PDA

View Full Version : windows source code leaked!



chesslover
13-02-2004, 04:15 PM
Poor microsoft

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37648-2004Feb12.html

it seems that the source code for win 2000 and NT has been illegally leaked in the internet. In addition to providing a severe security breach, it also infringes on the intellectual rights of Microsoft

People forget that Microsoft is a big public company, with people working there and numerous shareholders. All of these people suffer when they attack Microsoft like this :mad:

There is no difference between people who commit this crime, and those who rob banks, and indeed the costs of the former are far worse in terms of economic impact.

skip to my lou
13-02-2004, 04:54 PM
YAY!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

eclectic
13-02-2004, 05:12 PM
YAY!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
please correct me if i'm wrong but ...

isn't microsoft's origin nestled in the "appropriation" of "technologies" from competitors in the late 70's and early 80's ?

poetic justice ?

:whistle:

eclectic

eclectic
13-02-2004, 05:22 PM
There is no difference between people who commit this crime, and those who rob banks, and indeed the costs of the former are far worse in terms of economic impact.
sure,

and there's no difference between killing infants who are still inside their mothers' wombs and killing those who have succeeded in entering the world at large


i know that topic is in another thread but some might find my comparison about what what constitutes a crime and what doesn't "interesting" to say the least

eclectic

firegoat7
13-02-2004, 05:43 PM
All knowledge should be public property based on one simple premise. You learn and live in a society that has taught you everything you know. Therefore claims by Microsoft and other capitalist dictatorships that they have exclusive rights over intellectual propert rights are nothing more then obscene appropriations of intellectual heritage. I mean let us all face reality here, not the construction we are taught to believe.

We all share language. We all learn and contribute to mathematics. The materials that make computers come from the earth. Workers produce all sorts of goods for society. Our society has a shared historical heritage that allowed us to arrive at this point in time. Every single person in society deserves to reap the legacy of everything that all previous generations have produced.

When people learn to identify who the real criminals are in society, then we may witness a new age. An age where corporate bullies are recognised for what they are. Anti-social misfits that destroy all semblance of civilised existence.

I applaud the hackers. I also applaud the fact that they target monopolistic capitalist dictatorships like Microsoft. I also applaud their genuine attempts to make knowledge available to all people. A service that is genuinely social and nurturing.

FG7

PHAT
13-02-2004, 07:28 PM
FG, you just went up several notches in my eyes.

Try:

http://www.n-a-n-o.com/ipr/extro2/extro2mk.html#Heading10

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2004, 10:18 PM
Firstly, I'll just say that when stuff like this happens Micro$oft get what is coming to them. The way they dominate the market with products that are often patently mediocre is one of the reasons why I am not a laissez-faire capitalist but instead support intervention in the interests of competition and taxes in the interests of welfare.

However some of my fellow Micro$oft bashers on this thread strike me as going too far in the other direction:


All knowledge should be public property based on one simple premise. You learn and live in a society that has taught you everything you know.

Sorry, that's way too Mutual Obligation for my liking. :p If a person gets rich off their ideas they will more than repay society through the tax system anyway (or if they manage to rort that completely, perhaps through consumption.) Also, some of the learning is through the free exchange of ideas outside the education system (hence no obligation) and, increasingly, a person (or their parents) will pay for some of their education anyway. Also, I can think of plenty of things I know that no-one ever taught me, it's called research.

I like the idea that a person good at coming up with ideas can use that to make themselves a comfortable living, at least. Indeed, if they can't, a lot of ideas won't become public because the thinker will be too busy earning a living the same way everyone else does and won't have time to come up with much. So from that perspective I'd generally defend IP - but in cases like Gates making his stash off something so average for what it is and what he has, I'd like to see some changes.


Every single person in society deserves to reap the legacy of everything that all previous generations have produced.

I wouldn't say everything, I'd say a lot more than at present, 'fied my way I'd put a cap on inheritances and raise taxes for the mega-rich to acheive these ends. Anything that would stop Paris Hilton being considered a noteworthy person would have to have something going for it.


I applaud the hackers. I also applaud the fact that they target monopolistic capitalist dictatorships like Microsoft. I also applaud their genuine attempts to make knowledge available to all people. A service that is genuinely social and nurturing.

Wonder if that was their real motive. They could have just been agents of another corporation. :eek:

skip to my lou
13-02-2004, 10:24 PM
Or it could just be a stunt from microsoft, so that you look forward to longhorn.

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:10 AM
The people in the BB have NO RESPECT for the rules of law and civilisation :mad:

What about Microsoft? Microsoft is not an evil entity, but a company with employees, suppliers, and shareholders.

Thsi action will cause the long term value of Microsoft to go down, and affect shareholdewrs. I am a Microsoftshareholder, and thanks to this dispicable action by the hackers, my shares, as well as millions of others will go down. And we are ordinary middle calss people - not super rich as Bill Gates :mad:

What about the employees of microsoft? their families? the suppliers and others who depend on Microsoft? their families? Do people who applaud this irresponsbile CRIMINAL act think about these? :mad:

How would you feel if you work hard at something, and then someone publishes all that info in the internet? :mad:

Hopefully Microsoft will be able to contain this, and have refused to say what the source code is about. I Think it is time that thew courts take internet crime seriously and start handing out stiff sentences. I also hope that Microsoft starts to sue people in civil courts, and go after everything that they have, their family have, so that this acts as a deterrent to other criminals who view Microsoft as a legitimate target. It is a CRIME - nothing more, nothing less, and the FBI are investigating as well

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 12:14 PM
chesslover did you read my previous message?

Did you know Microsoft is KNOWN for pulling such stunts? Example: the credit card fraud stunt? And then they release .NET framework! :hmm:

Now Longhorn has been in testing, and suddenly NT and 2000 code suddenly is leaked. :hmm:

Anyway I feel sorry for you, since you seem to pay for your software. :uhoh:

chesslover
14-02-2004, 05:42 PM
chesslover did you read my previous message?

Did you know Microsoft is KNOWN for pulling such stunts? Example: the credit card fraud stunt? And then they release .NET framework! :hmm:

Now Longhorn has been in testing, and suddenly NT and 2000 code suddenly is leaked. :hmm:

Anyway I feel sorry for you, since you seem to pay for your software. :uhoh:

People have a hatred towards Microsoft that seems to be just plain crazy. In every thing that Microsoft does they see an evil conspiracy

Microsft is a public company, the worlds's most valuable by market capitalisation and has millions of shareholders and supernanuation funds holding it's shares. It is governed by a board that has to follow corporate governance practices.

When source codes get leaked it is not a Microsoft initiated conspiracy. It is also not a victimless crime - it is a CRIME and Microsoft will be fully within their right to initiate civil suits in addition to the criminal prosecution

PHAT
14-02-2004, 05:50 PM
CL,

What is monopoly power?

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 06:04 PM
People have a hatred towards Microsoft that seems to be just plain crazy. In every thing that Microsoft does they see an evil conspiracy

Microsft is a public company, the worlds's most valuable by market capitalisation and has millions of shareholders and supernanuation funds holding it's shares. It is governed by a board that has to follow corporate governance practices.

When source codes get leaked it is not a Microsoft initiated conspiracy. It is also not a victimless crime - it is a CRIME and Microsoft will be fully within their right to initiate civil suits in addition to the criminal prosecution
If there was a prize for dumbass of the year, I would award it to you right away.

Damn it, you DO NOT understand. Shareholders etc will only benefit from this.

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 06:07 PM
Poor microsoft

:eh: :eh: :eh:

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 06:22 PM
Thsi action will cause the long term value of Microsoft to go down, and affect shareholdewrs. I am a Microsoftshareholder, and thanks to this dispicable action by the hackers, my shares, as well as millions of others will go down. And we are ordinary middle calss people - not super rich as Bill Gates :mad:

CL, I said this before on the Telstra thread, if you don't want your shares to sometimes go down due to all kinds of actions against a company, pick a company that does well but doesn't annoy so many people.

Though apparently "vice funds" can be very profitable.

chesslover
14-02-2004, 06:31 PM
CL, I said this before on the Telstra thread, if you don't want your shares to sometimes go down due to all kinds of actions against a company, pick a company that does well but doesn't annoy so many people.

Though apparently "vice funds" can be very profitable.

may i point out to you, that if you are a member of a superannuation scheme, it is very likely that your scheme invests in domestic and overseas shares.

This would mean that as a result of the market capitalisation of microsoft, you probbaly own some Microsoft shares anyway - as well as Telstra, Exxon, BHP and even the right wing News Corp (and it's Fox News in USA)!!!

:p

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 06:36 PM
I assume you have resigned and do not have an answer to my post. GG.

firegoat7
15-02-2004, 03:00 PM
Mr Bonham wrote:
Also, I can think of plenty of things I know that no-one ever taught me, it's called research. :wall: One day you may be struck down from your ivory delusions Mr Bonham. Nobody ever suggested human beings were not capable of free thought. What was suggested is that people should not delude themselves into believing everything is of their own making. When you do research- How did you acquire the tools to research?

I mean who clothed,sheltered,fed your stomach,fed your mind,engaged in converstaion with you, bothered replying to your bulletin board posts, made your coffee, printed your books, played chess with you, tucked you into bed, taught you manners, shared language with you, named your being, gave you history, produced art for you, repaired your body when you were sick, socialised you, laughed with you etc etc etc.

