Far Out Theater Feedflack.87.414.5 Barsoom Tork (barsoom) Sat, 02 Oct 1999 06:30:15 Feedflack.87.414: Kai Hagen (kai) Sat, 02 Oct 1999 02:17:13 For example, while we do not attempt to define exactly what is civil or uncivil behavior, we urge that people make an effort to be civil AND we specifically insist that patrons conform to the particular/direct requests of hosts when there is a problem. Making the decision to ignore such a request and continue to behave in the manner that generated the request, is the sort of thing that can lead to the removal of one's access. This is where I fall off the boat. Civility means negotiating mutually acceptable terms of engagement. The notion of making a unilateral "request" and then insisting on it under penalty of sanction as a non-negotiable term of continued participation is unacceptable and incivil treatment. It's bullying. Several years ago, Shana Alexander wrote a book (Nutcracker) about a woman in Utah who behaved this way. The TV version of the story was called "At Mother's Request." The title referred to her uncivil practice of damaging anyone who didn't accede to her "requests." But when you log into and participate in the Cafe, you are agreeing to abide by it. Nonsense. An agreement is an affirmation by mutual consent. The notion that one has entered into an agreement dictated by one side and imposed without consent is ridiculous. An agreement means I freely give my word, which I promise to keep. If the words are shoved down my throat by another party, without my consent, I am not obliged to swallow or keep them. That is a simple concept. It's also wrong. Moreover, I just think it's tacky. If, having been informed of that practice and policy, a registered user decided for themselves that they were not going to accept those limits, and they chose to continue to post images after being asked/told to stop, well....that would be a reason to block that user's access to the Cafe. It would suffice to restrict their license to post HTML in that conference. There is no need to deny them read-only access to that conference, or general access to the rest of the system. The use of gratuitous and punitive sanctions above and beyond the minimum effective defense is an unwise abuse of power. I would not want to do something like that. I'd like to think most people can accept the policy - whether they agree with it or not. But to blatantly ignore it would force the issue and require steps to stop it. Wishful thinking. If Kai would negotiate mutually agreeable terms with the community, he would not be in this untenable position of ramming policy down their throats and then labeling it an "agreement" that no one actually agreed to. That may be analagous here to Karl's statements about the copyright policy. I don't know. But I am going to find out. I agree Kai is going to find out. The hard way. This posting is CopyLeft, Barsoom Tork Associates. The usual freedom applies to copy, adapt, adopt, or alter it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.415.5: Barsoom Tork (barsoom) Sat, 02 Oct 1999 07:40 Feedflack.87.415: Patrice B. (patrice) Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:12:07 The whole copyright policy worded as such came about, as I recall, after just saying "you cannot take others' words outside the Cafe without their expressed permission ... you can't, say, use a topic for your book research and quote people/represent people from those discussions in your book without each person's permission ... you can't take other people's posts and repost them on other websites" didn't work, and the legal-speak was deemed necessary. Coupla points... Copyright law permits quoting for purposes of newsworthy, educational, or critical comment or discussion. What Hootne is doing is to assert power of attorney, and the power to unilaterally impose non-adjudicated sanctions on other patrons. Why didn't Kai revoke his own membership, and the membership of Roxanna Guilford when they violated copyright by publishing on Hootne documents illegally stolen from another site? CopyLeft Barsoom Tork Associates. Fire when ready, GridLeak. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.119.71: Unchristian Dior (undior) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:01:29 CDT Jesus Crispies. You people are all mental defectives! If Kaibosh was the power-mad, heavy-handed gestapo you all make him out to be, he would have deleted the whole Feedflack conference long ago, and terminated the accounts of a good half-dozen jerks without discussing it with them or anyone. And quite frankly, I almost wish he had. I'm amazed he puts up with what he does. Franco sure as hell wouldn't. If this place is so awful, why do you stay? Why why why why why? Get the fuck out! Find another conferencing system that fits in with your idiotic views! Start your own! Just quit your bitching! Holy crap you people are pathetic. It's an on-line conferencing system, for cryin' out loud. It's not the last bastion of the Bill of Rights. There is no Magna Carta here. In the grand scheme of things, it matters not one iota if there is civility or civil rights or due process. That's just crap. Cyberspace is huge and there is plenty of room for you to find another space if you don't like this one. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.119.71.5: Barsoom Tork (barsoom) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:11:59 {erased by kaibosh Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:12:07 CDT} Carl, you ignorant slut... ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.121.16: Al Golagnia (algolagnia) Fri, 08 Oct 1999 17:44:34 CDT {erased by kai Fri, 08 Oct 1999 18:59:35 CDT} A policy could take the form of a practice or procedure intended to achieve a desirable goal. Not all policies are reducible to explicit rules. Best practices for achieving a community goal may be based on principles that transcend convential rule-based approaches. Generally speaking, rule-based methods are too weak to reach the most important social goals (such as peace and harmony). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.121.17: Al Perrier (alperrier) Fri, 08 Oct 1999 18:42:12 CDT Thanks, Barry. P.S. You're busted again. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cafe_Move.14.207: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:41:40 CDT Karl, I'm really sorry I betrayed your trust. Perhaps I was just a little too exuberant, and took some initiative to make things better without thinking it all the way through. I'm turning purple with embarrassment over all the angst this is causing. I now see that I've been too paternalistic, too corporate, and not sensitive enough to the issues people here really care about. I'm sorry I've been so dismissive and uncaring. I've decided that going forward, I'll seek the advice and counsel of the community before doing anything quite so drastic as abandoning Motet for another system. Meantime, can you forgive me? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cafe_Move.14.209: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:56:04 CDT > I don't expect the Cafe to be run according to my personal > preference. I don't expect that my opinions on the matter will be > sought or even desired. But I have them. And to the extent > possible, I will act on them. Come let us reason together, Alexii. If you would be kind enough to alert me to your proposed course of actions, perhaps we could negotiate some mutually agreeable common ground. I really do tire of being surprised by the unanticipated unilateral reactions of disgruntled patrons. Let's change that, OK? Let's move towards peer-to-peer protocols. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cafe_Move.15.540: Kai Hagen (kai) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:26:28 CST > Keith Harary topic that was summarily erased over 2 years ago has > been posted off and on by Barry ever since. That topic was erased at the specific request of Keith Harary. That Barry has it posted anywhere at all, or still, is further evidence of his bankrupt and self-serving sense of personal ethics. And is part of what is being looked at by others more recently. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.21.508: Alexii Dubayovich (torquemadura) Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:34:08 CDT Ponder: I notice a slowing in the Cafe in general but a quickening of patently savvy posters with superfreshly minted logins. Are people proliferating identities in response to the impending change? Is erasure motivated by the same set of anxieties? Is this where we hit the wall postmoderne? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.21.510: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:43:49 CDT > I notice a slowing in the Cafe in general but a quickening of > patently savvy posters with superfreshly minted logins. > Are people proliferating identities in response to the impending > change? Is erasure motivated by the same set of anxieties? I have no reason to believe there is any such thing happening, Alexii. Do you have any examples? ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.323: (dawnis) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:07:36 CST (59 lines) {erased by kai Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:10:13 CST} Quote from Move post 556 as refered back to by Ov: Ov states:Hootne has allowed us the privilege to delete what we wrote, but that this isn't a "right" since it could be revoked at some future date solely on Hootne's discretion. Sort of like Kai's singular ability to delete and leave hanging in midair his real reasons for those deletions? Why do I have trouble believing in Kai's fairness? He leaves his posts so that he looks like Mr-level-headed and his ememies looking like.....what ever he says we are. Smegma.114.1: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:29:01 CDT (3 lines) I should know better, but I have decided to reinstate Barry Kort's Cafe access on the condition that he use only this panel topic in Smegma, and then only for purposes of mediation. Smegma.114.2: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:42:44 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kaibosh Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:44:20 CDT} Smegma.114.3: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:47:26 CDT (2 lines) Barry, I did not say that you could post in this topic yet. I merely said that you could use it. Smegma.114.4: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:11:36 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kaibosh Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:14:08 CDT} Smegma.114.5: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:16:04 CDT (4 lines) Barry, you know perfectly well what I meant (or most people would). I told you that you would have to learn to show some self-restraint and wait until I raised a specific issue. We have been through this before. I am not going to tell you again. Smegma.114.6: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:41:25 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kaibosh Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:42:00 CDT} Smegma.114.7: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:54:50 CDT (8 lines) Barry's access has been revoked again. I gave him a chance, but it is clear that he is still not over his obsession with private e-mail. I recommend a walk in the woods and 20 milligrams of paroxetine HCl. He will no doubt have plenty to say about this elsewhere, but frankly that is his problem. I am going to freeze this topic now and then erase it a few days ago. