On kelley , Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:31:53 -0400 wrote: > > ac, you are being inordinately dense and it's time to educate > yourself by stepping out and reading the books i've suggested. no time, a fact of which you are well aware. if you can't argue the point, then we shall let it go. mastering the docs does *not* make you right, though. it says nothing about the *truth* of the matter, which is all that i care about. but in this case, it seems that you only want *some* docs mastered (when they say rtfm, they don't always mean just *one*)... > you are standing under an air conditioning unit saying, "it's > leaking. geez. gotta fix that!" huh? i *don't* see a problem. you are the one who is claiming the air conditioning is broken... > and have not actually attended to one thing i've written, not one. well, your three post limit has prevented me from dealing with anything but current posts. (i take it that you are simply rejecting out of hand my point-by-point rebuttal of your argument? i noticed that you only addressed one point -- about credentials, which is something i don't really care about.) > that's because you aren't familiar either with the literature nor > have you taken an objective look at your own discipline. ahh, i see. because i don't agree with you, i can't possibly be objective! because i actually have experience -- experience upon which *you* have relied upon, i might add -- i can't possibly understand the field. funny how right i was when we could actually *measure* the results!!! it is also interesting to me how you have ignored so much of other, similar literature that does not support your claims... it is equally as interesting how you want to reduce the "thing" to one (or a few) component(s), and then offer it as "analysis." my understanding (seeing the newtonian origins of that philosophy) is that one has to actually *understand* the thing being analyzed. your implicit claim, so newtonian and all, that the thing can be understood, it can be analyzed, and -- from this -- its future can be predicted is precisely what i question. apparently, i have annoyed you because i have attacked your "facts," your understanding of the thing itself, while ignoring the broad conclusions (and predictions). but if you don't understand the "thing," how can your predict its future? > i forwarded stuff here written by people elsewhere, stuff that went > veritably unrefuted on a list of 1000. stuff from eric, yes, i saw. i don't find him a particularly credible or unprejudiced source. i note that you rely on one specific aspect of the internet culture, while ignoring the rest. when, in a reply to doug's query, i point out the diverse legacy of the net, especially as it expanded outside the scientific community, you made light of it. i guess it didn't make your point, either... i have tried to show that, even in what is commonly considered the open source or free software movement, there is considerable diversity than you have considered. but if you wanted me to concentrate on eric's ego, forgive me, for that task many more are more willing than i! > now, there's a problem there if you cannot see how the attitudes > expressed at dc stuff are attitudes that are not uncommon regarding > the incredible specialness of IT folks, at least some factions of > them. yes, *some* factions (or parts thereof) express that belief in exceptionality. which one can find in *any* community; indeed, many students of international relations would say that *america* in general expresses a belief in its exceptionality. so your assertion that a small fragment of americans also assert a belief in their exceptionality is rather, well, unexceptional. i thought we were talking about how open source (which means gnu) is gonna change the world. i have tried to help you to see that such claims are little more that salesmanship, and really aren't taken that seriously -- except, perhaps, by the claimants themselves. they don't rank consideration by people who code for the movement. they don't rank consideration by serious thinkers about the net. and i would also note that those claimants that you offered (raymond and stallman) have been uniquely absent as we continue to build the net. funny how the writings of postel (who certainly believed in the net), perry, cerf and others are without these extradordinary claims upon which you are focused. did you ignore them merely because they don't make your point? or are they just not as easily compacted into your form of analysis? > there is an argument that technological knowledge is somehow > different, harder, and so when you master it you have control. *yawn* i thought we were talking about the 20th century. care to come out of the 18th???? and as for your inevitable assertion that those claims are *still* made, well, we have 300 years of proof that "technological knowledge" is NOT "somehow different, harder, and so when you master it you have control." geez, at what point do you say, yeah, yeah, i've heard *that* one before. just because *you* choose to give the same old claims of impending utopia credience does not mean that *i* have to. i was actually addressing issues i considered important -- not claims i thought were rendered impotent in the past! the net *is* important -- as important as the stirup -- but it is not gonna change the world. geeks aren't gonna leave their computer screens long enough to lead the revolution. and the economy is becoming increasingly polar in a whole new way (something else that i note that was ignored; i guess that doesn't matter) so that even highly educated people are gonna be stuck in the low end of the wage scale. instead, you want to argue about how geeks are self-important. well, i am not a geek, nor am i a libertarian, and i have always been considered a rogue thinker. there are people who even consider my views radical. but i don't fit in, even amongst all the other people who don't fit in! (i think you need to argue with people who argue in the manner in which you expect -- like dave -- or can educate...) > not so, as studies of other occupations making smae claimes have > shown. well, i *don't* see being a hacker or geek as an occupation, so i can't speak to your alluded similarity here. again, you have come to the right endpoint although you seemed to take the backwoods roads to get there. > sure, others don't feel the way that the Overtime post illustrated > (chris susi is one, but then his views would be held by some here > as racist, nationalist, nonsense or at lest feeding into what > noonan (A GEEK my lord) called, "anit-union, anti-immigrant, > assholes") i have not read that series of posts. quite frankly, i have been finding dc-stuff as boring as cypherpunks as late. and, then, you invite me here (presumably to offer a different opinion) and now you attack me for offering one! (oh, yeah, i was supposed to "get it;" you know, i never did learn to play with other children!) > i have heard from a number of geeky lefties offlist. kendall seems > to get it. joe noonan seems to get it. les seems to get it. peter > v seems to get it, tho perhaps he's had no time to refute. yoshie > and carrol, not geeks, seem to get it. so maybe the problem is not > my analysis eh? who knows if your analysis is flawed. i was still attacking your "facts" and assumptions. i told you offlist that there was a counter argument, and i didn't pursue because of seeming lack of interest. > a flaw in lefty analysis perhaps, but that's a bigger problem than > your sense that somehow i'm an ignoramous who should be called, > "dear". ah, i see. so you can address me condescendingly, but i can't return the same?? you need to tell me these things in advance. see, i actually do believe in equality and i (apparently incorrectly) assumed that our familiarity meant that you would *get* the biting sarcasm. my apologies if you were truly offended. ac ''' (0 0) ----oOO----(_)---------- | the geek shall | | inherit the earth | -----------------oOO---- |__|__| || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------------------------------------ AUSI.COM at http://ausi.com for FREE EMAIL, News, OLYMPICS, info about AUSTRALIA