Was it aliens? Did you spontaneously appear in this world through your own efforts?

Or was it other human beings?

Gandalf
15-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Couldn't help the way this thread flitted from mortality morality to macroeconomics. :)

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 06:21 PM
I assume you have resigned and do not have an answer to my post. GG.
Don't you mean CL and not GG, given GG has not posted in this thread.

skip to my lou
15-02-2004, 06:27 PM
Don't you mean CL and not GG, given GG has not posted in this thread.

:eh: GG = good game :owned:

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 08:02 PM
:eh: GG = good game :owned:
That wasnt exactly obvious. :whistle:

skip to my lou
15-02-2004, 08:39 PM
I said "I assume you have resigned", GG.

:hmm: :doh:

chesslover
15-02-2004, 08:54 PM
That wasnt exactly obvious. :whistle:
It was VERY obvious to me that GG meant good game

especially so when the preceding sentence, was "assume you have resigned", which meant that he was talking about it in a chess context

:p

Gandalf
15-02-2004, 08:56 PM
It has become a very well known abbreviation used primarily on the internet and computer-based games. Even Solitaire Showdown players understand the implications of "GG". :)

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 09:26 PM
One day you may be struck down from your ivory delusions Mr[sic] Bonham.

In this case there are no delusions except your typically shoddy and craven attempt to blame your sloppy writing on me.

You said "You learn and live in a society that has taught you everything you know."

If I learnt one single thing from somewhere other than "society" then your statement is falsified.

You should have said "You learn and live in a society that has taught you most of the most important things you know". That would have been much easier to defend.

In fact, as your disingenuity includes forms never yet encountered in any other human being, you are walking proof that your own statement is false. :boohoo:


What was suggested is that people should not delude themselves into believing everything is of their own making.

Then you should have said that, instead of saying something far more extreme and totally different.


fed your mind,engaged in converstaion with you, bothered replying to your bulletin board posts

Feel free to desist from any of these. :p

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 09:30 PM
This would mean that as a result of the market capitalisation of microsoft, you probbaly own some Microsoft shares anyway - as well as Telstra, Exxon, BHP and even the right wing News Corp (and it's Fox News in USA)!!!

Doesn't bother me if I do. Despite your palpitations whenever some stirrer knocks a decimal point off your share values, I'm sure investment in many such companies remains quite profitable.

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 10:10 PM
I said "I assume you have resigned", GG.

:hmm: :doh:
Actually I was surprised he didnt abuse you for calling him a dumbass. :whistle:

skip to my lou
15-02-2004, 10:18 PM
Actually I was surprised he didnt abuse you for calling him a dumbass. :whistle:

The truth hurts.

firegoat7
15-02-2004, 10:41 PM
Dear Mr Bonham,

It is still apparent that you fail to make the mental connection when you write:
If I learnt one single thing from somewhere other than "society" then your statement is falsified. Since you are in all likelyhood an individual who has free thought. Like I said before...
Nobody ever suggested human beings were not capable of free thought. Prehaps you might want me to repeat that...
Nobody ever suggested human beings were not capable of free thought. and maybe just one more time so you do not have the convenient excuse of ignoring the statement...
Nobody ever suggested human beings were not capable of free thought. The point you miss Mr Bonham is that for YOU to actually learn one single thing as you claim from somewhere other then society- You actually have to belong to a society first ,unless of course, you want to share some information with us about how you were brought up on MARS. Society pre-empts your whole existence.

But of course the point is sort of obvious isn't it. Are we not having this discussion on a public bulletin board? Don't tell me, let me guess.....Your the genius that created all this by yourself......In fact maybe idealistically the bulletin board would function better if only you debated yourself inside your own head!
Regards FG7

chesslover
15-02-2004, 10:51 PM
Dear Mr Bonham,

Don't tell me, let me guess.....Your the genius that created all this by yourself......

don't be silly...we all know that the internet was invented by Al Gore!!!! :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 11:19 PM
Firegoat, your abysmal debating skills continue to be a strong argument in favour of requiring licences for posting on the 'net, not to mention tightening University entrance criteria. :eek:

You have claimed "nobody ever suggested human beings were not capable of free thought." You have also claimed "society ... has taught you everything you know".

Either these statements are rather contradictory or else you are nobody.

I leave it to readers to determine which. :owned:


The point you miss Mr[sic] Bonham is that for YOU to actually learn one single thing as you claim from somewhere other then society- You actually have to belong to a society first ,unless of course, you want to share some information with us about how you were brought up on MARS. Society pre-empts your whole existence.

Yes, this is all true (except that I've missed nothing) but it is not at all what you said when you said "society ... has taught you everything you know". You expressed yourself badly, hence overstating your case. Concede it, get over it, move on. :hand:

I am being rather pedantic in pointing this out, but it is all relevant in two ways. Firstly, it's important to be clear that when there is a new idea some of the credit likely belongs to the individual through their effort in building on what they have learnt from others. This means that you cannot easily run a coherent case that all knowledge should be exclusively common property using the types of arguments you've been using. Rather, private IP mixed with social obligation is hinted at, the question being in what proportions. Secondly, cliches that overstate the importance or value of, or obligation to, "society" get enough of a run from right-wing hacks without anyone else giving them a hand.

Rincewind
16-02-2004, 07:32 AM
It is still apparent that you fail to make the mental connection when you write: Since you are in all likelyhood an individual who has free thought. Like I said before... Prehaps you might want me to repeat that... and maybe just one more time so you do not have the convenient excuse of ignoring the statement... The point you miss Mr Bonham is that for YOU to actually learn one single thing as you claim from somewhere other then society- You actually have to belong to a society first ,unless of course, you want to share some information with us about how you were brought up on MARS. Society pre-empts your whole existence.

I'm going through some old boxes of books I had under the house, looking for old text books and came across Stranger in a Strange Land. It's about a guy who is literally brought up on Mars. Have you read it? It's a great lampoon of American culture.

ursogr8
16-02-2004, 07:57 AM
I'm going through some old boxes of books I had under the house, looking for old text books and came across Stranger in a Strange Land. It's about a guy who is literally brought up on Mars. Have you read it? It's a great lampoon of American culture.

Barry
For the first time I have a match with one of your cultural references. Yes, I have read.
starter

Rincewind
16-02-2004, 04:56 PM
For the first time I have a match with one of your cultural references. Yes, I have read.

There is hope for you yet. ;)

Have you read Time Enough for Love? (Another Robert Heinlein effort) That's got some good lines in it too, from memory. Although I haven't come across it in my investigations under the house as yet.

firegoat7
17-02-2004, 03:36 AM
To whom it may concern,


As usual Mr Bonham you are both self informed judge and jury despite the fact that you fail to even comprehend the arguement. But hey what else is new. I think I learnt about this one from the clown thread where your initial statement was completely wrong. I will explain it to you once more. If you do not understand I will give up and allow Matt or someone else with better understanding to wipe your sorry arse of the floor.


Free thought or new thought is always constructed in a societal context. Whatever those ideas are, they maybe new, but they were not constructed alone. They always have societal historical heritage. All new thought is always based on some old societal tradition. Even the fact that you think is in a language.

This is my last attempt at explaining it to you. If you do not understand then that is not my problem. Its like talking to a child who dosent know how to play socially.

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 02:51 PM
Firegoat, you're just making stuff up because you don't like me and feel that you have to retaliate every time I have a go at you even when you obviously have nothing in the tank. You might call it "conflict theory", I call it mindless opposition.


I think I learnt about this one from the clown thread where your initial statement was completely wrong.

What initial statement? Explain it and say why it is "completely wrong". You couldn't do this on the initial thread in dozens of useless posts so I am betting at any odds one cares to mention that you will fail again.


Free thought or new thought is always constructed in a societal context. Whatever those ideas are, they maybe new, but they were not constructed alone. They always have societal historical heritage. All new thought is always based on some old societal tradition. Even the fact that you think is in a language.

Yet again :wall: I understand and agree with all that, despite your pointless and idiotic insistences that I do not. My point, which you are so unwilling to grasp, is that what you said when you said society teaches us everything we know, is a statement that carries a very different meaning. If society teaches us everything we know, then every item of knowledge we have comes from society. This follows from the meaning of the words in question. You intended to say something different but expressed yourself poorly. Now you are blaming me for your inability to write clearly. Again. How pathetic.


Its like talking to a child who dosent know how to play socially.

In this instance the child must be yourself, and only an idiot would take lectures on how to play socially from a person whose first significant acts on these BBs turned the majority of the BB population against him. You really are a sad and sorry case.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 02:53 PM
chesslover: I propose a deal. Bill Gates has said he will solve the spam problem within two years. If he succeeds I stop criticising him, if he fails you stop praising Micro$oft. What do you say? :p

arosar
17-02-2004, 03:08 PM
chesslover: I propose a deal. Bill Gates has said he will solve the spam problem within two years.

You know how he plans to do this? Mate, this bas*.tar_d plans to charge you and I for sending out emails. So it'll be a bit like sending snail mail that you have to pay postage - you know.

AR

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 03:22 PM
You know how he plans to do this? Mate, this bas*.tar_d plans to charge you and I for sending out emails. So it'll be a bit like sending snail mail that you have to pay postage - you know.

