Article: 7425 of fa.future-culture Path: glitnir.ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Current Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Suicide Threat - I Guess I'm the "Fascist" Date: 4 Apr 1994 15:30:54 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 150 Message-ID: <2np4qe$ogv@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404041330.25100.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 20:52:18 -0600 Comments: To: FUTURECULTURE LIST To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC I'm several hours behind on FC mail, so I probably haven't seen everything that has been written on the subject of Michael Roberts' post of last evening, but I think it is important for the list to know what my reaction was and what I did and why. As you know, I posted to FC after I read the message, hoping for advise and/or insights from other FC'ers. No one posted anything to the list - at least not anything that showed up here - except for one totally unrelated post at about 4 or 5 a.m. My reaction to the post was a bit different from those I have read so far. I was aware from the outset that it might be, perhaps even probably was, a hoax. But I did not feel that there was enough in the post to let me be sure of that. Having been suicidal myself, and recently, and having dealt with more suicidal people than I care to think about, I have learned to always take people seriously until I know otherwise. Some of this, no doubt, comes from my own regrets - I cannot shake the memory of standing over the dead body of my cousin (and _only_ childhood friend) and wishing that I had seen/heard more of the clues, and that I had not been so ill as to be unable to go where he was to check things out. I cannot shake the memory of a more recent call from the mother of a young man I did not know very well, who had called me one night at about 4 a.m., when I was asleep, terribly exhausted, and on sedatives. She told me that she had learned from the phone company that the call he placed to me from his room was the last call he placed before he hung himself while they were sleeping in another part of the house. She figured I was the last person who had talked to her son alive, and wanted to know what his last words/thoughts were. It was awful to tell her that the call - which happened about a month before she contacted me - was only a very dim memory to me and that I had no idea as to the content of the conversation. . . . In any case, hearing nothing from people on FC, I posted to another list I am on, Walkers-In-Darkness, a sort of self-help list for people who suffer from major depression. I guess for obvious reasons there are more insomniacs on Walkers, and I heard from several people. One person even took the trouble to phone me long distance from upstate New York. All of them were agreed that the content of the message was questionable, and it was impossible to guess whether the person was serious or not. All of them were agreed that I had to assume he might be, and to act. So I acted. Shortly after 8 A.M. CST, having still heard nothing from any FC'ers, I called the Student Affairs office at Northern Illinois University. My philosophy, I guess, is that people do have a right to kill themselves if that is what they really want. But it is not my experience that people who really want to do so make public announcements of their intentions. Dr. Kevorkian's patients, for example, don't hold press conferences to justify what they are about to do, no matter how much I am sure some of them might wish to. I feel that you can safely assume that someone who *is* suicidal who does something like post in the way Roberts did is clearly asking for help. My philosophy evolved last night. Now, I know I also feel strongly that no one has the right to do what Roberts did as a "joke" or "prank" or whatever and expect there to be no consequences. I feel that posting as he did was not merely an act of free speech, it was also, if it was not serious, a cruel and unjustifiable stunt to pull in the FC community. No humorous intent, no intellectual curiousity, no desire for "philosophical experimentation" can justify posting something so grave and emotion- laden as Roberts' post if it is not, in fact, serious. Nothing can justify playing with our minds that way. No more than it could be justified if the person invaded my personal space to make his "threat" - and I guess I learned that I feel that FC is in fact a personal and familial space to me. As the hour mentioned in Roberts' post grew closer, I found I just could not sit by, wondering if I would ever know if he was serious or what happened to him. If that makes me a "fascist," so be it. I was unaware of the events that Erik posted about, but I doubt that knowing about them would have altered my decision - they still would not have been enough to make me certain that Roberts was not serious. So I spoke to someone in NIU Student Affairs, who called the school's counseling service. A doctor from the counseling service phoned me, and we went over the text of the message. He, too, felt that it was impossible to tell if the post was serious or not. He was, of course, unwilling to take the risk of assuming that it was. He contacted the Campus Police, who had me fax them a copy of the post, and began to search for Roberts. When 9:30 rolled around, they still had not located him, so they sent some people to the site mentioned in the post. Roberts did not appear. They left someone at that site just in case he appeared there later. He did, shortly after 10 A.M. He told the official that he had not been serious, that the post was a "philosophical experiment." According to the Vice-President for Student Affairs, who called a little while