
I also remember when some Israeli agents found Adolf Eichmann living in
Rio, smuggled him out of the country to Israel and put him on trial
before the whole world; behind a bullet-proof glass shield. I was about
12, and each night I'd see him on the TV news, railing that he was just
doing his duty, a good soldier to his Führer. I felt sorry for him. He
looked like a little down-trodden civil servant being abused by a crowd
of prejudiced bullies. And yet he organized all the cattle-trucks that
transported Jews east.

What is it about society that lets things like this happen? Are we all
immoral? Do we turn blind eyes to it?

Ed

"Ed Cryer" wrote in message
...
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

Right, well let's not argue then. I have a very serious problem plaguing
my mind, and maybe you have some view or advice.

I have a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; The First Circle. On the back is
an extract from a review by Nigel Dennis for the Sunday Telegraph; late
1960s.
"It is the tone of this huge book that is so marvellously new. It has no
villains in it - which many people may think shows incredible tolerance.
It shows something else, really - that when the world is reduced to
guiltless criminals, freaks, narks, nuts and placemen, a loud laugh is
more crushing than a howl of agony".

And here we are, rolling back the curtains year after year on our recent
past; Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough, phone-hacking, MPs' expenses, bankers'
amoral greed. Cover-ups, turning-asides, leaving-it-to-others.

Well, here's my main concern. I was born in 1947 and grew up in that
post-WWII atmosphere. One of the big questions was responsibility for the
final solution against the Jews. Just a few Nazi leaders, or the whole
German people? I remember a film documentary favouring the latter,
interviews, going along the railway lines leading to the death camps etc
etc. Their conclusion was that it must have been very widely known, and
simply ignored and thus sanctioned.
I also remember when some Israeli agents found Adolf Eichmann living in
Rio, smuggled him out of the country to Israel and put him on trial before
the whole world; behind a bullet-proof glass shield. I was about 12, and
each night I'd see him on the TV news, railing that he was just doing his
duty, a good soldier to his Führer. I felt sorry for him. He looked like a
little down-trodden civil servant being abused by a crowd of prejudiced
bullies. And yet he organized all the cattle-trucks that transported Jews
east.

What is it about society that lets things like this happen? Are we all
immoral? Do we turn blind eyes to it?

Blind eyes are turned everywhere. From a U.S. POV, look at the way Blacks
and American Indians have been treated from day one. Oh, wait, *DON'T* look;
you might see something you don't like, or isn't quite right, and we
certainly wouldn't want that, would we?

I was born in '46, and was raised mostly in the south and saw the "Blacks
Only" and "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms in the department
stores. Being very young at the time, I never thought much of it, thinking
that's just the way it is. Since my father was in the military, we moved
around, and by the time I graduated from high school, I had attended 8
different schools in seven states; I never saw a Black student until my
junior year in North Carolina. A boy and a girl were bussed in so that the
school could no longer say it was segregated (and before anyone chimes in on
"boy" or "girl," at 15 and 16, we were ALL boys and girls.) I don't remember
that they were picked on except by the bullies who picked on everyone.
Neither one of them was ever beaten. I think the girl was accepted by the
other girls in school more so than the guy was accepted by the white boys. I
didn't share any classes with either one, so I don't know how that went for
them. To me, it was no big deal; they were just two more students in a
school of 3 or 4 hundred.

I watched a show of the Nuremburg Trials when I was in the service, and can
remember thinking, "How does a whole nation get caught up in this without
realizing what's going on around them?" Then I went to 'Nam. Huh, now I
know. Of course, we had the news to tell everyone about the atrocities
committed by both sides, and WWII coverage wasn't near as quick or thorough.
I still remember the "body count" every night on the network news: 2,000
Viet Cong , 2 Americans killed today. Yeah, right wink wink nudge nudge

I don't know if there's really a point to this rambling other than I don't
think it's immorality as much as it is indifference. "As long as it doesn't
affect me, I don't care." I don't know how many times I've heard that
throughout my life, but it seems to be (and has been) a very prevalent
attitude.
--
SC Tom

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:00:08 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

"New beginning" implies new thread, and as I skimmed your totally OT
post, I wonder why you posted it at all, let alone in this thread and
in this group.

Ed

Is there no hope for getting your software configured properly? I know
it can do it, if you'll only allow it.

--

Char Jackson

Wolf K wrote:
On 13/10/2012 10:00 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

Right, well let's not argue then. I have a very serious problem plaguing
my mind, and maybe you have some view or advice.

I have a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; The First Circle. On the back
is an extract from a review by Nigel Dennis for the Sunday Telegraph;
late 1960s.
"It is the tone of this huge book that is so marvellously new. It has no
villains in it - which many people may think shows incredible tolerance.
It shows something else, really - that when the world is reduced to
guiltless criminals, freaks, narks, nuts and placemen, a loud laugh is
more crushing than a howl of agony".

And here we are, rolling back the curtains year after year on our recent
past; Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough, phone-hacking, MPs' expenses, bankers'
amoral greed. Cover-ups, turning-asides, leaving-it-to-others.