If he is proposing that, he hasn't made it explicit. His explicit proposal was to have a charge option, eg the recipient classifies the email as pay or non-pay. I'm not expert on this subject but the Australian's IT section had an article today suggesting this would fail because so much spam is sent using somebody else's machine. Maybe Paul could comment more usefully since he writes for said section?

firegoat7
17-02-2004, 04:20 PM
Dear Mr(sic) Bonham,

When you say:
Yet again I understand and agree with all that, despite your pointless and idiotic insistences that I do not.

I challenge your claim. In my opinion, you just so do not understand. This to me is obvious. Now we could participate in this pointless charade of I am right, you are right, but I could not be bothered wasting my time. Furthermore it is not my reasponsibility to correct your ignorance.

If you were willing to debate I would, but unfortunately I see nothing but ego driven point scoring coming out of your mouth. Let us not pretend that you are genuinely concerned about correcting misunderstandings.

Yours in love
FG7

firegoat7
17-02-2004, 05:00 PM
To everyone else except Mr (sic,yes he really is) Bonham,

DISCLAIMER- I am somebody who is more then interested in questions about society and how individuals relate to their societies. I am however no expert although I do have numerous experience with these sort of issues. Now I do not want to bore you with detail about theories and practice or even methodology. I do however want to enlighten everybody on Mr Bonhams ill informed criticisms. If this critique is to high brow please feel free to burp and call me a complete tosser, fart jokes and humorous quips will also be greatly appreciated to prevent me from taking myself to seriously.Lest I forget that I am a Human being aswell.

Mr B said:
If society teaches us everything we know, then every item of knowledge we have comes from society. This follows from the meaning of the words in question. You intended to say something different but expressed yourself poorly. Now you are blaming me for your inability to write clearly. Again. How pathetic. The first sentence is the crux of the arguement and to be solved correctly needs to be meditated on. Chessplayers are good meditators, please feel free to interpret the meaning of that statement for yourself. DO NOT LET BONHAM INTERPRET IT FOR YOU unless of course you want to be a sheep-BAAAAAAAA.

Bonham then follows up with mere semantics,nothing more nothing less in the next four sentences. Mixed in with his semantics is a bout of ego driven nonsense typical of Bonhams writing style. I think I will coin the term Shock authority, sometimes I refer to this psychological banter as Ivory tower delusions, Emporers clothing, Authoritarian badges etc etc Notice how it attempts to belittle others and gain credibility through self justification. ( In fairness we all do this sometimes not just Mr B.) Anyway back to the initial claim on which we were meditating.


If society teaches us everything we know, then every item of knowledge we have comes from society.
Exactly, need anything else be said?
Care to comment anyone?

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 05:49 PM
Dear Mr(sic) Bonham,

Glad to see you finally admit your incorrect usage. Now, two questions - (i) What spurious title should I use for you if you ever manage to pass a PhD? (ii) Since there is no significant chance of this happening, and no title that would actually be an insult, should I waste any energy thinking about it?


In my opinion, you just so do not understand.


This to me is obvious.

The only thing obvious is that you are fibbing.


If you were willing to debate I would, but unfortunately I see nothing but ego driven point scoring coming out of your mouth.

You are the one whose ego is so all-consuming that you will never admit it when you are clearly in the wrong, but instead insist on personally attacking the person correcting you. But since you portray me as an egotistical pedant, why then, let me oblige:

1. You should have hyphenated "ego driven" and "point scoring".
2. Perhaps luckily for it, you cannot see my mouth.
3. If you were sufficiently close and words were in fact coming out of my mouth, you would be hearing them, not seeing them.

Now that is point-scoring. :hmm:

Now read and constructively address all the points I have made in this thread about why IP should not be exclusively owned by "society", else your claim to be interested in debate will splatter like an ostrich egg across your face.


Let us not pretend that you are genuinely concerned about correcting misunderstandings.

Hmmm, this from someone who tries to call me "paranoid". I am genuinely concerned, in as much as I care about anything, but exposing the ignorance of your comments about "society" (a subject that as a sociology student you're supposed to understand, but obviously don't) has to rank as a tasty side-benefit.

Got a problem? You know whose fault it is and you know what you have to do to fix it. :hand:


Yours in love

Would that be with yourself or with Sweeney? Ah well, they always said that love is blind. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 05:58 PM
firegoat, have you been hanging around outside the MCC drinking with those characters who jammo talked about? (Personally, I have no idea whether such characters exist or how many of them there are, but firegoat's latest post reeks of substance abuse, I can smell it on his breath from here. :rolleyes: )


Notice how it attempts to belittle others and gain credibility through self justification. ( In fairness we all do this sometimes not just Mr B.)

As usual, "in fairness" means otherwise, since firegoat does this as much as anyone here if not more. You are right about one part only: that I belittle you. To fail to belittle one so small would be most dishonest. :evil:

I'll leave the rest until he sobers up.

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 09:49 PM
There is hope for you yet. ;)

Have you read Time Enough for Love? (Another Robert Heinlein effort) That's got some good lines in it too, from memory. Although I haven't come across it in my investigations under the house as yet.

First, your question.......NO.

Then, let me tell you that on Monday when I read your post I was thinking of mentioning Catch22 and The Dice Man as two books I enjoyed way back when. But I couldn't remember the exact title of the second book, and as I am easily overhauling gg'' in the post count, I ended up not replying to you.

One day later, Tuesday, in the morning Newpaper there is mention of a new live show in London...The Dice Man. Spooky co-incidence. Here is the bit I liked though. The entrance fee is decided by you rolling some die (plural dice) and multiplying the result by 2 quid. if you roll 6 6's (I think) you get in free.

starter

skip to my lou
18-02-2004, 02:45 AM
Top 20 List of OxyMorons:

20. Government Organization
19. Alone Together
18. Personal Computer
17. Silent Scream
16. Living Dead
15. Same Difference
14. Taped Live
13. Plastic Glasses
12. Tight Slacks
11. Peace Force
10. Pretty Ugly
9. Head Butt
8. Working Vacation
7. Tax Return
6. Virtual Reality
5. Dodge Ram
4. Work Party
3. Jumbo Shrimp
2. Healthy Tan
1. Microsoft Works

eclectic
18-02-2004, 03:28 AM
Top 20 List of OxyMorons:

20. Government Organization
19. Alone Together
18. Personal Computer
17. Silent Scream
16. Living Dead
15. Same Difference
14. Taped Live
13. Plastic Glasses
12. Tight Slacks
11. Peace Force
10. Pretty Ugly
9. Head Butt
8. Working Vacation
7. Tax Return
6. Virtual Reality
5. Dodge Ram
4. Work Party
3. Jumbo Shrimp
2. Healthy Tan
1. Microsoft Works
here's another one

civil war

( or religious civil war - but that's a double oxymoron - such wars are usually the most acrimonious )

:hmm:

eclectic

PHAT
21-02-2004, 11:11 AM
Army intelligence.

PHAT
21-02-2004, 12:24 PM
FG& to Bonham

Dear Mr(sic) Bonham,
If you were willing to debate I would, but unfortunately I see nothing but ego driven point scoring coming out of your mouth. Let us not pretend that you are genuinely concerned about correcting misunderstandings.


FG7 yet another person to call into question KB's motives on this BB. It is interesting that FG7 makes similar observations to David Richards and myself. Try this blast from the past.


Re: Meaning and moral subjectivity
« Reply #74 on: Dec 3rd, 2003, 6:37pm »
MS: I have been quietly watching this thread. David talks about what I might call "Morals For Fun and Profit" - a kind of practical application of rules and mores. Those of us at the coalface of the "caring professions" mostly find such an approach the only way to improve people's lots. Kevin on the other hand, has nothing to contribute. I use the word "nothing" deliberately and accuritely. His conduct on this BB is in the main, that of a know-all who knows enough to intimidate other posters but not enough to know what is nothing more than hollow point scoring. *
*
Kevin has found a trick that is posibly the best invented since we got syntax. It involves: knowing the basic structure of an ism/ology; a smattering of its jargon and quotables; a high IQ to throw it all together to sound expert(ish); and a malevelant streak. Together, these components lead to this techique being used belittle people in attempt to apply a balm to his festering inferiority complex.
*
Being an autodidact can be used for the general good or for specific self agrandisement. The choice a person makes is a good measure of their worth as a human being.
*
Not satified with a quasi-orical personae, he also fancies himself as a an erudite BB bully. The quote below is what finally pushed me to vent my concerns. David does not deserve such contemptably disparaging treatment.
On Dec 3rd, 2003, 5:05pm, Kevin Bonham wrote:

Quit your pointless and transparent trolling. *On those rare occasions that you understand anything I'll be sure to let you know. * You're a textbook case of the intellectual imperialism so often seen in the medical fraternity where doctors decide that they can throw their weight around on subjects they have never studied at all, but if others do the same in their field of study they go up in arms. *By the way, do they have Doctors for Forests in Queensland?
*
*
Models for what? *What do they predict? *What do they explain? *What do they allow you to secure? *Why should anyone want it? *Your use of "models" here is an extremely streaky analogy.
*
*
No, I only justify my low altruism levels towards the likes of you. * *
*

No, I mock you because you are one of the most hapless armchair hacks I have ever encountered, a person who continually spouts unqualified and methodically lazy pop-philosophical know-all drivel on subjects you actually know nothing about, and do so as if it was, to quote an oxymoronic popular expression, "gospel truth". *Malignant cluelessness deserves no other response.
*
I would like you to wake up one day and find that you were out of work and that your job had been taken by a homoeopath who went around telling everyone you were a quack who was incapable of medical reasoning. *That would be exactly what you deserve for all this clueless tripe. * *So interesting that you babble on about the value of morality to the survival of the species but so flagrantly ignore the value of the proper use of the brain. * *


KB, as a nihilist who is unwilling to off himself, resorts to xenodeprication when his personal phylosophies prove to be impractical. My advice to FG7 is to exchange posts with KB until he starts his nonsence debating tactics, looking for a win ad hominae, or by technicality.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2004, 07:56 PM
FG7 yet another person to call into question KB's motives on this BB. It is interesting that FG7 makes similar observations to David Richards and myself.