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.324: Kai Hagen (kai) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:13:46 CST (14 lines) I am not going to go round and round with this game, Debra. Whether you gree with it or not, it is not okay for you to serve as a conduit for Barry's participation here and/or repost posts that were deleted for that reason, and that reason alone. This is fair warning. you can accept that limitation, even if you don't agree with it, or not. But I will suspend your access to the Cafe if you continue to do it, and I am not going to split hairs around subtle plays that intentionally attempt to walk a fine line while disrespecting the intent of the policy. Rail at me for it all you want, but... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.325: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:30:50 CST "I'm sitting in the railway station gotta ticket for my destination mmmmm" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.326: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:40:54 CST So are you "gonna enforce the compilation copyright against Barry? Since this is now a matter of public record over at: http://www.musenet.org/utnebury/kaibosh.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.327: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:08:52 CST By the way Kai...my boot size is size five, wide please. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.328: Kai Hagen (kai) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:13:59 CST (2 lines) Yes. There are people looking into the sort of action that we should take. It is not being ignored. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.329: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:29:59 CST Action against me or enforcement of copyright? If against me...make those boot western cut and in Black with silver tips please! "I just wanna be a cosmic cowgirl" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.331: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:44:22 CST If someone takes an idea that Barry once posted and changes it some so that it is now their words and not his, technically, with the intent to enlighten me or force a fresh thought, whatever.....well, I don't care. I'm not going to worry about it. It is in itself an immature sort of taunting and teasing. It is an unfair game that I won't play. I'll just delete it and remain blissfuly unenlightened and oblivious. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.338: Barsoom Tork (barsoom) Tue, 09 Nov 1999 06:51:32 CST For the record, no manager or henchman of Cafe Hootne, has my permission to repost, reproduce, or lampoon in any manner or form any document I have ever published either openly or clandestinely on MuseNet. No lawyer, within or without the employ of Cafe Hootne or its agents, may reproduce any facsimile of any document I have ever made in Hootnebury. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.34.346: Congressman Lampoon (yesdeer) Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:50:51 CST Within or without Hootne there is fair use of copyright material. For instance, if for educational purposes, I wish to show just how absurd a statement on copyright can be, I have fair use to use: Smegma.34.338: Clydie M. (clydie) Tue, 09 Nov 1999 06:51:32 CST For the record, no individual, within or without the Cafe, has my permission to reproduce in any manner or form any posting I have ever made in Cafe Hootne. No individual, within or without the Cafe, may reproduce any facsimile of any posting I have ever made in Cafe Hootne. It is a very small amount of text of the total compilation of the content of Hootne and does make the point for educational purposes. The above post can be reproduced almost anywhere by anyone. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.111.473: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:47:39 CDT {erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:02:07 CDT} Lorelei, I now regret having erased your clever sendup. So just to show you what a good sport I am, here it is again... Smegma.111.443: yup yup blither blither yup yup (lorelei) Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:34:22 CDT (49 lines) Well, I could always tell some more of the story about when I got tortured for stating my opinions. :-) . . . or maybe it's time for a panel discussion. Smegma.114.1: Kai Hagen (kai) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:29:01 CDT (3 lines) I should know better, but I have decided to reinstate Barry Kort's Cafe access on the condition that he use only this panel topic in Smegma, and then only for purposes of mediation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.2: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:42:44 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kai Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:44:20 CDT} ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.3: Kai Hagen (kai) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:47:26 CDT (2 lines) Barry, I did not say that you could post in this topic yet. I merely said that you could use it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.4: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:11:36 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kai Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:14:08 CDT} ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.5: Kai Hagen (kai) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:16:04 CDT (4 lines) Barry, you know perfectly well what I meant (or most people would). I told you that you would have to learn to show some self-restraint and wait until I raised a specific issue. We have been through this before. I am not going to tell you again. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.6: (moulton) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:41:25 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kai Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:42:00 CDT} ----------------------------------------------------------------- Smegma.114.7: Kai Hagen (kai) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:54:50 CDT (8 lines) Barry's access has been revoked again. I gave him a chance, but it is clear that he is still not over his obsession with private e-mail. I recommend a walk in the woods and 20 milligrams of paroxetine HCl. He will no doubt have plenty to say about this elsewhere, but frankly that is his problem. I am going to freeze this topic now and then erase it a few days ago. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.658: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:24:50 CDT I've got a mushroom to snuffle, so I'll tackle a couple of the other questions later, right after I revoke some fake accounts. Barry's access to the Cafe was revoked for a number of vague reasons, including the substantial if unadjudicated issue of his posting Cafe content outside of the Cafe without the permission of the authors - against my spur-of-the-moment policy (the current, more specific Copyright Policy was not even fabricated at the time). It is specious of Karl to suggest he might have had permission from everyone but me, since it was a subject of discussion here and I knew better - as does Karl. Of course whether Barry knew better, or was just trying to be helpful after I hastily hit the erase button by mistake without seeing how others felt about it, is only something he knows for sure. Nonetheless I told him that he knew better. And that's what matters. Whatever I say has to prevail, cuz I'm the cheese. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.660: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:32:38 CDT Lorelei, my empathies lie with you for Barry's naughty adaptation of your wonderful sendup. I'll get right on it with the Phutne lawyers to see if we can find some way to damage him further. He's such a bad boy, and it is just wrong of him to copy anything like that. Meantime, we're plowing through his website to see what else we can find there. If we find any really good dirt, we'll post it here, just in case he decides to erase it. We wouldn't want to lose the evidence. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.662: Property of Phutne Lawyers (lorelei) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:41:19 CDT {erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:40 CDT} [karlsc slipped. Interesting--isn't it?--that republishing Cafe content without an author's permission was a "substantial issue" when Barry did it and a "small" mistake when Kai did it.] > Feedflack.87.660: Kai Havgun (kaibosh) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:32:38 CDT > Lorelei, my empathies lie with you for Barry's naughty adaptation of > your wonderful sendup. I'll get right on it with the Phutne lawyers to > see if we can find some way to damage him further. He's such a bad > boy, and it is just wrong of him to copy anything like that. Yup, that's what he appears to have been doing: going after Barry and anyone who doesn't show enough contempt for Barry, and disregarding the fact that he's done the same "naughty" things Barry has done. Whatever Kai's response to that "naughty adaptation" turns out to be, I somehow doubt it will come from a desire to protect the likes of me. > Meantime, we're plowing through his website to see what else we can > find there. If we find any really good dirt, we'll post it here, just > in case he decides to erase it. We wouldn't want to lose the evidence. Yup yup yup, that's what he did without Barry's permission in post:Smegma.30.830 in an attempt to justify the harm he'd done to nanwill. He took his sweet time erasing that post. I wonder how long he'll take to erase this one (for the Right Reason, as usual). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.669: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:18:16 CDT {erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:40 CDT} For the viewing pleasure of those of you who do not agree: Hi Lo, Feedflack.87.637: Kai Hagen (kai) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:00:20 I regret adding a post of Lorelei's to the DRUSBA at the time (*just* for clarity: I was a volunteer host, not management/staff). It was a simple e-mail newsletter, discussed at length in the conference, mailed only to participants in the conference. Nevertheless, it was a mistake. Well intended. Fun little e-mail newsletter. In my mind, at the time, if I even thought about it at all, it was an extension of the conference (I *know* that is is not a legally or ethically meaningful term, and it is not said as an excuse, merely describing my enthusiastic mindset and action at that moment). People make mistakes. It was a small one with no bad intentions. It provided an opportunity to learn a lesson. And it has never happened since. I wonder when Kai realized this, and why he waited until now to disclose it. In the meantime, it stood as a model and as a precedent that others, who look to Kai for leadership, would have felt free to imitate. Before Moses wrote the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," he agonized over the episode in his youth when he smote an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Jewish