On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
On 4/3/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the portrayal of Jim
was too cartoonish. I also thought the ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Further consideration (and apologies for responding to my own post):
Maybe I just engaged in a bit of "presentism" - that is, judging past
actions by standards of the present, which is often unjust.
I don't doubt that Mark Twain's writing and his portrayal of Jim was groundbreaking in his day. The fact that a black slave (Jim) was shown
as emotional, industrious, courageous and reasonably intelligent was
probably shocking and eye opening to Twain's audience at the time.
That's true even if the portrayal had a long way to go by present standards.
I reread _Huckleberry Finn_ as sort of prep work for the current novel _James_ which is, reportedly, the same story told from the slave's perspective. It's coming up soon on my list of books to read.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isI’d of thought much more likely due to the boom of Fixed/Single speed bikes is gone, they where the thing a decade or more ago.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
And likewise website based forums aren’t as popular as they used to, as the rise of more app based social media.
So folks have moved on.
So the value to update the software ie that ran a few forums isn’t there, I think the developer it was a one man operation was overreacting.
UK online safety act is clearly intended at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, but it’s probably poorly written, was the last government’s legislation even if it’s come into force now. And they were trying anything to get out of the hole they had dug!
Can’t see it being a priority to sort out by this government any time soon though!
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Seems very unlikely after all lots of people being rude to each other
happens on other places.
Roger Merriman
On 4/3/2025 10:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and
Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the
Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
I once lived in a state where one did not talk about the
"Civil War." Instead, it was called "The War of Northern
Aggression."
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking,
harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and
Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the
Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the
nearly complete obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far
superior volume to the forced and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's
among the most powerful anti racism works ever published,
but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the
portrayal of Jim was too cartoonish. I also thought the
ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
On 4/3/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online
content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether
personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking,
harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective*
and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of
which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer
and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the
Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the
nearly complete obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far
superior volume to the forced and anemic Tom Sawyer.
It's among the most powerful anti racism works ever
published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the
portrayal of Jim was too cartoonish. I also thought the
ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Further consideration (and apologies for responding to my
own post):
Maybe I just engaged in a bit of "presentism" - that is,
judging past actions by standards of the present, which is
often unjust.
I don't doubt that Mark Twain's writing and his portrayal of
Jim was groundbreaking in his day. The fact that a black
slave (Jim) was shown as emotional, industrious, courageous
and reasonably intelligent was probably shocking and eye
opening to Twain's audience at the time. That's true even if
the portrayal had a long way to go by present standards.
I reread _Huckleberry Finn_ as sort of prep work for the
current novel _James_ which is, reportedly, the same story
told from the slave's perspective. It's coming up soon on my
list of books to read.
On Thu Apr 3 11:29:05 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the portrayal of Jim
was too cartoonish. I also thought the ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
On 4/3/2025 10:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isI’d of thought much more likely due to the boom of Fixed/Single speed bikes
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
is gone, they where the thing a decade or more ago.
And likewise website based forums aren’t as popular as they used to, as the
rise of more app based social media.
So folks have moved on.
So the value to update the software ie that ran a few forums isn’t there, I
think the developer it was a one man operation was overreacting.
UK online safety act is clearly intended at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, >> but it’s probably poorly written, was the last government’s legislation >> even if it’s come into force now. And they were trying anything to get out >> of the hole they had dug!
Can’t see it being a priority to sort out by this government any time soon >> though!
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Seems very unlikely after all lots of people being rude to each other
happens on other places.
Roger Merriman
Not for long if Mr Starmer's administration has its way!
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isI’d of thought much more likely due to the boom of Fixed/Single speed bikes
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
is gone, they where the thing a decade or more ago.
And likewise website based forums aren’t as popular as they used to, as the
rise of more app based social media.
So folks have moved on.
So the value to update the software ie that ran a few forums isn’t there, I
think the developer it was a one man operation was overreacting.
UK online safety act is clearly intended at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, >>> but it’s probably poorly written, was the last government’s legislation >>> even if it’s come into force now. And they were trying anything to get out
of the hole they had dug!
Can’t see it being a priority to sort out by this government any time soon
though!
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Seems very unlikely after all lots of people being rude to each other
happens on other places.
Roger Merriman
Not for long if Mr Starmer's administration has its way!
This law has zero to do with him!
This is dishy Rishi’s work! Note this is time when the Prime Minister had been outlasted by a lettuce! And the Government was well not doing its job, but attempting to do anything that would make them popular, from cancelling the High speed rail service to laws like this.
This is all on the Tories, who had at that point a huge majority so didn’t require any support from any other party.
Roger Merriman
On 4/3/2025 12:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isI’d of thought much more likely due to the boom of Fixed/Single speed bikes
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
is gone, they where the thing a decade or more ago.
And likewise website based forums aren’t as popular as they used to, as the
rise of more app based social media.
So folks have moved on.
