From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:59:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep1.203330.21048@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>I'm for one surprised that anyone with a pretense, such as Henry and
>>Knucklehead have, to knowing C would have enough pride to proofread even
>>his pseudo-code,
>
>So, that anyone *would* proofread his pseudocode is surprising to you?
>Or are you surprised that Ed Nilges doen't have enough pride in what 
>he posts to proofread how his sentences parse?

Touche, Goofus.  Your correction is accepted: the above should read
"would not" where it reads "would."  Couple of points, however:


     *  Your correction mis-spells "doen't."                    

     *  The complexity of the thought expressed was several orders of
        magnitude higher than the complexity of the C code posted by
        Jackanapes and Knucklehead.  This makes typos more likely, and
        more (in my opinion) forgiveable.


There is a distinction between what pilots refer to as "finger trouble"
and the pretentious posting of C code with glaring errors, as your own
error makes clear.  For one thing, you understood my meaning whereas
a compiler even of "English" would not.  For another, Jackanapes and
Knucklehead were hoist with their own petard since their critique of the
"Hate Speech Okay" thread exalted the trivial at the expense of the
essential.  At the point at which they posted their idiot C code
samples, it was high time for some petard-hoisting.

Followups to alt.flame, which I do not review, since net guidelines
discourage this sort of discussion and it is not a legal discussion.

>
>>and I maintain that that is more important than
>>knowledge of racist trivia to the issue at hand.
>
>It wasn't trivia when *you* wanted to argue from it. Furthermore, if you
>are ignorant of it, how do you know it's racist?

Good heavens, it's remedial epistemology time.  I see a shape in the
darkness, it's probably a criminal so I run away (no, I'm not a member
of the Nut Rifle Association.)  I don't pause to chat, and I would not
even if I WERE a gun nut.

>
>I am intimately familiar with the post to which I am responding. It is
>part of a class (set) of posts with which I am familiar; posts in which
>the honest arguments of various netters are smeared by non-sequiturs,
>dishonest context-switching and blatant assertions without proof in a 
>spirit of a desperate need to create an illusion of Ed Nilges'
>"superiority" (also of childish viciousness).

Guy's prose even falls into Nilgesian, stately rythyms, probably
courtesy of plagiarism software which replaces enuf words to sound
original.  Sincerest forma flattery, matey.
>
>So any black person who finds Amos 'n Andy funny is a traitor to his
>race? So nice of you to speak for the *entire* black "race". I'll just
>let each black person speak for herself, thank you.

I'm not black.  And I don't speak for black people.  I find what little
I've watched of Amos 'n Andy to be garbage in an aesthetic sense, and I
have enuf imagination to speculate that IF I were black, I'd be
offended.  The interesting thing to me is that white men glorify TV
programs that were garbage, racial considerations apart.  Programs like
Amos 'n Andy and I Love Lucy were the "safe" (in the sense of offending
people, like blacks of the Fifties and feckless housewives, rather than
powerful corporate types) tripe that replaced the more adventurous
programs which you youngsters know nothing about: programs like the
made-forTV "days of wine and roses" and Chayefsky's work.
>
>Ed, this is not a test question, this is a diatribe. Could you label
>your text honestly? Please?

No, it was several questions, Goofus.  Whatsamatter, did you score
zero?
>
>Hey, didn't the movie adaptation of "The Right Stuff" have a physically
>imposing Latin orderly say to the astronaut who was imitating Jose,
>"We think your imitation of Jose Jiminez is A-ok, but what you do with
>it is b-a-d." I believe that was the last word on Jose Jiminez.

This maneuver, known as the Politically Correct BandAid, is often
repeated by postmodern racists and sexists.  It is not to be confused
with the political correctness of honest liberals and leftists; it is
instead a rhetorical maneuver in which the racist/sexist, having done a
slice-and-dice on a minority group or women, patches on a bit of PC in
the spirit of the little kid who says "just kidding."  Cf. maneuvers
here on the net in which the male poster "proves" is nonsexist
credentials by wheeling onstage the poor woman who happens to care about
him (I gotta girlfriend, ERGO I yam not sexist.)  Cf. the movie Bonfire
of the Vanities, a horrid piece of racist/sexist trash in which an ending
speech by Morgan Freeman attempts to "prove" political
correctness.  The Right Stuff was a better movie than Bonfire, for the
racism was a minor detail and the theme was genuinely heroic.  But the
orderly did not appear in the book, any more than Morgan Freeman
appeared in Bonfire's book (by the same author.)  The fact that
screenwriters have to do this to Tom Wolfe's books just proves what a
racist the guy is.

>In contrast, you declared a specific vaudeville racist, then were
>tripped up on the race of the comedians themselves. You should know
>when to hold your tongue.

Note the abusive Parent in Goofus' posting here, as well as the
confusing between speech and writing (I have better things to do with my
tongue than type.)  And it's interesting that statements like this come
from "defenders" of free speech.
Newsgroups: misc.legal