Just proves that beat-up merchants of a feather flock together. As for your regurgitations, anyone who cares can go look them up and see the rest of what I said on that thread, I've got better things to do.


KB, as a nihilist

An easy term to throw about but one carrying all kinds of meaning and baggage. If "nihilist" means someone who believes life has no meaning at all, then I'm not a nihilist. If it merely means someone who believes life has no objective meaning, then I'm in good company. Actually if you care to look up the original use of the word, you might find it fits you better than me. :eek:

And maybe it still does ...


resorts to xenodeprication when his personal phylosophies prove to be impractical.

You really are a charlatan. I resort to xenodeprecation when I espy a xenos whose behaviour lacks value, irrespective of whether my personal philosophies have even been mentioned in the discussion at hand.

As for "impractical", put up or shut up; prove it.


My advice to FG7 is to exchange posts with KB until he starts his nonsence debating tactics, looking for a win ad hominae, or by technicality.

My advice to you is to go to a tattoo removal parlour and see if they have a year free for removing the word "TRYHARD" from your forehead. Neither you nor firegoat could ever lay claim to any debating-tactics moral ground other than quicksand.

firegoat7
21-02-2004, 08:29 PM
Mr (sic, it could quite possibly be fatal) Bonham

wrote:
My advice to you is to go to a tattoo removal parlour and see if they have a year free for removing the word "TRYHARD" from your forehead. and in doing so acurately confirmed everything that Matt explained. Nothing more needs to be explained. Bonhams own words show his level of maturity and positiveness. Not to mention (dare I say it), productivity towards concrete debate.

Not only have you been red carded again Mr B. But due to your undiciplined response the game has been annulled with a 4-0 win for the home team. Enjoy the flight back to Tasmania!

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2004, 11:19 PM
(sic, it could quite possibly be fatal)

Only to your credibility.


wrote: and in doing so acurately confirmed everything that Matt explained. Nothing more needs to be explained. Bonhams own words show his level of maturity and positiveness.

Well here's some more of both for you then:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek: :p

(Sadly, this board won't let me have a full row.)

Quite aside from your usual prediliction for non sequiturs, and indeed for failing to advance any evidence at all (you know, this does help, instead of just making stuff up), it is hilarious that you should even attempt the above call. You showed up on this board with immature outbursts in which you called people clowns for no reason, petulantly refused to retract, and spat the dummy at those calling you on it. Since then this form has continued: mindless abuse towards anyone but your allies who points out that you have your facts wrong, coupled with overwhelmingly negative tear-it-all-down sprays towards almost any chess authority that has failed to lick the boots of your own club at every available and unavailable opportunity.


Not to mention (dare I say it), productivity towards concrete debate.

Again, you're one to talk. On this thread I articulated a position, which you have made no attempt to address whatsoever, instead preferring to personally insult me. I ought to turn you over to Dr Richards as a medical miracle, or should that be disaster - a man who has survived to your age without any signs of a gut. :clap: Maybe that would explain your inability to digest even the simplest points. Or maybe trolls are built differently from the rest of us. :hmm:


Not only have you been red carded again Mr B.

You and Sweeney have racked up more BB yellow cards than the rest of the board put together and would have been sent off long ago (indeed Sweeney has in the distant past) had not your opponents protested that this would deprive them of the chance to treble the previous world record score instead of merely doubling it. It would be better to burn the stadium down than to make either of you guys the referee.


But due to your undiciplined response the game has been annulled with a 4-0 win for the home team. Enjoy the flight back to Tasmania!

The only game in town here is me walloping a couple of hopeless patzers in a two-board simul. A hint to you bumblers - it only helps my cause when you copy each other's bad moves. :whistle:

arosar
23-02-2004, 08:42 AM
. . . I ought to turn you over to Dr Richards as a medical miracle, or should that be disaster - a man who has survived to your age without any signs of a gut. :clap: Maybe that would explain your inability to digest even the simplest points. Or maybe trolls are built differently from the rest of us. :hmm:

Now that deserves an, "ouch!" That was good.

AR

firegoat7
23-02-2004, 02:34 PM
hey arosar,

Someone disagrees with your political views and you decide to kibitz like peahole. Excellent! at least peahole is just immature what is your excuse you racist homophobe?

As for Mr Bonham, excuse me but I am a member of MCC, it is not my club, I am part of a collective. It is a chess club with a membership list larger then the whole of Tasmanian chess. Furthermore, it has produced more Australian champions then the whole of Tasmania.

Just on a personal level here. I would just like to point out to you, that a number of our members, including myself, Pecori, Pyke etc etc have beaten Australian and former Australian champions. Could you actually make that claim over the board in a real game? I doubt it. Face it Bonham your a pretender not a contender, both in chess and philosophical fact.

Everybody knows my position on the rest of your post so I am not going to bother wasting my time responding.

Cheers FG7

arosar
23-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Someone disagrees with your political views and you decide to kibitz like peahole. Excellent! at least peahole is just immature what is your excuse you racist homophobe?

Oh man . . .I just luurrve this! Not only am I a racist, I'm freakin' homophobe too. Genius! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I ain't disagreeing or agreeing. I just said "ouch" cos KB, once again, clobbered ya mate. Just so you know, I said the same once on Matty's post to KB (cos I thought Matty landed a good one then).

And oh, excuse me - you still gonna welcome me to MCC? Or do you hate me now?

AR

firegoat7
23-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Of course your still welcome at MCC, if only to be re-programed. :D

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 04:51 PM
As for Mr Bonham, excuse me but I am a member of MCC, it is not my club, I am part of a collective. It is a chess club with a membership list larger then the whole of Tasmanian chess. Furthermore, it has produced more Australian champions then the whole of Tasmania.

This is irrelevant - the issue I raised was your sycophantic tendencies and the way they provoke you into pointless abuse of (frequently) innocent people, not the (considerable) merits of the club in question. It would not matter to this point if the MCC's membership included the entire Australian Top 50.


Just on a personal level here. I would just like to point out to you, that a number of our members, including myself, Pecori, Pyke etc etc have beaten Australian and former Australian champions. Could you actually make that claim over the board in a real game? I doubt it.

This is again irrelevant, but for what it's worth your argument is bogus anyway, as the MCC members would get dozens of times more opportunities to do so than the average Tassie player. For instance, I have personally only played one former Australian champion OTB in a rated game ever. Many other Tasmanian champions would never have played any. Give our strongest players the same opportunities as players of similar rating get in Melbourne and we would score a similar number of upsets. For instance, then Tasmanian Champion Richard Hills (then rated in the 1700s) beat Johansen (albeit not then at the height of his powers, and in the last round when Johansen had the event in question won) in the '80s.


Face it Bonham your a pretender not a contender, both in chess and philosophical fact.

I make no pretences to be a contender when it comes to chess, tempting as it is to make far too much of the sorry present condition of your rating. As for "philosophic fact", your breathtaking ignorance on almost anything to do with philosophy has been paraded here many times before; still, a two-word, almost oxymoronic, reminder of it never goes astray. :D


Everybody knows my position on the rest of your post so I am not going to bother wasting my time responding.

Instead you waste your time on defective thread-drifting and more of the personal attacks you claim to be so opposed to. :clap: :rolleyes:

PHAT
23-02-2004, 09:15 PM
You [FG] showed up on this board with immature outbursts in which you called people clowns for no reason, petulantly refused to retract, and spat the dummy at those calling you on it.


Grudge is a bad colour for all seasons. Show some maturity and move on to the present.



I don't get it. One moment FG is ...


... coupled with overwhelmingly negative tear-it-all-down sprays towards almost any chess authority that has failed to lick the boots of your own club at every available and unavailable opportunity.


... and then the next moment we get ...

This is irrelevant - the issue I raised was your [FG] sycophantic tendencies and the way they provoke you into pointless abuse of (frequently) innocent people, not the (considerable) merits of the club in question.


Some kind of inconsistancy in character assessment here. An anarchist crawler - interesting! All I see is Bonham pulling out put downs to pull a put up. There is no doubt that he knows how to flame, but does he know how to discuss a subject, when he is not getting people to agree with him?