So the value to update the software ie that ran a few forums isn’t there, I
think the developer it was a one man operation was overreacting.
UK online safety act is clearly intended at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, >>>> but it’s probably poorly written, was the last government’s legislation
even if it’s come into force now. And they were trying anything to get out
of the hole they had dug!
Can’t see it being a priority to sort out by this government any time soon
though!
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Seems very unlikely after all lots of people being rude to each other
happens on other places.
Roger Merriman
Not for long if Mr Starmer's administration has its way!
This law has zero to do with him!
This is dishy Rishi’s work! Note this is time when the Prime Minister had >> been outlasted by a lettuce! And the Government was well not doing its job, >> but attempting to do anything that would make them popular, from cancelling >> the High speed rail service to laws like this.
This is all on the Tories, who had at that point a huge majority so didn’t >> require any support from any other party.
Roger Merriman
Thank you I did not know that.
Reportage I read at coffee earlier today said enforcement is
given to an UK agency called OFCOM who are empowered to fine
up to ten percent of a firm's annual revenues for violations.
Rules were first published in December 2024 with a 31 March
2025 enforcement date. Rules include a requirement that
online providers keep written paper records of assessments
for each incident to include the "nature and severity of
potential harm". Apply that to such areas as 'harassment' or
'stalking' and compliance becomes ridiculous, hence closure
of hundreds of providers and blocking of UK users by some EU
providers.
Perhaps as here, administrations come and go but the nanny
state, with its truncheons for subduing the citizenry,
continues on its own path.
On 4/3/2025 10:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and
Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the
Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
I once lived in a state where one did not talk about the
"Civil War." Instead, it was called "The War of Northern
Aggression."
Yes I recall that.
Further, the accepted term, north and south, before about
1900 was 'The War Between The States'.
And it's not an unique case. The Great Patriotic War is
known here as WWII (European Theater). The rest is known
elsewhere as The Great Pacific War.
On 4/3/2025 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online
content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether
personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking,
harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective*
and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of
which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer
and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the
Civil war will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the
nearly complete obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far
superior volume to the forced and anemic Tom Sawyer.
It's among the most powerful anti racism works ever
published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the
portrayal of Jim was too cartoonish. I also thought the
ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Further consideration (and apologies for responding to my
own post):
Maybe I just engaged in a bit of "presentism" - that is,
judging past actions by standards of the present, which is
often unjust.
I don't doubt that Mark Twain's writing and his portrayal of
Jim was groundbreaking in his day. The fact that a black
slave (Jim) was shown as emotional, industrious, courageous
and reasonably intelligent was probably shocking and eye
opening to Twain's audience at the time. That's true even if
the portrayal had a long way to go by present standards.
I reread _Huckleberry Finn_ as sort of prep work for the
current novel _James_ which is, reportedly, the same story
told from the slave's perspective. It's coming up soon on my
list of books to read.
Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for
grammar school age children or not?
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Apr 3 11:29:05 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will >>>>> soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the portrayal of Jim
was too cartoonish. I also thought the ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
On 4/3/2025 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will >>>>>> soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the
forced and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti
racism works ever published, but it's been banned in schools for
decades.
Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the portrayal of
Jim was too cartoonish. I also thought the ending was weak.
Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
Further consideration (and apologies for responding to my own post):
Maybe I just engaged in a bit of "presentism" - that is, judging past
actions by standards of the present, which is often unjust.
I don't doubt that Mark Twain's writing and his portrayal of Jim was
groundbreaking in his day. The fact that a black slave (Jim) was shown
as emotional, industrious, courageous and reasonably intelligent was
probably shocking and eye opening to Twain's audience at the time.
That's true even if the portrayal had a long way to go by present
standards.
I reread _Huckleberry Finn_ as sort of prep work for the current novel
_James_ which is, reportedly, the same story told from the slave's
perspective. It's coming up soon on my list of books to read.
Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for grammar school
age children or not?
Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion, of >course.
I don't know how kids' books are chosen, what the criteria and the
priorities are. If teachers want to delve into social issues, it seems
like there are infinite choices; and of course, there are certainly >non-social issues kids should be exposed to. But I'd have no trouble
with this book being one of the candidates.
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being
subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are
valid. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
On 4/3/2025 7:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being
subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are
valid. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal is
not to say that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are
areas for discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis,
coercion by those who could not prevail in argument).
To agree that the speed of light is constant
or that E=R/I
or whatever has no bearing on policy preferences, which are
not truths, have no single answer and are inherently personal.
Oh, and there can never be a lack of such, as long as we
remain human. Or as noted here recently, the dialectic is
eternal and cannot, by its nature, be permanently resolved.
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or
should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are valid. Nothing
can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
On 4/3/2025 3:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:13:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for grammar school >>>> age children or not?
Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion, of
course.