later to thank me, Roberts willingly went with the official to talk to someone from the counseling service. I doubt I will every learn any more about this because, of course, once it becomes the business of the mental health professionals, it becomes a confidential matter. I can tell you that the V-P for Student Affairs at least sounded as if he was not viewing the whole matter from a punative perspective, but rather felt it was still possible that Roberts had been serious, but became afraid to admit it when confronted for fear of what might happen to him if he admitted he really was suicidal. His suspicion, however, based on past knowledge of the person, was that it was in fact a hoax, and he indicated that if that was established they would have to consider canceling Roberts' Net account through NIU. As he thanked me for about the fifth time, I had the uneasy feeling that people on the Net might not be equally thankful. I know there is a strong "libertarian" impulse here. Reading the stuff that Eric posted made me feel even more concerned for awhile. But frankly, I reject the validity of the argument that unless one is free to prank people about their intent to end their lives on the Net, it is not a "safe place." One generally does not feel free to do that in real-life communities, and I don't really see why they should feel more comfortable doing so here. All that would say is that the fact that we are not together "in the flesh" somehow justifies acting out with a cynical lack of respect and concern for us as a virtual community. I simply don't endorse that viewpoint. What I feel worst about, frankly, is the post from Chuck where he indicated that he felt guilty about this incident due to his own honesty and frankness with us. That makes me mad, and illustrates how destructive Roberts' act, if not seriously intended, was to us as a community. I'm grateful to be part of a community where Chuck can open up the way he has. I hope I could do the same thing if I needed to. There was clearly nothing wrong in Chuck's posts - he simply felt secure enough to be open to the rest of us here on FC because of how hard we have all worked to make this, in fact, a "safe place." It was Roberts who potentially threatened the safety of FC, by making people like Chuck feel less comfortable speaking out. In any case, that is what I did and my view of the matter. I'm sorry if anyone here feels that I played the "fascist." I'm willing to take the consequences of my actions. Just thought you all deserved to know about this. Take care, all. Michael -- ---------------------------Michael J. Current---------------------------- mcurrent@picard.infonet.net -or- @ins.infonet.net -or- @nyx.cs.du.edu Specializing in Philosophy, Queer Studies, Depression, & Unemployment :) 737 - 18th Street, #9 * Des Moines, IA * 50314-1031 *** (515) 283-2142 "AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article: 7449 of fa.future-culture Path: glitnir.ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Roberts Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: With friends like I've got in Iowa"""""" Date: 4 Apr 1994 17:12:19 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 62 Message-ID: <2npaoj$r1o@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404041512.27699.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 02:22:00 CST To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC I really can't think of a scarier combo than a psychologist and 2 cops. The concept of mandatory hospitalization is dangerous when you can't get 2 mental health professionals to agree on what is sick and what is not. Doc -- who proposes "They're coming to take me away" as the new national anthem This is exactly what I ended up looking at this morning because some nutcase from Iowa called the local thought police here at Northern ranting and raving about how I was desperate and meant to off myself in the King Commons with a can of drano. The last time I saw one of the folks I dealt with this morning was back several years ago when I was involved in bringing a speaker to Campus the folks in student affairs (the folks my dear friend from Iowa called) didn't think ought to be allowed to speak here. Another guy I got to talk to was Steve DeCrow. DeCrow works for UP&A, the censors here at Northern. A while back, DeCrow's boss at UP&A declared ex cathedra that a flyer which contained the word "dyke" could not be posted anywhere on campus. That flyer advertised a volleyball game being held by our campus lesgay student group and the term was meant as self description. I wrote a fairly nasty letter to the editor of our campus newspaper over that one. I've done quite a few things to piss off our American Gothic styled administration here at Northern. But, I don't usually worry much about how those folks might use what I post online against me. When I do feel I might be saying something I would not want to get back to the wrong people here at Northern, I post through an anon account. I didn't go through the anon account this time because it never occured to me that some basket case from Iowa would be driven by his own personal demons to call the thought police clear over in another state ranting and raving about a bad April fools day joke. This was my stupidity and I will pay for it by losing my account. A psychologist, two plaincolthes police, UP&A, Student Affairs and the district attorney all got involved on the basis of a phone call from our less than stable friend in Iowa. Now I think this was a slight over reaction but I know the fine Ed. Admin types here at Northern well enough to know that they will use their own response as an index of how serious what they were responding to actually was. So, on the basis of their own