When will Larry die, and what will he die of?
-
Guest
When will Larry die, and what will he die of?
Larry's a chain smoker, does too many drugs, doesn't do enough exercise, and doesn't eat very well. So I think there's a pretty good chance that he mightn't be with us for much longer. I'm kind of curious to find out when you all think he's going to die, and what you think he will die of. Some of the likely choices are lung cancer (very good chance), emphysema (also likely), heart attack (very likely), stroke (quite likely), suicide in a fit of guilt (would be deserved, but pretty unlikely, unfortunately), an STD (pretty unlikely, IMHO, as I think all the cigarettes have messed up his circulation and rendered him impotent), or murder by a disgruntled Burning Man groupie (we can only hope). I'm guessing he has another 7 or so years before the cancer and the heart ailments get him. What do you all think?
-
Kinetic II
Questions:
1: Does anyone have a counter to some of the statements made in that last post?
2: Does anyone know this person's background?
3: Are IP's or other censorship measures being actively implemented that can be mentioned in public?
I'm very curious about that last post and hope someone will speak up..is it real?
1: Does anyone have a counter to some of the statements made in that last post?
2: Does anyone know this person's background?
3: Are IP's or other censorship measures being actively implemented that can be mentioned in public?
I'm very curious about that last post and hope someone will speak up..is it real?
You confuse personal slander and innuendo with being a counter-point to policy you don't agree with?
Nice try fuck-o but that pig don't fly.
Your logic and reasoning is about as absurdist as some e-mail I received a while back from a disgruntled ex-BM tech team bozo who spammed a lot of people with his horse shit. The style was very similar to yours BTW.
I think Trey's nailed you.
Nice try fuck-o but that pig don't fly.
Your logic and reasoning is about as absurdist as some e-mail I received a while back from a disgruntled ex-BM tech team bozo who spammed a lot of people with his horse shit. The style was very similar to yours BTW.
I think Trey's nailed you.
Last edited by Isotopia on Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Same person.
There's nothing I can point to that amounts to censorship on the ePlaya except isolated incedents when illegal speech was removed because of the risk it presents to allow it on our servers.
PS Larry Harvey is a human being, you crass bastard, not some cardboard cutout target. Grow the fuck up.
There's nothing I can point to that amounts to censorship on the ePlaya except isolated incedents when illegal speech was removed because of the risk it presents to allow it on our servers.
PS Larry Harvey is a human being, you crass bastard, not some cardboard cutout target. Grow the fuck up.
-
Last Real Burner
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:34 am
- Location: Heaven
- Contact:
I wanna be like Larry Harvey when I grow up, only shorter...
Move along people nothing to see here.
basicallly,
mr smith
"Do you know what happened to the boy who got everything he wished for? - He lived happily ever after".
>nothing I can point to that amounts to censorship on the ePlaya
the two things i can think of are:
- a couple of years ago (on the old eplaya) efforts were made to do ip tracking in order to foil joseph dunphy. i'm not sure what the official policy was at the time, or whether any of the reasoning was documented in a place that our current tech team could use as a precedent.
- spanky blocked a thread that didn't suit him early on. he has since refrained from doing so. i can't remember the name of the thread, and the discussions about it got auto pruned because of some wonky admin settings.
those two are minor issues, though, and i'd agree with ag that this whole thing smells of paranoia more than consipracy.
the two things i can think of are:
- a couple of years ago (on the old eplaya) efforts were made to do ip tracking in order to foil joseph dunphy. i'm not sure what the official policy was at the time, or whether any of the reasoning was documented in a place that our current tech team could use as a precedent.
- spanky blocked a thread that didn't suit him early on. he has since refrained from doing so. i can't remember the name of the thread, and the discussions about it got auto pruned because of some wonky admin settings.
those two are minor issues, though, and i'd agree with ag that this whole thing smells of paranoia more than consipracy.
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]
Yes, we had considered using the Bozo filter on JD, but I was told the other day we never actually did it.
RE: the Spanky thread in question, I didn't know that and I stand corrected.
The funny part of all this is that it never once occured to me to think that WSPR was BG, not until he wrote us personal emails saying that it wasn't, out of the blue. As though it's hard to go to a new location and post from another IP address...as though that proves anything. Not that I think they ARE the same person, at all, mind you. I don't. I'm just saying that the logic is fallacious.
ALL THAT SAID, what if these nasty threads were removed, since they directly attack and defame real human beings? Would someone scream "Censorship"? What if one of these posts was about you?