I don't know how kids' books are chosen, what the criteria and the
priorities are. If teachers want to delve into social issues, it seems
like there are infinite choices; and of course, there are certainly
non-social issues kids should be exposed to. But I'd have no trouble
with this book being one of the candidates.
"Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion,
of course."
Oh, yes, a little group thinking makes everything better (NOT!)
Oh Mr. Tricycle Rider! I made a couple posts earlier today that you
neglected to snark at! You're slipping!
Maybe your obsession with me faded for a bit?
...
No, that can't be it.
;-)
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:14:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being
subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are
valid. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.
Agreed.
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal is
not to say that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are
areas for discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis,
coercion by those who could not prevail in argument).
This was duly noted by Friedrich Nietzsche in about 1886: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche>
He postulated that "There are no facts, only interpretations".
Nietzsche is difficult to understand without context. I'm not going
to try to explain what he meant. This discussion might help: ><https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/bhywqw/what_does_nietzsche_mean_by_there_are_no_facts/>
Picking the nits and splitting the hairs:
To agree that the speed of light is constant
The speed of light is NOT constant because it slows down when it
masses through various substances. It's only constant in a vacuum and
in the absence of a magnetic field.
"Scientists Slowed Down Light by 10,000 Times in an Experiment" ><https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-slowed-down-light-by-10000-times-in-an-experiment>
or that E=R/I
Ohms Law is E = I * R
or
voltage = resistance times current
or whatever has no bearing on policy preferences, which are
not truths, have no single answer and are inherently personal.
There was once a bill in the Indiana state legislature that attempted
to change Pi to something more geometrically convenient. Fortunately,
it failed:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill>
See first paragraph. I seem to recall the tag line was something like
"Pi = 3.2 should be close enough for most purposes".
Oh, and there can never be a lack of such, as long as we
remain human. Or as noted here recently, the dialectic is
eternal and cannot, by its nature, be permanently resolved.
There are an infinite number of wrong answers, but only a finite
number of correct answers. By sheer weight of numbers, the wrong
answers are winning.
On 4/3/2025 7:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being
subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are
valid. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal is
not to say that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are
areas for discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis,
coercion by those who could not prevail in argument).
To agree that the speed of light is constant or that E=R/I
or whatever has no bearing on policy preferences, which are
not truths, have no single answer and are inherently personal.
Oh, and there can never be a lack of such, as long as we
remain human. Or as noted here recently, the dialectic is
eternal and cannot, by its nature, be permanently resolved.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:29:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:13:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for grammar school >>>>> age children or not?
Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion, of >>>> course.
I don't know how kids' books are chosen, what the criteria and the
priorities are. If teachers want to delve into social issues, it seems >>>> like there are infinite choices; and of course, there are certainly
non-social issues kids should be exposed to. But I'd have no trouble
with this book being one of the candidates.
"Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion,
of course."
Oh, yes, a little group thinking makes everything better (NOT!)
Some clarification:
I believe that when someone says, "lets discuss something," what they
mean is, "I want to change how you're thinking about it."
The fact that some people, me for instance, reject those kinds of
discussions really upsets you.
You get into "discussions" here on RBT but you never change anyone's opinions. Some people pay you the courtesy of countering your
arguments, but I generally don't even bother to read them.
Beyond the entertainment I get from watching you bluster and fume to
no avail, you're posts have absolutely no value.
Oh Mr. Tricycle Rider! I made a couple posts earlier today that you
neglected to snark at! You're slipping!
Maybe your obsession with me faded for a bit?
...
No, that can't be it.
;-)
"Maybe your obsession with me faded for a bit?"
Apparently, your obsession with me has not faded at all..
--
"Yeah, I like it, I love it, I want some more of it."
-- Tim Mcgraw
On 4/4/2025 4:00 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:29:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:13:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for grammar school >>>>>> age children or not?
Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion, of >>>>> course.
I don't know how kids' books are chosen, what the criteria and the
priorities are. If teachers want to delve into social issues, it seems >>>>> like there are infinite choices; and of course, there are certainly
non-social issues kids should be exposed to. But I'd have no trouble >>>>> with this book being one of the candidates.
"Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion,
of course."
Oh, yes, a little group thinking makes everything better (NOT!)
Some clarification:
I believe that when someone says, "lets discuss something," what they
mean is, "I want to change how you're thinking about it."
The fact that some people, me for instance, reject those kinds of
discussions really upsets you.
You get into "discussions" here on RBT but you never change anyone's
opinions. Some people pay you the courtesy of countering your
arguments, but I generally don't even bother to read them.
Beyond the entertainment I get from watching you bluster and fume to
no avail, you're posts have absolutely no value.
Oh Mr. Tricycle Rider! I made a couple posts earlier today that you
neglected to snark at! You're slipping!
Maybe your obsession with me faded for a bit?
...
No, that can't be it.
;-)
"Maybe your obsession with me faded for a bit?"