There is a well known trap, called "The Intelligence Trap". It works like this. High IQ is high enough to convince the owner of the high IQ that he is right when he is wrong. KB is in that trap. So versed in the ways of debating - diversion, reductum absurdum, hyperbol, pedantics - that he cannot actually see that he is full for sh.t. He waves a BA in philosophy about like a knife but when he goes to use it he uses it to kill, not save.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 09:31 PM
Grudge is a bad colour for all seasons. Show some maturity and move on to the present.

Says the charlatan who dug up one of my ancient posts to attempt to prove a point. :rolleyes:

Much of firegoat's behaviour on the BB suggests he has not learnt from the clowns episode. He can keep getting reminded until he does, or until I get bored of reminding him. You will note, that rather than keep hammering him on numerous insults he's aimed at me personally, I hammer him on an insult aimed at other people who have done nothing to deserve it. Hardly your typical grudge.


I don't get it.

That's because you weren't paying attention. I'm suggesting that he's sycophantic towards those he considers on his own side (which includes your good self) and destructive and negative towards those in the way. Very simple really. Hardly unusual behaviour, but he takes it to an unworthy extreme.


There is a well known trap, called "The Intelligence Trap". It works like this. High IQ is high enough to convince the owner of the high IQ that he is right when he is wrong. KB is in that trap.

Actually the paragraph I'm quoting is a prime example of it. :p

And what's your IQ, anyway? :lol:


So versed in the ways of debating - diversion, reductum absurdum, hyperbol, pedantics - that he cannot actually see that he is full for sh.t. He waves a BA in philosophy about like a knife but when he goes to use it he uses it to kill, not save.

Quit the barnyard psychologising and try extracting your foot from your own silly trap before you blather about people being "full for sh.t" (?????) Of course I use the "knife" to "kill", only you would be so foolish as to try to "save" some of the rubbish spouted here.

The currency I accept in a debate is evidence, and you're $2000 in debt again.

PHAT
23-02-2004, 10:02 PM
Says the charlatan who dug up one of my ancient posts to attempt to prove a point. :rolleyes:
Actually the word you should have used is "hypercrit".



You will note, that rather than keep hammering him on numerous insults he's aimed at me personally, I hammer him on an insult aimed at other people who have done nothing to deserve it. Hardly your typical grudge.


No, a typical grudge - albeit executed by appearing to champion to huddled masses.




And what's your IQ, anyway? :lol:

I don't know, I don't care, I don't want to know, I don't need to know. I suspect I am 100 ± 2 stdevs.

One thing is for sure, I am not so insecure as to question yours three digit statis. And even if I knew what my IQ was, I wouldn't be so crass as to declare it.


The currency I accept in a debate is evidence, and you're $2000 in debt again.

So sue me, big man, and I will counter sue you for unconscionable business transactions.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 10:28 PM
Actually the word you should have used is "hypercrit".

"Hypocrite" is generally defamatory.


No, a typical grudge - albeit executed by appearing to champion to huddled masses.

There is a simple test for this theory. He can take back those unwarranted insults about others while not taking back any of the unwarranted insults about me. If it is a "typical grudge", my behaviour towards him will be completely unchanged; if not, it won't.


I don't know, I don't care, I don't want to know, I don't need to know. I suspect I am 100 ± 2 stdevs.

I suspect +, and certainly not -, and even then you might be being conservative. You're not that far short of a PhD, someone in that position is generally well above average.


One thing is for sure, I am not so insecure as to question yours three digit statis.

I don't think anyone's questioning anyone's three-digit status.


And even if I knew what my IQ was, I wouldn't be so crass as to declare it.

Good on you. I am always baffled by the willingness of some whose IQs are really not so astonishingly high to declare them and attempt to use them as a weapon in debate.

All somewhat moot anyway as IQ tests are limited in application, and even if you show that those with high IQs tend to think they're right when they're wrong, you'd still have to prove it in each specific case you wanted to apply it to.


So sue me, big man, and I will counter sue you for unconscionable business transactions.

Indeed, how mean of me to keep the money of those who had so little but threw it at me anyway. I suppose you'll have the hide to be asking for it back?

firegoat7
23-02-2004, 11:17 PM
Hey Bonham why don't you bring up the clown thread again and again and again and again then tell us about your self importance again and again and again and again then refute your own statements again and again and again and again and again then abuse us some more again and again and again and again and never admit your wrong once again and again and again and again and crap on about tassie chess like anybodys actually heard of any of the players again and again and again and again then tell us how good you are again and again and again and again.

Boring circular numbness.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 02:34 AM
Hey Bonham why don't you bring up the clown thread

You know exactly how to stop me doing that and you know it is what you would do if you had an ounce of sense and could stand to be seen to have given an inch.


tell us about your self importance

Why? I have you to lie about it and make me look so good. :)


refute your own statements

No evidence, again! Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn.


never admit your wrong

I have tried hard to follow the fine example you have set, but forgive me, I have admitted mistakes on these BBs where it appears that I have actually made them. (This isn't often, since I'm careful, but it happens.) Inexcusable, I shall be like you and never do it again. :p


crap on about tassie chess like anybodys actually heard of any of the players

Well, nobody outside of Vic and this BB knows much about most of the MCC players you talk about here either, except for some goon who got himself thrown out of a tournament. :rolleyes:

(When I say that it sticks out like a sore thumb cause it's such a sorry little cheapo. But if you said it it would be above your usual standard, it would actually be based in fact.)

In any case, I never said that I or any of the others were grandmasters. Doesn't mean they're not a rich source of examples that may be relevant to stuff that gets discussed on this BB. The same is true of players everywhere.


then tell us how good you are

Gladly. Better than the likes of you, that's all. ;)


Boring circular numbness.

Speak for yourself. You accuse me of unoriginality in a post lacking one insult fresher than the decaying remains of a year old lump of brie. The so-called firegoat is a sad old suburban Capra hircus, chained to the same old Hills hoist, chewing the same old sorry grass, around and around and around ... :rolleyes:

firegoat7
24-02-2004, 03:42 AM
Dear Mr(sicco)Bonham,

Thanks for ruining another post with your ego wanking. When you learn something about sociology maybe you could be bothered to refute your own initial claim, pasted way back at the start before you decided to talk about your self again. Hopefully one day u will learn from your mistakes.

Until we meet again
Fg7

PHAT
24-02-2004, 05:02 PM
There is a simple test for this theory. He can take back those unwarranted insults about others while not taking back any of the unwarranted insults about me. If it is a "typical grudge", my behaviour towards him will be completely unchanged; if not, it won't.


:naughty: Sorry, no-can-do. Since you know what the test is, you cannot be relied upon to act as if you were not aware that the test was occuring.:owned:

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 10:33 PM
Thanks for ruining another post with your ego wanking

No worries mate, I'm happy to ruin your posts any time. Though servicing your ego is a little tiresome :p


When you learn something about sociology maybe you could be bothered to refute your own initial claim, pasted way back at the start before you decided to talk about your self again.

Apart from using myself as an example of someone who learnt things without being taught those specific items of information by others, and our debate about that, it was you who initiated discussion about me in this thread, starting with your "ivory tower" drivel, and continuing with the majority of your post of 17-02-2004, 04:36 AM.

My first post on this thread had little to do with sociology, it was a political-philosophy claim about intellectual property. Largely para-normative in nature, though there were some empirical-type components. I'm quite sure sociology alone couldn't refute those even if sociology alone could agree on enough to be unified on such a matter - political economy (which I suspect both of us know only a little about) would be far more useful.

Actually you remind me a lot of some of the sociology staff when I did first year at the Uni here, so I have already learned something about the field. They seemed to have an imperialistic delusion that their field alone could answer the vast majority of questions relevant to human behaviour.

What are your qualifications in this subject anyway? Have you even finished degree number 1?

Now, let's see how board 1 is getting on ...

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 10:34 PM
:naughty: Sorry, no-can-do. Since you know what the test is, you cannot be relied upon to act as if you were not aware that the test was occuring.:owned:

Irrelevant. The holder of a true grudge would not change their behaviour just because their grudge-holding was under scrutiny. Indeed, this is what makes a real grudge so plainly obvious.

firegoat7
25-02-2004, 11:46 AM
Bonham wrote:
What are your qualifications in this subject anyway? If I was answering most people I would answer civiliy, but since I am answering somebody who is actually deluded enough to thinks it means anything I say.....none of your business its personal :D

u also wrote:
No worries mate Your not my mate,never will be. I am a classist, I do not develop friendships with people who are elitist, or try to pretend that they are superior to any other person.

u also waffled
They seemed to have an imperialistic delusion that their field alone could answer the vast majority of questions relevant to human behaviour. of course what seems correct to you is often mistaken....therefore your authority about such a statement should be taken with a pinch of salt.

u also admitted that
My first post on this thread had little to do with sociology Exactly! remember the issue was about society and the individual. But of course you knew something about sociology, which you so obviously do not.Refuted again, but hey who is counting.

Anyway my next question is addressed to Matt, Why don't you pop down to MCC for a visit, drop in and have a few brews on Brunswick st and talk about junior coaching?

arosar
25-02-2004, 12:37 PM
Exactly! remember the issue was about society and the individual. But of course [if] you knew something about sociology, which you so obviously do not.Refuted again, but hey who is counting.

S'cuse me . . . I never went to uni meself, having only finished year 12 - but why must Kevo, or anyone else, rely only on Sociology to answer any question(s) re society and the individual?