RE: the Spanky thread in question, I didn't know that and I stand corrected.
The funny part of all this is that it never once occured to me to think that WSPR was BG, not until he wrote us personal emails saying that it wasn't, out of the blue. As though it's hard to go to a new location and post from another IP address...as though that proves anything. Not that I think they ARE the same person, at all, mind you. I don't. I'm just saying that the logic is fallacious.
ALL THAT SAID, what if these nasty threads were removed, since they directly attack and defame real human beings? Would someone scream "Censorship"? What if one of these posts was about you?
-
Guest
I for one would not cry censorship and would defend the admin team's right to pull posts such as you describe.actiongrl wrote:ALL THAT SAID, what if these nasty threads were removed, since they directly attack and defame real human beings? Would someone scream "Censorship"? What if one of these posts was about you?
-
Kinetic II
AG, my opinion is removing these kinds of posts is not censorship. You are simply enforcing the basic law of how boards like this operate.
Your going to be damned no matter what you do by someone but I'd say invoke the hand of Zeus and send a lightbolt down to zap these threads. It's a waste of bandwidth and server space and serves no purpose.
Your going to be damned no matter what you do by someone but I'd say invoke the hand of Zeus and send a lightbolt down to zap these threads. It's a waste of bandwidth and server space and serves no purpose.
-
BlueBirdPoof
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
- Location: SF Bay Area
Agreed
(despite losing my wit in another thread)
If wspr can't phrase his questions in a more thoughtfull less juvinile way, then he doesn't really have questions.
If wspr can't phrase his questions in a more thoughtfull less juvinile way, then he doesn't really have questions.
-
Guest
[quote="actiongrl"]Yes, we had considered using the Bozo filter on JD, but I was told the other day we never actually did it.
RE: the Spanky thread in question, I didn't know that and I stand corrected.
The funny part of all this is that it never once occured to me to think that WSPR was BG, not until he wrote us personal emails saying that it wasn't, out of the blue. As though it's hard to go to a new location and post from another IP address...as though that proves anything. Not that I think they ARE the same person, at all, mind you. I don't. I'm just saying that the logic is fallacious.
ALL THAT SAID, what if these nasty threads were removed, since they directly attack and defame real human beings? Would someone scream "Censorship"? What if one of these posts was about you?[/quote]
Hello, Action Girl. You're more than welcome to censor me--after all, Burning Man is all about censorship and message control: remember the Jiffy Lube incident, for example, when Larry kowtowed to homophobic law enforcement officers' censorship of a gay-themed piece of sculpture, and BMORG wouldn't even allow people to protest the action. However, if you do censor me, you will be wasting your time. I have between 50-100 IP addresses, and plenty of time to keep you real busy.
RE: the Spanky thread in question, I didn't know that and I stand corrected.
The funny part of all this is that it never once occured to me to think that WSPR was BG, not until he wrote us personal emails saying that it wasn't, out of the blue. As though it's hard to go to a new location and post from another IP address...as though that proves anything. Not that I think they ARE the same person, at all, mind you. I don't. I'm just saying that the logic is fallacious.
ALL THAT SAID, what if these nasty threads were removed, since they directly attack and defame real human beings? Would someone scream "Censorship"? What if one of these posts was about you?[/quote]
Hello, Action Girl. You're more than welcome to censor me--after all, Burning Man is all about censorship and message control: remember the Jiffy Lube incident, for example, when Larry kowtowed to homophobic law enforcement officers' censorship of a gay-themed piece of sculpture, and BMORG wouldn't even allow people to protest the action. However, if you do censor me, you will be wasting your time. I have between 50-100 IP addresses, and plenty of time to keep you real busy.
I don't think I would be opposed to removal of threads that maliciously attack real persons, especially if the attacks are based on unsubstantiated/unsubstantiable claims (or outright lies), and made by people who hide behind anonymity.
I'm troubled by considerations that this could be seen as a slippery slope leading towards censorship. But I think my reasoning includes consideration of such concepts as libel law, and a stronger belief in the rights of an identifiable individual over an unknown sock puppet figure.
Edited to add the following:
A good point was made elsewhere: This site does not yet have a published document delimiting community standards/guidelines or specific rules and prescribed actions which will be taken against those who break them. Given that, removal of posts or threads, no matter how offensive, may not be warranted at this point.
I wonder if it would be possible to "demote" threads so they would appear at the bottom of the thread list, instead of being prominently displayed at the top of page 1? The statements would still be available to those interested in them, but they would be easier to avoid.