Apparently, your obsession with me has not faded at all..
--
"Yeah, I like it, I love it, I want some more of it."
-- Tim Mcgraw
Regarding:
"I believe that when someone says, "lets discuss something,"
what they mean is, "I want to change how you're thinking
about it."
That's how we learn things.
Either an affirmation of our original tenet, an exposure to
other arguments for and against, or a new way of viewing the
question which can change our own opinion.
That process is not limited to conversation but applies
equally to essays and books. (I suppose video if you can
stand the signal to noise ratio).
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:02:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or
should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are valid. Nothing
can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
Opinions are subjective by definition, therefore an opinion is valid
for the person who has it, regardless of someone else's disagreement
or approval.
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.One of my favorite quotes:
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal is not to say
that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are areas for
discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis, coercion by those who could
not prevail in argument).
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 04:52:31 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:02:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or >>>>> should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are valid. Nothing >>>can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
Opinions are subjective by definition, therefore an opinion is valid
for the person who has it, regardless of someone else's disagreement
or approval.
Even expert opinions are often wrong: ><https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
I have this within easy reach to remind me not to get over-confident.
It always amazes me when I'm asked to render a "quick" opinion (or
guess) rather than wait for me to do the research necessary to produce
a proper and more accurate answer. Trust, but verify.
On 4/3/2025 9:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being
subjective. Or should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are
valid. Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.
Sorry you're annoyed, but in interactions between two
strongly opinionated people, I suppose it's common that one
becomes annoyed. And it's more likely to be the one whose
strongly held opinion is wrong.
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal
is not to say that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are
areas for discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis,
coercion by those who could not prevail in argument).
As I see it, "policy preferences" are generally opinions on
the outcomes of proposed policies. And those certainly can
be correct or wrong.
There was once a policy preference for invading Iraq. As I
recall, the prediction was that the Iraqis would welcome us
with flowers. That turned out to be very wrong.
There was and still is some policy preference for lowering
taxes (the Laffer Curve) as a way to increase government
income and lower deficits. That was very wrong - although
many are carefully ignoring proven history and still pushing
it. (I suspect they don't really believe it, but want
personal benefits for themselves and their wealthy allies.)
And back to opinions as opposed to policies: For a long time
there were opinions strongly expressed in this group that
bike frames that restricted tire sizes to 23mm were
significantly faster. I think few now believe that opinion
was true.
To agree that the speed of light is constant or that E=R/I
or whatever has no bearing on policy preferences, which
are not truths, have no single answer and are inherently
personal.
Some things are correct, some things are wrong. E is not
equal to R/I.
On 4/3/2025 9:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:58 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you have spent a great deal of your life being subjective. Or >>>>> should I say, strongly opinionated?
WTF??
I consider 'strongly opinionated' to be a compliment.
As opposed to "All truth is subjective. All opinions are valid.
Nothing can be known. Ommmmmm....." ;-)
You continually consistently and annoyingly misstate that.
Sorry you're annoyed, but in interactions between two strongly
opinionated people, I suppose it's common that one becomes annoyed. And
it's more likely to be the one whose strongly held opinion is wrong.
To observe that personal opinions are, in fact, personal is not to say
that nothing is true.
But policy preferences from agreed undisputed facts are areas for
discussion and persuasion (or, in extremis, coercion by those who could
not prevail in argument).
As I see it, "policy preferences" are generally opinions on the outcomes
of proposed policies. And those certainly can be correct or wrong.
There was once a policy preference for invading Iraq. As I recall, the >prediction was that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers. That
turned out to be very wrong.
There was and still is some policy preference for lowering taxes (the
Laffer Curve) as a way to increase government income and lower deficits.
That was very wrong - although many are carefully ignoring proven
history and still pushing it. (I suspect they don't really believe it,
but want personal benefits for themselves and their wealthy allies.)
And back to opinions as opposed to policies: For a long time there were >opinions strongly expressed in this group that bike frames that
restricted tire sizes to 23mm were significantly faster. I think few now >believe that opinion was true.
To agree that the speed of light is constant or that E=R/I or whatever
has no bearing on policy preferences, which are not truths, have no
single answer and are inherently personal.
Some things are correct, some things are wrong. E is not equal to R/I.
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds toYou're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean
they want to change your mind about it.
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_
mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it."
It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's
true."
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about
snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds toYou're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean
they want to change your mind about it.
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_
mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's
true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person
comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
No, sorry, you're displaying more gross inexperience with intellectual >interaction. Details of verbiage are not a key toward interpreting
someone's attitude. Tone of voice, body language, facial expressions
etc. are much better indicators.
By your own accounts, you get very
little experience with those indicators because of your compulsive >self-isolation.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about
snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
By the way, I don't snarl, I simply ignore. Snarling at a passing
bicyclist would be a waste of breath.