Actually, I'm rather disappointed in you two blokes. I thought you were talking about epistemology - I might have learned something. Now you're just back to the usual. C'mon, c'mon. Can there be "original" knowledge independent of all pre-existing knowledge? Wasn't that the issue?

AR

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 03:47 PM
Bonham wrote: If I was answering most people I would answer civiliy, but since I am answering somebody who is actually deluded enough to thinks it means anything I say.....none of your business its personal :D

You are the one who is trying to make an argument from authority by suggesting that you know more about the subject than I do, instead of countering my points. I am going to provisionally assume that you are just another sad little marxist (or thereabouts) undergrad, unless you convince me otherwise. You certainly argue like one.


Your not my mate,never will be.

That's precious, obviously "mate" was intended sarcastically.


I am a classist, I do not develop friendships with people who are elitist, or try to pretend that they are superior to any other person.

Because you think that you are better than they are, of course. :rolleyes:


of course what seems correct to you is often mistaken....therefore your authority about such a statement should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But you have never gone close to proving me mistaken on any issue that matters. In this case you have not even advanced any argument of substance on my original points.


Exactly! remember the issue was about society and the individual. But of course you knew something about sociology, which you so obviously do not.Refuted again, but hey who is counting.

As arosar so rightly points out, sociology is not the only field that can discuss society and the individual. Here are some of the others: political science, economics, geography. And in this case I was making a philosophical argument, which sociology has no jurisdiction over at all.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 04:02 PM
I thought you were talking about epistemology - I might have learned something. Now you're just back to the usual. C'mon, c'mon. Can there be "original" knowledge independent of all pre-existing knowledge? Wasn't that the issue?

It was, but I think the goat quit the field on that one and went back to insults. To me it's not really a question of epistemology but more a simple question of empirical study of what different people actually know. And when it's looked at like that, it's clear that original knowledge can exist. I think firegoat's right nearly all the time when he says that the techniques you use to acquire original knowledge will not in themselves be original, but will be an extension of "pre-existing knowledge". That's a different issue though.

PHAT
25-02-2004, 05:06 PM
Irrelevant. The holder of a true grudge would not change their behaviour just because their grudge-holding was under scrutiny. Indeed, this is what makes a real grudge so plainly obvious.

OH! So a grudge can only be a "true grudge" or "real grudge" if it is overtly demonstrated in public?

I feel so much safer now, that any enemies I might have will be acting against me in full pubic view - nothing clandestine.

I could equally say that a true-real grudge is one that only the grudge holder knows about. In fact:

grudge (n) A deep-seated feeling of resentment or rancor.

No requirement for overtness there.

Going back to the original proposition, you have a grudge against FG7 and it shows. There is no test that can show it not to be true. Why? Because we cannot prove a negative. However, there is ample evidence for the offirmative. ie you have a grudge against FG7.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 05:58 PM
OH! So a grudge can only be a "true grudge" or "real grudge" if it is overtly demonstrated in public?

You've got me on that one, though I'm sure me saying that won't dent firegoat's deluded babble about me never admitting I'm wrong. It's true, someone could hold a grudge in secret, showing no signs of it until gaining their revenge unexpectedly decades later. Unusual, but it certainly can happen. However, if firegoat makes the relevant concessions I'm sure you find that no way I behave with respect to him in the future demonstrates any signs of "grudge" at all.


I could equally say that a true-real grudge is one that only the grudge holder knows about.

Then you'd be wrong as well.


Going back to the original proposition, you have a grudge against FG7 and it shows. There is no test that can show it not to be true. Why? Because we cannot prove a negative. However, there is ample evidence for the offirmative. ie you have a grudge against FG7.

If nothing I could do would ever convince you I did not have a grudge against firegoat (no test can show it not to be true - your words) then the view that I have a grudge against firegoat is unfalsifiable, so your claim is out of order.

It would also seem from his recent post that firegoat probably has a grudge against me, and has no intention of ever dropping it. So off you go to give him a little lecture about what bad form it is, then. :p

PHAT
25-02-2004, 06:25 PM
Anyway my next question is addressed to Matt, Why don't you pop down to MCC for a visit, drop in and have a few brews on Brunswick st and talk about junior coaching?

I will, early November.

firegoat7
25-02-2004, 06:27 PM
arosar wrote:
S'cuse me . . . I never went to uni meself, having only finished year 12 - but why must Kevo, or anyone else, rely only on Sociology to answer any question(s) re society and the individual?

nooooooo, wrong, don't place words in my mouth that I did not say....I actually said that KB claimed knowledge of sociology.....not anything about relying on sociology to answer questions.

Furthermore I also stated that his understanding was wrong and tried to clarify the point in earlier posts. I suggest that you read those posts Arosar before decontextualising what I said and misrepresenting the arguement.


Mr Bonham wrote:
To me it's not really a question of epistemology but more a simple question of empirical study of what different people actually know. And when it's looked at like that, it's clear that original knowledge can exist. finally progressing the debate from the mindless insults he normally trades in. A progression that was long overdue.

This helps to clarify why I think his position of knowledge is wrong. I already mentioned previously on earlier posts thats individuals were capable of original thought- which implies knowledge. Obviously however that knowledge is of no use to anybody, except one particular finite individual unless they share that knowledge with others. Furthermore we must always recognise that for a person to develop to the point of original thought, 100s if not 1000s of people have contributed to your current being. So let us not pretend, for example, that Mr Bonham passed university by himself, as if he himself was the sole participant in his progression (sic). Let us instead pay homage to his grade 1 teacher, his parents, his classmates at primary,secondary and university lessons, the workers who made his books, Ancient greek society that laid the foundations for his study etc etc etc. let us not pretend that you are an individual in a vacumn Mr B. Instead let us recognise that you have a right to all human knowledge because you are a human being.


But of course all this debate is probably lost on most people because the conversation denegrated into nothing more then personal insults.

And finally you wrore...
I am going to provisionally assume that you are just another sad little marxist (or thereabouts) undergrad, unless you convince me otherwise. You certainly argue like one. another presumption from you Mr B, wrong again and again none of your business.

Cheers FG7

PHAT
25-02-2004, 06:34 PM
If nothing I could do would ever convince you I did not have a grudge against firegoat (no test can show it not to be true - your words) then the view that I have a grudge against firegoat is unfalsifiable, so your claim is out of order.


I withdraw the "no test can show". I have just found one.

Evidence can be of a statistical kind. If a person was to exhibit a different behavior for some time, it would be evidence of that person having a new position. Furthermore, the longer the new behaviour continues, the more likely it is, statistically, that the new positon is indeed a true position and not a contrivance.

arosar
25-02-2004, 07:08 PM
This helps to clarify why I think his position of knowledge is wrong. I already mentioned previously on earlier posts thats individuals were capable of original thought- which implies knowledge. Obviously however that knowledge is of no use to anybody, except one particular finite individual unless they share that knowledge with others. Furthermore we must always recognise that for a person to develop to the point of original thought, 100s if not 1000s of people have contributed to your current being. So let us not pretend, for example, that Mr Bonham passed university by himself, as if he himself was the sole participant in his progression (sic). Let us instead pay homage to his grade 1 teacher, his parents, his classmates at primary,secondary and university lessons, the workers who made his books, Ancient greek society that laid the foundations for his study etc etc etc. let us not pretend that you are an individual in a vacumn Mr B. Instead let us recognise that you have a right to all human knowledge because you are a human being.

And thus, as you say, all knowledge must be free and in the public domain, right?

Dunno man....I ain't convinced. See, I'm a bit of a selfish b_as*tar.d. So if I came up with anything new mate, I'd go to the Patent office first thing and make money off it. But I also think that some forms of knowledge must be in the public domain - like genome for example, yeah?

Fg7, if ever you do a PhD man, I got the topic for you matey: "The Revolt Against the Commodification of Knowledge - A Postmodern Paradigm." It's got a bit of a nice sociological ring to it. Say, you ever hear of a bloke called Lyotard?

AR

PHAT
25-02-2004, 07:16 PM
For those who might have missed it the first time I posted it, this is a short tidy argument for the abandonment of copyright and IP. However it is biased in that it does not give the opposing arguments.

http://www.n-a-n-o.com/ipr/extro2/extro2mk.html#Heading10

arosar
25-02-2004, 07:28 PM
S'cuse me you blokes....especially youse scientific types. Didn't Hawking recently made some announcements that some things will always be unknowable or some such? I think he wrote a journal article or a book or something. Anyone heard of it?

Actually, now that I remember it, I think it was his abandonent of the 'theory of everything'.

AR

Rincewind
25-02-2004, 07:42 PM
S'cuse me you blokes....especially youse scientific types. Didn't Hawking recently made some announcements that some things will always be unknowable or some such? I think he wrote a journal article or a book or something. Anyone heard of it?

Actually, now that I remember it, I think it was his abandonent of the 'theory of everything'.

Sounds like a Gödelean pronouncement. Didn't hear it.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 10:59 PM
nooooooo, wrong, don't place words in my mouth that I did not say....I actually said that KB claimed knowledge of sociology.....not anything about relying on sociology to answer questions.

You said "When you learn something about sociology maybe you could be bothered to refute your own initial claim, pasted way back at the start ..." A clear statement that sociology could refute my claims, which it can't.