I'm troubled by considerations that this could be seen as a slippery slope leading towards censorship. But I think my reasoning includes consideration of such concepts as libel law, and a stronger belief in the rights of an identifiable individual over an unknown sock puppet figure.
Edited to add the following:
A good point was made elsewhere: This site does not yet have a published document delimiting community standards/guidelines or specific rules and prescribed actions which will be taken against those who break them. Given that, removal of posts or threads, no matter how offensive, may not be warranted at this point.
I wonder if it would be possible to "demote" threads so they would appear at the bottom of the thread list, instead of being prominently displayed at the top of page 1? The statements would still be available to those interested in them, but they would be easier to avoid.
Last edited by Tiara on Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Guest
-
precipitate
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
- Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain
Would it be censorship? Well, by definition, yes.
However, in combination with a well-thought-out policy on what gets
censored and what gets endured, locking threads or removing particularly
offensive posts could be of benefit to the community as a whole. This isn't
death threats, it's just some idiot trolling the eplaya (again). I say leave it
alone and ignore it.
The one Spanky locked (didn't delete it) was the whole Tawnee Lynne
debacle. The thread's here. It won't do you much good, though, since
the person in question has deleted all content, but if you were involved it
might refresh your memory.
However, in combination with a well-thought-out policy on what gets
censored and what gets endured, locking threads or removing particularly
offensive posts could be of benefit to the community as a whole. This isn't
death threats, it's just some idiot trolling the eplaya (again). I say leave it
alone and ignore it.
The one Spanky locked (didn't delete it) was the whole Tawnee Lynne
debacle. The thread's here. It won't do you much good, though, since
the person in question has deleted all content, but if you were involved it
might refresh your memory.
my personal preference is for minimal administrative action. it is also against deleting anything that may have historical value (in this case, if for no other reason than to bolster arguments for a decent set of community guidelines).
that being said - what i'd consider appropriate in this case (based on mutiple personal attacks with no positive community contribution) would be to block these threads, and turn off wspr's ability to create new ones.
additional steps might be taken later on to restrict the problem even further, though i'd be reluctant to cut off all access.
(what disturbs me about these posts and threads, on a personal level, is that behind the vitriol there are actually occaisional arguments i agree with. i'd hate to have those rules turned on me should i take them up in a different forum)
that being said - what i'd consider appropriate in this case (based on mutiple personal attacks with no positive community contribution) would be to block these threads, and turn off wspr's ability to create new ones.
additional steps might be taken later on to restrict the problem even further, though i'd be reluctant to cut off all access.
(what disturbs me about these posts and threads, on a personal level, is that behind the vitriol there are actually occaisional arguments i agree with. i'd hate to have those rules turned on me should i take them up in a different forum)
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]
That's just it. I don't want to be pulling discussions just because they contain ideas I don't agree with. Hell, if we did that, we'd be awfully busy.
But if someone's creating an environment that is hostile, or making ad hominem attacks, or sick references to when and how people from within this community might/ought to die, or making up outright lies...I begin to feel differently.
But if someone's creating an environment that is hostile, or making ad hominem attacks, or sick references to when and how people from within this community might/ought to die, or making up outright lies...I begin to feel differently.
-
technopatra
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
- Location: SF, CA
- Contact:
The key difference is that you, III, would be able and willing to introduce and maintain constructive conversations about them, rather than just lash out to appease your ego.III wrote: (what disturbs me about these posts and threads, on a personal level, is that behind the vitriol there are actually occaisional arguments i agree with. i'd hate to have those rules turned on me should i take them up in a different forum)
i would hope so.
but i've also seen claims from some (including one or two on the tech team) that i'm part of the problem. and even if it wouldn't happen to me, i'm sure there are some people who could accidentally end up on the wrong side of the line if action is drastic and immediate.
if you're occaisionally at the offices, it shouldn't be too hard to dig up a 007 and ask them how the escalation to eviction works. i think there's probably something to be learned from that, as well.
but i've also seen claims from some (including one or two on the tech team) that i'm part of the problem. and even if it wouldn't happen to me, i'm sure there are some people who could accidentally end up on the wrong side of the line if action is drastic and immediate.
if you're occaisionally at the offices, it shouldn't be too hard to dig up a 007 and ask them how the escalation to eviction works. i think there's probably something to be learned from that, as well.
[url]http://3playa.cultureshark.net/[/url]
-
Kinetic II
Minefields of indecision
This whole experience is starting to feel like walking through a minefield. One wrong turn and your going to catch hell for it.