And so would returning a friendly "hello," by your standards.
You can't
understand how weird and unhealthy that attitude is.
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds toYou're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean
they want to change your mind about it.
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_
mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's
true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person
comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about
snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds toYou're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean >>>>> they want to change your mind about it.
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_ >>>> mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's
true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person
comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
Which is only because you regard personal interactions of any type as a >personal affront. It's a characteristic of narcissism.
It's obviously
never occured to you that they may be interested in understanding your >position.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about
snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
"how dare you give me a friendly hello"...JFC what an asshole.
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:37:30 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds to >>>>>> another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean >>>>>> they want to change your mind about it.You're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_ >>>>> mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>>>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's >>>>> true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person
comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
Which is only because you regard personal interactions of any type as a
personal affront. It's a characteristic of narcissism.
Poor Junior doesn't understand what narcissism is all about.
Narcissists seek out personal interactions. Their self image depends
on them....
It's obviously
never occured to you that they may be interested in understanding your
position.
Asking a person to further explain their opinion is definitely an
intrusion.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about >>>>> snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>>>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
"how dare you give me a friendly hello"...JFC what an asshole.
I'm open to a "good morning," but if a stranger walks up to me on the
street and says "hello," I'll assume there's something wrong with
him/her. On a bike ride, an open handed wave is the best I can do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:37:30 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds to >>>>>>> another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean >>>>>>> they want to change your mind about it.You're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_ >>>>>> mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>>>>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's >>>>>> true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person >>>>> comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
Which is only because you regard personal interactions of any type as a
personal affront. It's a characteristic of narcissism.
Poor Junior doesn't understand what narcissism is all about.
Narcissists seek out personal interactions. Their self image depends
on them....
It's obviously
never occured to you that they may be interested in understanding your
position.
Asking a person to further explain their opinion is definitely an
intrusion.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about >>>>>> snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>>>>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
"how dare you give me a friendly hello"...JFC what an asshole.
I'm open to a "good morning," but if a stranger walks up to me on the
street and says "hello," I'll assume there's something wrong with
him/her. On a bike ride, an open handed wave is the best I can do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Thats more like the myth of Londoners not being friendly ie strangers not >striking up brief conversations, I frequently do just part of being human.
Doesnt mean folks chat to all folks ones encounters, but having a >conversation with a stranger is very normal to happen.
I had 2 or 3 with folks we encountered on todays club run, ie horse >riders/dog walkers and so on, and thats normal not just for me but for >people in general.
Ie dont make the error of thinking you and your experience and
expectations are normal.
Roger Merriman
That’s more like the myth of Londoners not being friendly ie strangers not striking up brief conversations, I frequently do just part of being human.
Doesn’t mean folks chat to all folks ones encounters, but having a conversation with a stranger is very normal to happen.
On 4/5/2025 6:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Thats more like the myth of Londoners not being friendly ie strangers not >> striking up brief conversations, I frequently do just part of being human. >>
Doesnt mean folks chat to all folks ones encounters, but having a
conversation with a stranger is very normal to happen.
Last time I was in London, and I was walking down the street, as I
passed by people I let them know what I had to eat for breakfast, how I
felt, what I did the night before, and what I planned to to do later.
I handed people pictures of my family, my cat, my dog, and me doing some
of my favorite things.
If they were talking to someone else then I would stop to listen to
their conversation and then I would give them a "thumbs up" and let them
know I liked what they were saying.
On 4/5/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:39:36 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>:-) Mr. Tricycle Rider doesn't have enough experience interacting with >people to recognize a sarcastic joke!
wrote:
On 4/5/2025 6:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Thats more like the myth of Londoners not being friendly ie strangers not >>>> striking up brief conversations, I frequently do just part of being human. >>>>
Doesnt mean folks chat to all folks ones encounters, but having a
conversation with a stranger is very normal to happen.
Last time I was in London, and I was walking down the street, as I
passed by people I let them know what I had to eat for breakfast, how I
felt, what I did the night before, and what I planned to to do later.
I handed people pictures of my family, my cat, my dog, and me doing some >>> of my favorite things.
If they were talking to someone else then I would stop to listen to
their conversation and then I would give them a "thumbs up" and let them >>> know I liked what they were saying.
That's very weird
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
floriduh dumbass wrote::
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:37:30 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 2:36 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:53:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There are many ways to learn things, but when a person responds to >>>>>>> another's stated opinion with, "lets discuss that," it can only mean >>>>>>> they want to change your mind about it.You're demonstrating gross inexperience with intellectual human
interaction.
"Let's discuss that" does not "only mean" anything. It may _sometimes_ >>>>>> mean they hope to change your mind. But it may also mean "That's
interesting, and there's much to explore so we can learn more about it." >>>>>> It may mean "I agree, and I'd like to review reasons why I think it's >>>>>> true."