insane response to a phone call from some lunatic in Iowa, I now have a costly and disturbing prank to explain to the less than tolerant souls who run this place. Amazing how much one phone call from a caring person can accomplish isn't it? Did my friend from Iowa give any thought at all to how his own skillfull intervention in my life might magnify the consequences of making a lame joke if I were, in fact, joking? The GA I thought I had pretty much sewed up for next year requires net access. So does the dissertation I was doing. Is it good to make bad and insensitive jokes online? No. Will doeing so normally get plaincolthes police sent to your home at 9:15am? No. But, it will if you have a special, sensitive and loving friend to bring the dumbest thing you've said anyplace virtual or otherwise in quite a while to the attention of all the right people. The net in general and FC in particular has meant an awfull lot to me even though I've always lurked way more than I've posted. I've occassionally thrown in my two cents worth but mostly I've sat chortling in mute happyness at my terminal while being wonderfully entertained and enlightened by the rest of you. I will miss this place and regret more than anything that I didn't give more back. Though I'm being forced to leave after posting once to often, I'm also leaving with the sad feeling that I didn't post nearly often enough. Thanks(really) and Goodbye(regretfully), Michael Roberts Article: 7463 of fa.future-culture Path: glitnir.ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: John Frost Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa"""""" Date: 4 Apr 1994 22:27:21 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 32 Message-ID: <2npt79$7mg@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404042026.7878.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 12:26:55 -0700 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404041514.IAA27604@mail.netcom.com> I've got three things to say about this situation. 1 - although I most likely wouldn't have done the same thing Micheal Current did, in fact I didn't, I stand by what he did as a 'right' thing to do. Maybe not the only correct thing, but a 'right' thing, a responsible thing. 2 - If you can't do the Time, don't do the crime. This includes pranks. When Michael Roberts posted to FC that he was gonna kill himself, and he neglected to insert a smiley or an 'april fools', IMHO he openned himself up for whatever is coming his way. I'm not sure the punishment fits this crime, but it is better then expellsion, which I've seen happen for lessor pranks. 3 - Sometime ago, there was a discussion on the intimacy of text and of how people shouldn't need to use smileys in their writing to convey humor. I think this is certainly an exception to that rule. On Sat, 2 Apr 1994, Michael Roberts wrote: 5 This is exactly what I ended up looking at this morning because > some nutcase from Iowa called the local thought police here at > Northern ranting and raving about how I was desperate and meant to > off myself in the King Commons with a can of drano. The last time > This was my stupidity and I will pay for it > by losing my account. I edited out a bunch of hurtful, and possibly untrue, comments about Michael Current. But the above summarizes Roberts' feelings pretty well. -indigo Article: 7483 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Marius Ibenhardt Watz Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa"""""" Date: 5 Apr 1994 12:07:14 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 18 Message-ID: <2nrd8i$1aq@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404051007.1354.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:06:16 +0200 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In article <2npt79$7mg@ifi.uio.no>, indigo writes: > 1 - although I most likely wouldn't have done the same thing Micheal > Current did, in fact I didn't, I stand by what he did as a > 'right' thing to do. Maybe not the only correct thing, but a > 'right' thing, a responsible thing. Seconded. I would not have done what Michael Current did, yet it was a right thing to do. I can understand Michael Roberts' bitterness, but he took a chance and paid for it, even if the payment might seem out of hand to the suddenly indebted. > -indigo -- Marius mariusw@ifi.uio.no http://www.ifi.uio.no/~mariusw/futurec/ Article: 7502 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Eric C Cook Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 5 Apr 1994 21:37:46 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 29 Message-ID: <2nsema$plt@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404051937.26298.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:16:05 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9404051005.AA36460@student2.cl.msu.edu> from "Marius Ibenhardt Watz" at Apr 5, 94 12:06:16 pm > > In article <2npt79$7mg@ifi.uio.no>, indigo writes: > > 1 - although I most likely wouldn't have done the same thing Micheal > > Current did, in fact I didn't, I stand by what he did as a > > 'right' thing to do. Maybe not the only correct thing, but a > > 'right' thing, a responsible thing. And Marius responds with: > > Seconded. I would not have done what Michael Current did, > yet it was a right thing to do. I can understand Michael > Roberts' bitterness, but he took a chance and paid for it, > even if the payment might seem out of hand to the suddenly > indebted. Ok..I have a question in response for both Marius and indigo: If you both considered the action that Micheal took as being the "Right Thing", why did neither of you do something similar? [Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, please read this as a query, *not* as any sort of accusation.] I'm curious, and considered what the appropriate response was as well at the time...In the end, I also did nothing. Inquiringly, --Eric cookeri1@student.msu.edu http://web.cps.msu.edu/~cookeri1/index.html Article: 7503 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: John Frost Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 5 Apr 1994 22:02:37 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 21 Message-ID: <2nsg4t$qb0@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404052002.26962.