This is total bullshit. Pardon my language. I'm looking at it like this. This is a private board. It's being funded through the org. The org pays for the servers, the electricity, hell even the pizzas and stuff to keep the staff and volunteers going who work it. Now look at this place. The very thing they are paying for is being used to spread smears and lies against them. Basically these perps are digging into BM's pocketbook and using their own resources against them.
You can spin this 50,000 different ways but if I was paying for this, I'd exercise my rights to say enough, your outta here. Especially when the attacks are directed against senior staff...it kinda crosses over the line and makes this a part of a threatening work environment. The staff should be free from harassment, and that includes written or verbal, electronic or otherwise. Since this is written...it qualifies.
This is a dangerous slope to be on...but someone's going to need to act. If people do nothing the board will continue to lose viewers and it will cease to serve the function it was created for. If someone acts, they get the flames of a few pissed off people. But they decrease the tension....and maybe even head off a legal threat. I know this is rambling but there has got to be a way to stop this.
This is total bullshit. Pardon my language. I'm looking at it like this. This is a private board. It's being funded through the org. The org pays for the servers, the electricity, hell even the pizzas and stuff to keep the staff and volunteers going who work it. Now look at this place. The very thing they are paying for is being used to spread smears and lies against them. Basically these perps are digging into BM's pocketbook and using their own resources against them.
You can spin this 50,000 different ways but if I was paying for this, I'd exercise my rights to say enough, your outta here. Especially when the attacks are directed against senior staff...it kinda crosses over the line and makes this a part of a threatening work environment. The staff should be free from harassment, and that includes written or verbal, electronic or otherwise. Since this is written...it qualifies.
This is a dangerous slope to be on...but someone's going to need to act. If people do nothing the board will continue to lose viewers and it will cease to serve the function it was created for. If someone acts, they get the flames of a few pissed off people. But they decrease the tension....and maybe even head off a legal threat. I know this is rambling but there has got to be a way to stop this.
-
Guest
Stupid asshole loser fuckwit. Don't you have a job? Or a life? Your shrill, slanderous pissings won't accomplish anything. Burning Man is an ocean and you are cup of cold piss. The IRS and the LEOs and anyone capable of making BM different would do so if they wanted.WillSmallPenisRoger wrote: if you do censor me, you will be wasting your time. I have between 50-100 IP addresses, and plenty of time to keep you real busy.
Did you get fired? Did someone not sleep with you? Was your own personal vision of how it all should be somehow upstaged?
Seek therapy, or at least a deep hole somewhere far away. Asshole.
It ain't the hanging, it's the drop.
"radical free expression."
.
..until it interferes with someone else's experience, yes. See also: Capitalist Pigs. Don't exactly see a lot of folks rallying around your right to express yourself creatively, here, because you're not acting to express yourself, you're acting to hurt others and spread lies.
-
BlueBirdPoof
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
- Location: SF Bay Area
Nothing to see here.
Last edited by BlueBirdPoof on Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kinetic II
-
Guest
[quote="actiongrl"][quote]"radical free expression."[/quote]
.
..until it interferes with someone else's experience, yes. See also: Capitalist Pigs. Don't exactly see a lot of folks rallying around your right to express yourself creatively, here, because you're not acting to express yourself, you're acting to hurt others and spread lies.[/quote]
So when BMORG condoned the cops' censorship of the gay-themed Jiffy Lube sculpture and discouraged people from protesting that censorship, was that because it interfered with someone else's experience? Or was it just because they are a self-seeking group of greedy cowards, willing to kow tow to the authorities and sell out the event's artists, if that's what it takes to keep their little gravy train on track?
I'm not sure how exactly my comments are interfering with someone else's experience: am I interfering with Action Girl's experience of mindless adulation of Larry Harvey, perhaps?
.
..until it interferes with someone else's experience, yes. See also: Capitalist Pigs. Don't exactly see a lot of folks rallying around your right to express yourself creatively, here, because you're not acting to express yourself, you're acting to hurt others and spread lies.[/quote]
So when BMORG condoned the cops' censorship of the gay-themed Jiffy Lube sculpture and discouraged people from protesting that censorship, was that because it interfered with someone else's experience? Or was it just because they are a self-seeking group of greedy cowards, willing to kow tow to the authorities and sell out the event's artists, if that's what it takes to keep their little gravy train on track?
I'm not sure how exactly my comments are interfering with someone else's experience: am I interfering with Action Girl's experience of mindless adulation of Larry Harvey, perhaps?