If a person was open to a discussion, they'd probably say someting
like, "here's an idea, lets discuss it. On the other hand, a person
stating an opinion is not suggesting a discussion. If another person >>>>> comes along and says "lets discuss that," they're looking to change
your mind.
Which is only because you regard personal interactions of any type as a
personal affront. It's a characteristic of narcissism.
Poor Junior doesn't understand what narcissism is all about.
Narcissists seek out personal interactions. Their self image depends
on them....
It's obviously
never occured to you that they may be interested in understanding your
position.
Asking a person to further explain their opinion is definitely an
intrusion.
It may mean many things. But since you're a person who bragged about >>>>>> snarling at strangers who have said "Hello" on your bike trail, it's not >>>>>> surprising that you see "Let's discuss that" as an attack.
Not neccesarily an attack, but most certainly an incursion.
"how dare you give me a friendly hello"...JFC what an asshole.
I'm open to a "good morning," but if a stranger walks up to me on the
street and says "hello," I'll assume there's something wrong with
him/her.
On a bike ride, an open handed wave is the best I can do.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 10:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isI’d of thought much more likely due to the boom of Fixed/Single speed bikes
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
is gone, they where the thing a decade or more ago.
And likewise website based forums aren’t as popular as they used to, as the
rise of more app based social media.
So folks have moved on.
So the value to update the software ie that ran a few forums isn’t there, I
think the developer it was a one man operation was overreacting.
UK online safety act is clearly intended at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, >>> but it’s probably poorly written, was the last government’s legislation >>> even if it’s come into force now. And they were trying anything to get out
of the hole they had dug!
Can’t see it being a priority to sort out by this government any time soon
though!
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Seems very unlikely after all lots of people being rude to each other
happens on other places.
Roger Merriman
Not for long if Mr Starmer's administration has its way!
This law has zero to do with him!
This is dishy Rishi’s work! Note this is time when the Prime Minister had been outlasted by a lettuce!
And the Government was well not doing its job,
but attempting to do anything that would make them popular, from cancelling the High speed rail service to laws like this.
This is all on the Tories, who had at that point a huge majority so didn’t require any support from any other party.
Roger Merriman
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works >>>> ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced >>>>> and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works >>>>> ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go >>>> to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
yes it is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:yes it is.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>> will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced >>>>>> and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works >>>>>> ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go >>>>> to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children? >>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:yes it is.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>> will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced >>>>>>> and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works >>>>>>> ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go >>>>>> to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children? >>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for
what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the
mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against
the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:yes it is.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny >>>>>>>>>> state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content >>>>>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or >>>>>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and >>>>>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which >>>>>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>>> will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced >>>>>>>> and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works >>>>>>>> ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go >>>>>>> to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be >>>>>> right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children? >>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for
what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the
mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against
the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
Some are more defensible than others.
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong. But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.
On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a >>>>>>>>> problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is >>>>>>>>>>>> among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny >>>>>>>>>>>> state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought >>>>>>>>>>>> to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation >>>>>>>>>>>> makes online providers fully responsible for online content >>>>>>>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or >>>>>>>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>>>>> will
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and >>>>>>>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which >>>>>>>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all >>>>>>>>>>>> activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on >>>>>>>>>>>> RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation. >>>>>>>>>>> A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another. >>>>>>>>>>> Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>>>>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades. >>>>>>>>>
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be >>>>>>>> right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
yes it is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for
what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the
mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against >>>> the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
Some are more defensible than others.
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong. But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the
world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, yes but that's a low standard. And not helpful
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) isA week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny >>>>>>>>>>> state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought >>>>>>>>>>> to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation >>>>>>>>>>> makes online providers fully responsible for online content >>>>>>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or >>>>>>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and >>>>>>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which >>>>>>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all >>>>>>>>>>> activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on >>>>>>>>>>> RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>>>> will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete >>>>>>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced >>>>>>>>> and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go >>>>>>>> to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be >>>>>>> right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
yes it is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for
what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the
mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against
the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
Some are more defensible than others.
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong. But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the
world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:27:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a >>>>>>>>>> problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is >>>>>>>>>>>>> among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny >>>>>>>>>>>>> state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought >>>>>>>>>>>>> to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes online providers fully responsible for online content >>>>>>>>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or >>>>>>>>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>>>>>> will
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and >>>>>>>>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all >>>>>>>>>>>>> activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on >>>>>>>>>>>>> RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation. >>>>>>>>>>>> A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in >>>>>>>>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another. >>>>>>>>>>>> Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades. >>>>>>>>>>
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be >>>>>>>>> right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
Exactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
yes it is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for >>>>> what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the >>>>> mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against >>>>> the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
Some are more defensible than others.