Well, here's my main concern. I was born in 1947 and grew up in that
post-WWII atmosphere. One of the big questions was responsibility for
the final solution against the Jews. Just a few Nazi leaders, or the
whole German people? I remember a film documentary favouring the latter,
interviews, going along the railway lines leading to the death camps etc
etc. Their conclusion was that it must have been very widely known, and
simply ignored and thus sanctioned.
I also remember when some Israeli agents found Adolf Eichmann living in
Rio, smuggled him out of the country to Israel and put him on trial
before the whole world; behind a bullet-proof glass shield. I was about
12, and each night I'd see him on the TV news, railing that he was just
doing his duty, a good soldier to his Führer. I felt sorry for him. He
looked like a little down-trodden civil servant being abused by a crowd
of prejudiced bullies. And yet he organized all the cattle-trucks that
transported Jews east.

What is it about society that lets things like this happen? Are we all
immoral? Do we turn blind eyes to it?

Ed

Read up on social psychology. One general principle is that most of us
will do whatever "authority figures" authorise us to do or approve of us
doing, even when it goes counter to our usual moral/ethical principles.
Related to this is the attitude that if it's legal, or not illegal, it's
OK. That's a rationalisation much used in business.

We have a built-in tendency to accept and trust authority. It's a
survival trait, when you think about it: children at a very early age
look to their caregivers for approval (and then go through phase where
they test that approval ;-)). Caregivers generally forbid dangerous or
anti-social behaviour. A child that consistently distrusts authority
will be injured or die. Add to this what's loosely called "peer
pressure", and you have the perfect recipe for getting people to
participate in the Final Solution.

It's not surprising that Eichmann did what he did, nor that the many
people in Germany and Austria who knew or guessed, ignored what was
happening to the Jews (and gypsies, mentally defective, etc). What's
surprising is that so many people are now surprised. We want to believe
that if we had known of the evil, we would have done something about it.

Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1: Bates: "If [the king's] cause be wrong, our
obedience to it wipes the crime of it out of us." Williams: "But if the
cause be not good, the king himself has a heavy reckoning to make..."

In this scene, the ordinary soldiers wonder whether they will be
condemned to hell for the murders they will commit the following day
when they attack the enemy. Henry V, incognito, argues that the moral
responsibility rests with the king. A soldier's duty is to obey. That's
the argument Eichmann used: "Ain't my fault, I was just following orders."

HTH


There are some famous social psychology experiments from the 60s and 70s
that illustrate your view;
http://www.experiment-resources.com/...xperiment.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

But there were quite a few refusers (I'm using the word deliberately to
chime with the old Soviet word "Refusnik"). And that suggests to me that
it's conditioned behaviour rather than innate.

Ed

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:00:08 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

Right, well let's not argue then. I have a very serious problem plaguing
my mind, and maybe you have some view or advice.

I have a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; The First Circle. On the back
is an extract from a review by Nigel Dennis for the Sunday Telegraph;
late 1960s.
"It is the tone of this huge book that is so marvellously new. It has no
villains in it - which many people may think shows incredible tolerance.
It shows something else, really - that when the world is reduced to
guiltless criminals, freaks, narks, nuts and placemen, a loud laugh is
more crushing than a howl of agony".

And here we are, rolling back the curtains year after year on our recent
past; Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough, phone-hacking, MPs' expenses, bankers'
amoral greed. Cover-ups, turning-asides, leaving-it-to-others.

Well, here's my main concern. I was born in 1947 and grew up in that
post-WWII atmosphere. One of the big questions was responsibility for
the final solution against the Jews. Just a few Nazi leaders, or the
whole German people? I remember a film documentary favouring the latter,
interviews, going along the railway lines leading to the death camps etc
etc. Their conclusion was that it must have been very widely known, and
simply ignored and thus sanctioned.
I also remember when some Israeli agents found Adolf Eichmann living in
Rio, smuggled him out of the country to Israel and put him on trial
before the whole world; behind a bullet-proof glass shield. I was about
12, and each night I'd see him on the TV news, railing that he was just
doing his duty, a good soldier to his Führer. I felt sorry for him. He
looked like a little down-trodden civil servant being abused by a crowd
of prejudiced bullies. And yet he organized all the cattle-trucks that
transported Jews east.

What is it about society that lets things like this happen? Are we all
immoral? Do we turn blind eyes to it?

Ed

It's good to see the human side of some of the netizens here.

I have nothing to add to the discussion except that it was compelling to
hear about how you are thinking.

OT? Yes, of course. But IMO these remarks are not out of context - a
bigger human context.

Thanks, Ed, SC, and Wolf for your remarks.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:00:08 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
(Fully snipped in order to allow a new beginning)

So why leave my name in it?

"New beginning" implies new thread, and as I skimmed your totally OT
post, I wonder why you posted it at all, let alone in this thread and
in this group.

Yes, OT. I would have privately emailed a reply - I have some less
common angles on the subject(s) - but I suspect the email address is
going to not work (-:, and I don't want to post here.

Ed

Is there no hope for getting your software configured properly? I know
it can do it, if you'll only allow it.

(I don't think so!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When you do not know what you are doing, do it neatly.