I suggest that you read those posts Arosar before decontextualising what I said and misrepresenting the arguement.

:p As if the goat needs help from anyone to decontextualise and misrepresent his own arguments.


finally progressing the debate from the mindless insults he normally trades in. A progression that was long overdue.

Disingeneous babble from our worthless troll again. I was just restating a position I have already stated, one which you abandoned the debate on.


This helps to clarify why I think his position of knowledge is wrong. I already mentioned previously on earlier posts thats individuals were capable of original thought- which implies knowledge.

You said that, but you also said something that clearly contradicted it. ("You learn and live in a society that has taught you everything you know.") However it is quite clear now that you agree with my position that knowledge can be original and accept that your initial statement was wrong, so perhaps we can move on on that score.


Obviously however that knowledge is of no use to anybody, except one particular finite individual unless they share that knowledge with others. Furthermore we must always recognise that for a person to develop to the point of original thought, 100s if not 1000s of people have contributed to your current being.

I agree with both these statements, in virtually all cases, if not absolutely all.


So let us not pretend, for example, that Mr Bonham passed university by himself, as if he himself was the sole participant in his progression (sic[sic]). let us not pretend that you are an individual in a vacumn[sic] Mr [sic]B.

Let's not pretend that I am pretending either of these things. Stop mixing your labour in the straw man factory.


Instead let us recognise that you have a right to all human knowledge because you are a human being.

No, let's not. It is not an either/or choice. I can reject your straw man position that a person is an individual in a vacuum, while also rejecting the position given above. If we are going to argue about moral rights at all (and such discussion is only ever going to be subjective, and hence not binding intellectually on anyone who differs) then I would argue (and have already argued) that knowledge can be seen jointly as a product of the society's effort in teaching the individual how to acquire it, and the individual's effort in using that learning to do so. This would point towards some kind of contract of sharing between the individual and society - the individual is permitted to use their knowledge to further their own wellbeing, subject to <insert list of social obligations here>. Or, alternatively, the knowledge becomes the property of society, subject to <insert list of rewards to individual here>.

If the individual isn't entitled to any reward at all for putting in the effort, will they bother to do so? (I wish we had a Randroid here just so I could just sit back and watch firegoat fight with it. The really disturbing thing is, firegoat would probably lose.)


And finally you wrore... another presumption from you Mr [sic] B, wrong again and again none of your business.

Which bit was wrong - undergrad or "sad little marxist (or thereabouts)"?

If you're going to attempt to use arguments from authority at all you must at least establish your credentials.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 11:02 PM
I withdraw the "no test can show". I have just found one.

Evidence can be of a statistical kind. If a person was to exhibit a different behavior for some time, it would be evidence of that person having a new position. Furthermore, the longer the new behaviour continues, the more likely it is, statistically, that the new positon is indeed a true position and not a contrivance.

Yep. That's pretty much what I was suggesting. If firegoat cleans up the original mess from the clowns thread I will demonstrate that I bear no grudge over the innumerable personal insults he's fired inaccurately into the darkness somewhere in my vicinity.

arosar
26-02-2004, 04:05 PM
Excuse me you Anti-IP fellas - got a bit of a question here. Would you be alright with me protecting me ideas with IP law so long as I don't tell you what to do with my idea? I just charge you for everytime you use my idea - that's all. Is that fair for youse?

AR

firegoat7
26-02-2004, 06:21 PM
Bonham wrote:
You said "When you learn something about sociology maybe you could be bothered to refute your own initial claim, pasted way back at the start ..." A clear statement that sociology could refute my claims, which it can't.

Let us place this staement in context. It was in response to Arosar. The statement may or not be true but let us first suggest one thing before re-examining the main arguement......because.......it was you


Bonham who introduced sociology into the debate with this piece......
I am genuinely concerned, in as much as I care about anything, but exposing the ignorance of your comments about "society" (a subject that as a sociology student you're supposed to understand, but obviously don't) has to rank as a tasty side-benefit.

Which of course since I have never told you what I do is a big presumption. Remembering that I never will, since I certainly do not want to hide behind any creditionals. A position that I have consistenly maintained Mr Bonham. I am a human being, this is a public bulletin board, all people have a right to participate in a democratic debate, not just so called elites

Now back to the point again........Let us ask a question- If you were brought up in a box with no contact with human beings what would you know about anything? Face it Bonham you exist inside something more then a box. Your attempts to limit the arguement to an epistemological debate of how is a furphie.

Cheers FG7

PHAT
26-02-2004, 06:45 PM
Excuse me you Anti-IP fellas - got a bit of a question here. Would you be alright with me protecting me ideas with IP law so long as I don't tell you what to do with my idea? I just charge you for everytime you use my idea - that's all. Is that fair for youse?

AR

Material goods produced/bought through the sweat of your own brow belong to the individual. Knowledge/ideas belong to the group. So, no, noone should have to pay you anything.

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2004, 12:51 AM
it was you ... Bonham who introduced sociology into the debate with this piece......

I only mentioned sociology because it was particularly laughable that you made a statement about society that was so obviously false that anyone would see that it was nonsense - a sociologist should be the last person on earth to be making your mistake. Actually my suggestion that you obviously didn't understand society on the basis of your statement was presumptive. I should have also considered the possibilities that, for instance, you were a wanton liar, a randomly-typing monkey working on a draft for Hamlet, a particularly dumb troll, or simply unable to read or write English properly.


Which of course since I have never told you what I do is a big presumption.

Your statement about society and knowledge was false.
There is no escape from this.
What you do does not matter to this point.


Remembering that I never will, since I certainly do not want to hide behind any creditionals. A position that I have consistenly maintained Mr [sic] Bonham. I am a human being, this is a public bulletin board, all people have a right to participate in a democratic debate, not just so called elites

I have never questioned your legal right to participation in such a debate, I have only observed the high risk of your being flogged in it. Particularly so, if you imply that sociology can refute my statements, but then provide no evidence that it can, and no evidence that you have sufficient standing to make such a call with any reliability.


Now back to the point again........Let us ask a question- If you were brought up in a box with no contact with human beings what would you know about anything?

I would still know how to beat you in a flamewar. :owned:

You are nowhere near the point as it happens, just setting up an absurd straw-man that has absolutely nothing to do with my position or this debate.


Face it Bonham you exist inside something more then a box.

You are not telling me the news. What box you exist inside, however, is an interesting question indeed. I have a hunch it may be made of discarded Green Left Weeklys, or similar recycled ideological rubbish. Was I close? :p


Your attempts to limit the arguement to an epistemological debate of how is a furphie.

An "epistemological debate of how" relating to what? Please express yourself more clearly.

Not only have I not limited this debate to epistemology, I have even said epistemology is not important here. That people sometimes learn things previously unknown by other people, and that they expend effort to learn these things, are matters of empirical fact - there is no need to get philosophical about such stuff.

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2004, 12:54 AM
Material goods produced/bought through the sweat of your own brow belong to the individual. Knowledge/ideas belong to the group.

But as dear firegoat has so kindly pointed out, we learn how to make those material goods from the society around us, so if you accept firegoat's argument, then society owns those goods as well. Both the production of material goods and the discovery of knowledge/ideas involve effort of some sort, so why the distinction?

firegoat7
29-02-2004, 07:10 PM
Bonham wrote:


Your statement about society and knowledge was false.

Care to embrace a discussion about the facts and I will attempt to refute your (in my opinion) false claim. I will also admit that I was wrong if you can prove it to me that I was.

At the moment you have proved nothing to me.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 02:19 AM
Care to embrace a discussion about the facts and I will attempt to refute your (in my opinion) false claim. I will also admit that I was wrong if you can prove it to me that I was.

At the moment you have proved nothing to me.

:rolleyes:

I know that I have just caused the :rolleyes: smiley to appear.

No one told me that I would use the :rolleyes: smiley in reply to your specific post. Therefore the statement "I just used the :rolleyes: smiley in reply to firegoat's latest pile of typically disingeneous and probably lying tripe" is a statement of fact which nobody taught me. Therefore I did not learn that statement from society, even though it is a statement that I know to be true, and therefore society does not teach us everything that we know.

firegoat7
01-03-2004, 10:15 AM
smiley in reply to firegoat's latest pile of typically disingeneous and probably lying tripe" is a statement of fact which nobody taught me. Is this really needed?

But I will ignore this sarcastic sentiment and presume you are willing to debate.

If u write
I know that I have just caused the :D smiley to appear. Then yes it is true you caused the smiley to appear. True. Yes this is new knowledge.

However, you and the :D also exists thanks to society, therefore are you truly able to say that this action was caused by the individual without knowledge from society

Secondly, Both you and the :D exist within an existential called society, therfore are you truly able to say that you are an individual capable of free thought.This is my position.

KB you claim
Therefore I did not learn that statement from society, even though it is a statement that I know to be true, and therefore society does not teach us everything that we know.

But, if you want to claim truth then you have to have something to measure it against. Since you cannot measure truth outside of yourself without first being placed within a society. It is going to be hard in my opinion for you to justify your position, but I am willing to listen.