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong. But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the
world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, yes but that's a low standard. And not helpful
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:27:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the
world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, yes but that's a low standard. And not helpful
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:27:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey ShoumanExactly. Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a >>>>>>>>>>> problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state. Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes online providers fully responsible for online content >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity and more have followed.
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
soon be unmentionable in polite society.
Yes, there's that. And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades. >>>>>>>>>>>
to Hell".
But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be >>>>>>>>>> right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it? >>>>>>>>>
yes it is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Sometimes.
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs" covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for >>>>>> what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the >>>>>> mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against >>>>>> the consequences?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
Some are more defensible than others.
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong. But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the >>>> world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, yes but that's a low standard. And not helpful
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your
happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life.
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:Poor wording.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP >>>>> per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing >>>>> life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it, >>>> please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your
happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it. >>>
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other
experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life.
And where did you get the information that they had no other life
experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They
arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more
then when they arrived.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I seems that the level of happiness was partly determined by polling a
random sample of the residents of the various countries.
"To determine the world’s happiest country, researchers analyzed comprehensive Gallup polling data from 143 countries for the past
three years, specifically monitoring performance in six particular categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy
life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of
the general population, and perceptions of internal and external
corruption levels."
From that perspective, I would think that the Democratic People's
Republic of (North) Korea would be the happiest country. Just ask any
DPRK resident and they would likely claim they are extremely happy
with conditions in their country. Of course, if they answered
anything else, they would immediately be invited to visit the nearest re-education center for an attitude re-adjustment.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:Poor wording.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP >>>>> per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing >>>>> life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it, >>>> please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your
happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it. >>>
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other
experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life.
And where did you get the information that they had no other life
experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They
arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more
then when they arrived.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I seems that the level of happiness was partly determined by polling a
random sample of the residents of the various countries.
"To determine the worlds happiest country, researchers analyzed >comprehensive Gallup polling data from 143 countries for the past
three years, specifically monitoring performance in six particular >categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy
life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of
the general population, and perceptions of internal and external
corruption levels."
From that perspective, I would think that the Democratic People's
Republic of (North) Korea would be the happiest country. Just ask any
DPRK resident and they would likely claim they are extremely happy
with conditions in their country. Of course, if they answered
anything else, they would immediately be invited to visit the nearest >re-education center for an attitude re-adjustment.
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I seems that the level of happiness was partly determined by polling a
random sample of the residents of the various countries.
"To determine the worlds happiest country, researchers analyzed
comprehensive Gallup polling data from 143 countries for the past
three years, specifically monitoring performance in six particular
categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy
life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of
the general population, and perceptions of internal and external
corruption levels."
From that perspective, I would think that the Democratic People's
Republic of (North) Korea would be the happiest country. Just ask any
DPRK resident and they would likely claim they are extremely happy
with conditions in their country. Of course, if they answered
anything else, they would immediately be invited to visit the nearest
re-education center for an attitude re-adjustment.
The citizens of the nordic countries that routinely top the list aren't >likely to get thrown in prison for criticizing their society.
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If there were none, it would not be conventional!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I seems that the level of happiness was partly determined by polling a
random sample of the residents of the various countries.
"To determine the worlds happiest country, researchers analyzed
comprehensive Gallup polling data from 143 countries for the past
three years, specifically monitoring performance in six particular
categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy
life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of
the general population, and perceptions of internal and external
corruption levels."
From that perspective, I would think that the Democratic People's
Republic of (North) Korea would be the happiest country. Just ask any
DPRK resident and they would likely claim they are extremely happy
with conditions in their country. Of course, if they answered
anything else, they would immediately be invited to visit the nearest
re-education center for an attitude re-adjustment.
The citizens of the nordic countries that routinely top the list aren't >likely to get thrown in prison for criticizing their society.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP >>>>>>> per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom,
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have >>>>>>> never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing >>>>>>> life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people >>>>>> who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it, >>>>>> please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other
experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life.
And where did you get the information that they had no other life
experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They
arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more
then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a
Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and
there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American
girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious
place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of
shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:23:45 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you.
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?" >>>>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, >>>>>>>>> generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have >>>>>>>>> never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people >>>>>>>> who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other >>>>>>> experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life.
And where did you get the information that they had no other life
experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They
arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more
then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a
Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and
there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American
girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious
place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of
shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people are happy
in their home land.
As above. " Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who
have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present
life."
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:56:07 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2025 7:50 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:23:45 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, >>>>>>>>>>> generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have >>>>>>>>>>> never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other >>>>>>>>> experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life. >>>>>>>>
And where did you get the information that they had no other life >>>>>>>> experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They >>>>>>> arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more >>>>>>> then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a
Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and
there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American >>>>> girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious
place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of
shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people are happy >>>> in their home land.
As above. " Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who
have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present
life."
Your example directly contradicts that.