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:46:38 -0700 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404051941.MAA23025@mail.netcom.com> On Tue, 5 Apr 1994, Eric C Cook wrote: > If you both considered the action that Micheal took as being the "Right Thing", > why did neither of you do something similar? Niether of us said it was _THE_ right thing, we both explicitly said that is was _A_ right thing. One correct choice among many possibilities. > [Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, please read this as a query, > *not* as any sort of accusation.] I'm curious, and considered what the > appropriate response was as well at the time...In the end, I also did nothing. > Hope, it is clear. > > Inquiringly, > --Eric > cookeri1@student.msu.edu > http://web.cps.msu.edu/~cookeri1/index.html > john Article: 7504 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "Gregory H. Ritter" Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 5 Apr 1994 22:09:14 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 51 Message-ID: <2nsgha$qj8@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404052009.27229.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:52:59 EDT Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: ; from "Eric C Cook" at Apr 5, 94 3:16 pm > > Seconded. I would not have done what Michael Current did, > > yet it was a right thing to do. I can understand Michael > > Roberts' bitterness, but he took a chance and paid for it, > > even if the payment might seem out of hand to the suddenly > > indebted. > > Ok..I have a question in response for both Marius and indigo: > > If you both considered the action that Micheal took as being the "Right Thing", > why did neither of you do something similar? > [Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, please read this as a query, > *not* as any sort of accusation.] I'm curious, and considered what the > appropriate response was as well at the time...In the end, I also did nothing. > > > Inquiringly, > --Eric > cookeri1@student.msu.edu > http://web.cps.msu.edu/~cookeri1/index.html > I also did nothing, but I recognized the post as a joke. I believe the Michael that called the officials on the other Michael (I'm getting my Michaels confused...let's call them poster-Michael and responder-Michael)...[starting this thought over] I think responder-Michael said in his explanation that he wasn't up on the entire thread that had arisen out of Chuck's re- post of Diablo's problem. I understood the satire of poster- Michael's post because I placed it in the context of the entire 'suicide' thread. Responder-Michael did not place it in that context. I think poster-Micheal's fatal flaw was the assumption that the context was evident. Obviously, it was not. Without references to ealier posts (i.e. quotes) or without some symbology to indicate tone (i.e. smilies), an e-mail message can exist in a contextual void, and I think that's where the problem arose in this situation. -- *********************************************************** * Greg Ritter |"All I can do is tell the truth. * * Dept. of English |No, that isn't so--I have missed * * Va. Commonwealth U. |it. There is no truth that, in * * Richmond, VA 23220 |passing through awareness, does * * eng3ghr@hibbs.vcu.edu |not lie. But one runs after it * *---------------------- |all the same." * *They call me FICTIONBOY| --Jacques Lacan * *********************************************************** Article: 7507 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Kelly Setzer Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 5 Apr 1994 23:46:57 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 67 Message-ID: <2nsm8h$t8t@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404052146.29960.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:45:43 CDT Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404052012.PAA04880@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>; from "Gregory H. Ritter" at Apr 5, 94 3:52 pm Gregory H. Ritter said: > > > Seconded. I would not have done what Michael Current did, > > > yet it was a right thing to do. I can understand Michael > > > Roberts' bitterness, but he took a chance and paid for it, > > > even if the payment might seem out of hand to the suddenly > > > indebted. A couple of things: Saying that it was a right thing to do is fine as long as those who think their "things" are right realize that it's an opinion (just as this post is an opinion; note the recursive nature of that argument). Second, I don't believe that Michael Roberts thought he was taking a risk. This sort of attitude discourages action, brings about unwarranted distrust of your fellows. > > Ok..I have a question in response for both Marius and indigo: > > > > If you both considered the action that Micheal took as being > > the "Right Thing", > > why did neither of you do something similar? > > [Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, please read > > this as a query, > > *not* as any sort of accusation.] I'm curious, and considered > > what the > > appropriate response was as well at the time...In the end, I > > also did nothing. > > > > Inquiringly, > > --Eric Great point, Eric. I find the concept of more than one correct course of action questionable. I wish the two who posted "a right thing" would eloborate on how "a right thing" != "THE right thing" > I also did nothing, but I recognized the post as a joke. I > believe the Michael that called the officials on the other > Michael (I'm getting my Michaels confused...let's call them > poster-Michael and responder-Michael)...