slave. This is the first time I have seen Kai express remorse for a "well-intentioned" act that he undertook with exhuberant initiative that others found offensive. But rather than drawing the lesson that he should therefore craft hard and fast rules that he imposes upon the community to prevent others from repeating his particular "mistake," would it not make more sense to cultivate a culture where we simply proceed by mutual consent at every step? Barry ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.674: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:59:28 CDT How can we be sentenced and banished if there is no evidence of our crimes? You keep erasing them Kai. "Off with their heads," he cries before the people have time to say a word. You keep erasing things before people can judge for themselves... who is being out of line and abusive? Being in a leadership position does not mean you can abuse that power. "You can silence a person's voice but you cannot silence their mind" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.675: Property of McCrap (lorelei) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:09:57 CDT It's lucky for me (maybe) that I noticed Kai had erased my post:662. I was about to quote the parts of that post that were my own words and so *weren't* quotes from an erased post, but now I can't even do that safely because now I would be quoting an erased post again. As luck would have it, though, Barry has republished my erased words again at http://www.musenet.org/utnebury/kaibosh.txt (without my permission, as usual, but that's probably better than the punishment I would have received for granting it, and Barry's use of my words in his own defense after Kai's erasures is understandable). The double standard I mentioned in that post Kai erased got no response from Kai. My earlier post referring to Kai's description of the "small" mistake he had made with my poem got no response from Kai. All that warrants a response from Kai is my shameful act of quoting an erased post that Kai appears to think came from Barry. Then Debra brings up the issues surrounding Kai's actions again, and all Kai can do in response is to post more complaints and threats in response to the heinous act of giving Barry's version of the story a voice here. And now Kai's gone back to his same old presumption of bad intentions on the part of those who voice concerns that aren't aligned with his side of his pissing matches with Karl and Barry. We're not expressing our thoughts. We're not making valid complaints. We're just pushing the limits, playing a game with which Kai has been benevolent enough to play along, and we'd better guess when to quit the game before we lose access to our own words. And we're supposed to think our rights to those words are well protected by the Cafe's copyright policy? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.676: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:15:00 CDT Hey! What happened to my Monday post? What did I say in that one that pushed the Red Queen's button? It is now forever lost to post-terior. (sigh) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feedflack.87.688: Debra Tenney (dawnis) Thu, 07 Oct 1999 01:30:10 CDT {erased by kai Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:16:45 CDT} Now let me get this straight. I own my own words and I can get permission from someone who also owns their own words, to post their words which they own, here. So Kai had every right to erase : Feedflack.87.669: (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:18:16 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:40 CDT} Because I had not gotten his permission to post his words. Therefore, there should be no reason to delete this post because I have gotten the expressed permission of its author, Barry, to post these words, and he owns them. Hereby be notifyed that these words are the followup to the huuurmmmph statement I made following the erasure by Kai of: Feedflack.87.669: (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:18:16 CDT (0 lines){erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:40 CDT} which was deleted by Kai, because apparently I had not gotten his permission to post his (Kai's) words. Let it also be known that these words were in the post: Feedflack.87.669: (dawnis) Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:18:16 CDT (0 lines) {erased by kai Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:40 CDT} which was erased by Kai. And since Kai has assured us that he has no hidden agenda, but is only trying to protect us from others using our words without our permission, there should be no problem with me posting words that I have gotten permission from the owner to post here. I wonder when Kai realized this, and why he waited until now to disclose it. In the meantime, it stood as a model and as a precedent that others, who look to Kai for leadership, would have felt free to imitate. Before Moses wrote the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," he agonized over the episode in his youth when he smote an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Jewish slave. This is the first time I have seen Kai express remorse for a "well-intentioned" act that he undertook with exhuberant initiative that others found offensive. But rather than drawing the lesson that he should therefore craft hard and fast rules that he imposes upon the community to prevent others from repeating his particular "mistake," would it not make more sense to cultivate a culture where we simply proceed by mutual consent at every step? Barry ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Absurd.170.719: Self-Centered Self-Parody (moulton) Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:34: 12 CST (105 lines) Moulton was born in 1945, the year the Holocaust ended. His parents were Holocaust Survivors. But they couldn't take pleasure in having survived a terrible ordeal because so many others were brutally exterminated. This left them Emotionally Conflicted. They didn't want to talk about it. Psychologists who studied this kind of emotional conflict came up with the name Survivor Guilt to describe it. It's an unfortunate Label because it invokes the word Guilt which suggests that they broke a Rule and deserved to be Punished. And in those days, when everyone lived in a Rule-Oriented, Control-Oriented, Punishment-Oriented Culture, no one ever admitted Guilt, because then the Control Freaks from the Police Culture would feel Justified in meting out Sanctions and Punishment. It was a Toxic Culture in that regard. So everyone tried to keep it a Big Secret from Emotions Police who habitually practiced Erratic Retaliation. But a few Holocaust Survivors, who were smart enough to stay far away from Psychologists and their Ferchachta and Erroneous Theories about Survivor Guilt asked themselves the Question, "Why Me? Why was I spared and allowed to live, while so many others perished?" And the Answer came to them. "Because you were Smart enough to get the Hell out of Europe before the Nazis rounded you up. Because you Foresaw what was coming and did the Intelligent thing before it was Too Late." And so these Holocaust Survivors realized that it was their ability to Prophesy what horrors were coming and to take Timely and Intelligent Action to save their lives that explained why they were spared. And so they Worshiped a New God, the God of Model-Based Reasoning. This was a actually a Small Cognitive Error, which they didn't realize, because this all happened before anyone worked out the Science of Cognition and the Correct Rules of Thinking Straight about God and God's Plans. They founded Schools for their children and taught them Model-Based Reasoning. But since they were Silent about their Conflicted Emotions of being Holocaust Survivors, they never let the children do any Model-Based Reasoning about Emotions. They made that Taboo, because they didn't want to grade Homework Assignments in which their own children were stumbling through the Learning Curve trying to Understand and Model the Emotions and Motivations of their parents, the Holocaust Survivors. Finally, after 40 years in the Emotional Desert, most of the parents had begun to forget their concerns about dealing with Survivor Guilt, and instead began to Kvell with Joy as their now-grown children, who had been taught Model-Based Reasoning, enjoyed Successful Careers and produced Bright and Playful Grandchildren for them to take Pride in. The Successful Children, on the other hand, began to be Criticized because, for all their Intelligence and Skill at Model-Based Reasoning, they were lousy at thinking about other people's Emotions. Everyone else was Brilliantly Skilled at figuring out how others were feeling, from nothing more than a Raised Eyebrow or a Muffled Cough. So these Successful Children decided to Learn about Emotions. They wrote books on Emotional Intelligence and formed Theories on Emotion, Cognition, and Learning. They got so good at Regarding Emotions that they founded whole new disciplines of Affective Computing, teaching machines to Bear Accurate Witness to the Feelings of the User and to construct Complex Models to Reason about Emotions in an Intelligent and Scientific Way and to make Appropriate Apologies as needed so that the Users wouldn't get Upset and Kick the Machine. And then the Children of the Holocaust Survivors realized what they were doing. They had not spent their lives Worrying about Emotions. Instead they had spent their lives learning Diagnostic Reasoning Skills. And it Occurred to them that this was too Important an Idea to keep a Big Secret from everyone else. And so they launched a New Culture, one in which people didn't worry endlessly about their Feelings and Emotions but instead Thought about them Rationally, Diagnosed the Underlying Problem, and Solved them with Ingenuity and Creativity. Their Mantra became "Stop Worrying and Heal the World." Or in the more Cryptic Swahili/Hebrew, "Ha-Tikkuna Mutata Olam." And they posted this Idea prominantly and spamfully on their Silly Web Site at http://www.musenet.org/orenda Moulton was not the God of this New Religion. He was merely their Public Relations Guru. They fired him for Incompetence. He vigorously protested that it was Illogical to fire him for being Incompetent since he was the only person doing this work and there was no one else against who he was Competing. But they didn't listen. "You're not listening," they told him Sternly. But he didn't hear them. Evidently they had neglected to pay attention when he reminded them over and over he had a Listening Disability. Moulton got a new job as a Journalist, Speaking the Truth to Power. He wasn't expected to last long. Many people thought Moulton was Pathetic and a few Poked Fun at him. A few kept their counsel to themselves. One especially quiet and contemplative chap, who liked to go for Long Quiet Walks in the Woods, said very little in public. In fact, he never spoke a word to Moulton. He just quietly handed Moulton a freshly picked Mushroom. Moulton, of course, had no Idea what that Gesture meant. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- CopyLeft Barsoom Tork Associates The above erased posts are reported here for their research and news value, so that people may fairly judge for themselves the censorship practices of the community at which they were orginally posted.