You're using an example od tourists in your country not being savvy
enough to understand local customs, then stating the respondents to the
survey "have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their
present life"
The two literally contradict each other.
Tell me, if you were to approach a building in a strange country that
had 50 or 60 pairs of shoes in front of the only entrance you can see
would you ask someone, "do I have to take my shoes off ?"
Or, assuming you are a brilliant thinker, to ask "why"?
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:56:07 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2025 7:50 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:23:45 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, >>>>>>>>>>> generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have >>>>>>>>>>> never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other >>>>>>>>> experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life. >>>>>>>>
And where did you get the information that they had no other life >>>>>>>> experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They >>>>>>> arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more >>>>>>> then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a
Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and
there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American >>>>> girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious
place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of
shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people are happy >>>> in their home land.
As above. " Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who
have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present
life."
Your example directly contradicts that.
You're using an example od tourists in your country not being savvy
enough to understand local customs, then stating the respondents to the
survey "have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their
present life"
The two literally contradict each other.
Tell me, if you were to approach a building in a strange country that
had 50 or 60 pairs of shoes in front of the only entrance you can see
would you ask someone, "do I have to take my shoes off ?"
Or, assuming you are a brilliant thinker, to ask "why"?
On 4/9/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:56:07 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2025 7:50 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:23:45 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, >>>>>>>>>>>> generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>>>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other >>>>>>>>>> experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life. >>>>>>>>>
And where did you get the information that they had no other life >>>>>>>>> experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They >>>>>>>> arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more >>>>>>>> then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a
Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and >>>>>> there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American >>>>>> girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious >>>>>> place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of >>>>>> shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people are happy >>>>> in their home land.
As above. " Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who
have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present >>>> life."
Your example directly contradicts that.
You're using an example od tourists in your country not being savvy
enough to understand local customs, then stating the respondents to the
survey "have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their
present life"
The two literally contradict each other.
Tell me, if you were to approach a building in a strange country that
had 50 or 60 pairs of shoes in front of the only entrance you can see
would you ask someone, "do I have to take my shoes off ?"
Or, assuming you are a brilliant thinker, to ask "why"?
Which has literally nothing to do with whether your happy in your own >country.
-0400, zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/9/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:56:07 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2025 7:50 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:23:45 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:22:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 10:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:59:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:54:43 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 05:19:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:I looked up how they rated "happiness"and it seems to be based on, GDP
On 4/7/2025 5:52 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
But where are the people who are happy with "convention?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idealists, Libertarians and jihadis. Over to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, >>>>>>>>>>>>> generosity, and corruption.
From, reading their site
https://worldhappiness.report/faq/
it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have
never lived in foreign countries and thus are not capable of comparing
life here wit life over there.
I don't know where you got that, I don't see any reference to 'people
who have never lived in other countries'. If it's there and I missed it,
please post the reference.
Be that as it may, it isn't really relevant. If you're happy, your >>>>>>>>>>>> happy. whether you've lived somewhere else really doesn't factor into it.
Poor wording.
Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who have no other >>>>>>>>>>> experiences which they can use to evaluate their present life. >>>>>>>>>>
And where did you get the information that they had no other life >>>>>>>>>> experiences?>
It's pretty obvious. Just look at the average U.S, tourist. They >>>>>>>>> arrive knowing nothing about the country and leave knowing no more >>>>>>>>> then when they arrived.
Not obvious at all.
Not obvious? Even a simple thing like not wearing your shoes in a >>>>>>> Temple is beyond them. My wife and I visited the Wat Pho temple and >>>>>>> there must have been 50 pairs of shoes at the entrance and an American >>>>>>> girl was asking her mother, "Do I have to take my shoes off?"
Now I do understand that taking ones shoes off to enter a religious >>>>>>> place is perhaps unique to some places in Asia but the 50 pairs of >>>>>>> shoes at the entrance might have been a clue that something is
different here. Or not?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people are happy >>>>>> in their home land.
As above. " Second try: the level of satisfaction of citizens who
have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their present >>>>> life."
Your example directly contradicts that.
You're using an example od tourists in your country not being savvy
enough to understand local customs, then stating the respondents to the >>>> survey "have no other experiences which they can use to evaluate their >>>> present life"
The two literally contradict each other.
Tell me, if you were to approach a building in a strange country that
had 50 or 60 pairs of shoes in front of the only entrance you can see
would you ask someone, "do I have to take my shoes off ?"
Or, assuming you are a brilliant thinker, to ask "why"?
Which has literally nothing to do with whether your happy in your own
country.
You missed the part that said, "it seems to be more of a level of satisfaction of citizens who have never lived in foreign countries and
thus are not capable of comparing life here with life over there."?
For example, Thailand has free medical care, if you had been exposedMaybe, it depends on the quality of the service.
to totally free medical care would you be satisfied with the current
U..S. system?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 30:37:05 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,097 |