Cheers FG7

PHAT
01-03-2004, 03:13 PM
But as dear firegoat has so kindly pointed out, we learn how to make those material goods from the society around us, so if you accept firegoat's argument, then society owns those goods as well. Both the production of material goods and the discovery of knowledge/ideas involve effort of some sort, so why the distinction?

heyyyyyyyyy, I replied to this ........where is my post :evil:

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 04:09 PM
heyyyyyyyyy, I replied to this ........where is my post :evil:
Matt,

Yes you did. I remember reading it.

Now in the past we would all pitch in and demand to know why you are censored/deleted/moderated. But this post of yours was in a non-chess thread. Mate, they don't count here anymore. So now there is no point in creating a flurry of posts. They don't count.
Like to help you but... . ;)

starter

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 04:51 PM
Is this really needed?

I don't know, you are the one who calls people clowns for no reason.


If u write Then yes it is true you caused the smiley to appear. True. Yes this is new knowledge.

That's all I need.


However, you and the :D also exists thanks to society, therefore are you truly able to say that this action was caused by the individual without knowledge from society

I do not need to, it is irrelevant. Certainly both the datum and the observer depended on society for their existence, but that is irrelevant to whether the knowledge itself was taught to me by society, which it wasn't.

(Incidentally I can give examples where the :rolleyes: is replaced by something that was not created by society, eg some property of the non-human world, like the new snail species I discovered yesterday.)


Secondly, Both you and the :D exist within an existential called society, therfore are you truly able to say that you are an individual capable of free thought.This is my position.

This is again irrelevant to my claim. My claim has nothing to do with free thought, it has to do with an individual being able to acquire knowledge without having the new knowledge itself imparted by society. Society's contribution to the individual's ability to acquire that knowledge is not relevant to this.


Since you cannot measure truth outside of yourself without first being placed within a society.

I am not at all sure if this is necessarily correct, but even if it does, it does not matter. Even if my ability to validate a truth claim depends on being a member of society (which is true), and even if (to go further) its status as truth depends on social acceptance of it as such (which is very debatable) that would all change nothing. None of these things mean that the contents of the statement in question were taught to me by society.


It is going to be hard in my opinion for you to justify your position, but I am willing to listen.

It will be easy for you to create semantic obstacles of the but-how-do-you-know-you're-not-just-a-brain-in-a-vat type if you want to, but these will be easily disposed of. Beyond that your position is indefensible.

arosar
01-03-2004, 06:00 PM
. . eg some property of the non-human world, like the new snail species I discovered yesterday.)

Bull! Really? What have you named it?

AR

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 08:59 PM
Bull! Really? What have you named it?

New species don't get named the day after they're discovered. Tends to take years, unless they're very important or distinctive. The Tassie snail species count is climbing faster than a superjunior's rating and I have a backlog of around 50 species (about 30 of which I discovered) awaiting description when I get the time and/or funding to do it. Haven't even thought about a name for this one yet. This was the second new one I've discovered in the field this year, and I also discovered one "in the lab" via splitting from previously collected material. I've also discovered eight new millipedes and an orchid.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 09:02 PM
heyyyyyyyyy, I replied to this ........where is my post :evil:

Good question. Normally if a post is deleted by another mod or Jeo I can still see it, together with who deleted it and why (if any reason was given). In this case, there is no sign of your post at all. Was there anything there that would have got it zapped?

arosar
02-03-2004, 01:27 PM
Man, I reckon it is sooo cool to be discovering these new species. It's just hard to believe that even in this day and age we're still finding these new species that are basically, you know, kinda 'everyday'. I mean we're talking snails here - not deep sea creatures and all that. If I were a scientist though I reckon I'd be a virologist. That is sooo fascinating that.

AR

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2004, 01:50 PM
Man, I reckon it is sooo cool to be discovering these new species. It's just hard to believe that even in this day and age we're still finding these new species that are basically, you know, kinda 'everyday'. I mean we're talking snails here - not deep sea creatures and all that.

There's loads and loads of new species out there waiting to be found but most of them are small. I've also discovered eight new millipedes and an orchid. It's not just in sparsely populated areas like Tassie either. Someone found a new native snail almost in the heart of Sydney, in old figs growing along the foreshore somewhere near the Botanical Gardens I think.


If I were a scientist though I reckon I'd be a virologist. That is sooo fascinating that.

And dangerous. One of the virologists involved in discovering SARS actually caught it himself and died from it. :eek:

PHAT
02-03-2004, 04:14 PM
If I were a scientist though I reckon I'd be a virologist. That is sooo fascinating that.


Quit your job and go back to uni. If something fascinates you, follow it. Forget the money, it isn't as important as being happy.

firegoat7
02-03-2004, 05:54 PM
With deepest regret,

It seems I really should apologise for the psychological damage I have caused Mr Bonham. He appears to have an unusally abnormal disposition towards clowns. Linking clowns with the ACF by me was obviously evil and bad if not downright derogatory ( presuming of course that you all think clowns are bad). It was irresponsible of me, because, who knows what clowns are lurking in the psychological baggage of Mr Bonhams mind?

Tiredly for the ten millionth time Mr Bonham informed me:
I don't know, you are the one who calls people clowns for no reason.

Most people would be over it by now but not MR B, he carries deep psychological scars. Unfortunately this weighs heavily on my mind influencing my decision not to debate with him anymore, lest I cause anymore damage to his delicate disposition.

Previously I had attempt to progress the discussion with this statement:
Care to embrace a discussion about the facts and I will attempt to refute your (in my opinion) false claim. I will also admit that I was wrong if you can prove it to me that I was.

Obviously Mr B cares more about clowns and their historical and psychological damage on innocent individuals. Prehaps he should entertain the idea of working with abused clowns or running a clown detox centre. Maybe Mr B could form an organisation like "Clownpeace' dedicated to freeing all clowns around the world. Or ""Clowns International" working behind the scenes around the globe lobbying circuses for clown rights.

Of cource I would have enjoyed continuing the debate with Mr B, who raises valid concerns on the discussion. Concerns that in my opinion are wrong and could be clarified with further conversation. But I suspect that with the psychological damage from the clowns thread obviously reaching a psychosis it would probably be best to refrain from further debate and allow Mr Bonham some rest.


At the moment I suggest:
At the moment you have proved nothing to me. hopefully after therapy everything will be better and we can continue with our lively discussions.

Regards Bozo the clown.

P.S Have you ever played football Mr Bonham, in that game its generally better to play the ball rather then the man. Playing the man sometimes works but is a scrappy game at best!

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2004, 07:54 PM
It seems I really should apologise for the psychological damage I have caused Mr[sic] Bonham. He appears to have an unusally abnormal disposition towards clowns. Linking clowns with the ACF by me was obviously evil and bad if not downright derogatory ( presuming of course that you all think clowns are bad). It was irresponsible of me, because, who knows what clowns are lurking in the psychological baggage of Mr[sic] Bonhams mind?

The only psychological damage here is whatever has caused you to think the lame old drivel above is any of informative, valid, effective or funny.

The reason people found your clowns comments offensive (and thanks for the opportunity to bring this up again, if you don't like it, why do you keep encouraging me to do it?) is that while there is nothing wrong with a clown being a clown, it would not be generally desirable for someone in another position (say a state chess champion) to create that impression when they were trying to make a serious point.

Though in your case I would recommend it, it would be a step up from your present persona of sideshow alley geek.


Most people would be over it by now but not MR[sic] B, he carries deep psychological scars. Unfortunately this weighs heavily on my mind influencing my decision not to debate with him anymore, lest I cause anymore damage to his delicate disposition.

Much as I enjoy whipping a patzer like you, it's probably encouraging lazy flaming habits, so your forfeiture of the debate has its benefits. However before (well, after) you dribble on with your unsubstantiated tripe about psychology again, let me remind you again that my objection has been to you calling other people clowns. If you just want to call me a clown but retract your clown claims about others, go right ahead and see how much "psychological damage" it causes.


Previously I had attempt to progress the discussion with this statement:

Obviously Mr B cares more about clowns and their historical and psychological damage on innocent individuals.

Only the most retarded troll would find this "obvious" - you progressed nothing and anyway, I answered your "point", again. :wall:


Prehaps he should entertain the idea of working with abused clowns or running a clown detox centre. Maybe Mr[sic] B could form an organisation like "Clownpeace' dedicated to freeing all clowns around the world. Or ""Clowns International" working behind the scenes around the globe lobbying circuses for clown rights.

Wow, that's the first half-funny thing you've said in, what, the last 100 flames? Would have been fully funny if not for the fact that working on all these projects would still make me hopelessly unqualified for the daunting task of saving you.


Of cource I would have enjoyed continuing the debate with Mr[sic] B, who raises valid concerns on the discussion. Concerns that in my opinion are wrong and could be clarified with further conversation. But I suspect that with the psychological damage from the clowns thread obviously reaching a psychosis it would probably be best to refrain from further debate and allow Mr[sic] Bonham some rest.


P.S Have you ever played football Mr[sic] Bonham, in that game its generally better to play the ball rather then the man.

It's well established that you know nothing about the concept of playing the ball. When it is kicked towards you at a slow trickle you run off the field afraid of it and swearing at your opponent. As in this case. The difference between us is that I can play the man and the ball. You can play neither, and you are neither.

Throwing your king across the room is a valid method of resignation but is generally considered unsporting. :rolleyes: But hey, thanks for the dummy-spit.