[starting this thought > over] I think responder-Michael said in his explanation that he > wasn't up on the entire thread that had arisen out of Chuck's re- > post of Diablo's problem. I understood the satire of poster- > Michael's post because I placed it in the context of the entire > 'suicide' thread. Responder-Michael did not place it in that > context. I think poster-Micheal's fatal flaw was the assumption > that the context was evident. Obviously, it was not. Without > references to ealier posts (i.e. quotes) or without some > symbology to indicate tone (i.e. smilies), an e-mail message can > exist in a contextual void, and I think that's where the problem > arose in this situation. In my opinion, that is an excellent ananlysis. However, I think we've diverged a bit from the most important point. Was Michael Current's interevention appropriate? This brings in many other questions such as whether or not suicide is ok, but that's another thread. I am of the opinion that M. Current really shouldn't have done what he did. I'll have to postpone a good, philosophical argument until later, but there is a good practical reasoning, which has already been pointed out. That is, mail security. Like someone said and demonstrated on the list, anybody with a brain can fake mail... I have, and I don't have too much up there. Kelly (at the moment) -- Disclaimer: My opinions are not necessarily those of Vanderbilt University, even though they should be. Article: 7518 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Current Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 05:02:35 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 50 Message-ID: <2nt8ob$853@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060302.8348.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:51:50 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404052149.QAA00444@picard.infonet.net> from "Kelly Setzer" at Apr 5, 94 04:45:43 pm Kelly, I certainly considered the possibility that someone had forged the post in Michael Roberts' name, or that someone had illegally accessed his account. Obviously, there was no way I could determine if this was the case or not, especially in so short a time. The truth, of course, is that neither of those things happened. I tend to think that you simply disagree with my approach and are attempting to state that by raising side issues rather than approaching your disagreement head on. Life is not precise or certain. There are RL equivalents to the fears you sight. People prank the police and fire departments with fake calls for help - this happens right here in Des Moines, despite elaborate technology for processing and tracking calls, links to the phone company, etc. This makes it risky for the subject, unless, of course, they call for a pay phone to say that a building is on fire up the street or a woman is being raped or whatever. Then they can get the hell out of there before the police or fire trucks arrive. I know about this because it really ticks off the fire department, especially, since it apparently costs them a great deal of money each time they deploy their forces. But I suspect that none of us would be too happy if the fire deparment let our home, apartment building or dorm burn down because they could not be sure that a call about a fire was not a prank I suspect that none of us would be happy if a rape was allowed to proceed and the rapist go unpunished because the police could not immediately determine the veracity of the call reporting the rape. Is that what you want to have happen? Is that the kind of world you want to live in - where nobody lifts a hand to help without empirical proof that will generally be unavailable until it is too late? This is like the people who die of heart attacks in New York City subways because the other passengers - I have witnessed this - take no action when somebody keels over because it is known to sometimes be a technique for getting someone in a vulnerable position and then pulling a knife or gun and robbing them. Surely, if we hope to remain human, we have to take chances. . . . . Michael -- ---------------------------Michael J. Current---------------------------- mcurrent@picard.infonet.net -or- @ins.infonet.net -or- @nyx.cs.du.edu Specializing in Philosophy, Queer Studies, Depression, & Unemployment :) 737 - 18th Street, #9 * Des Moines, IA * 50314-1031 *** (515) 283-2142 "AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article: 7524 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Roberts Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 07:57:20 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 64 Message-ID: <2ntj00$blk@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060557.11946.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 00:55:00 CDT To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Hi Folks! This is poster Michael again. I'm really a bit surprised that the plug hasn't been pulled on me yet. Surprised enough, in fact, to start wondering if my sense of how the Ed. Admin types here at N.I.U. intend to react to this episode might be as faulty as my sense of how my original posting would be received. I haven't heard from anyone official since friday. When and if I do, my biggest regret will be that Greg Ritter isn't here at Northern to help me explain how I could have done something this stupid and then simply toddled off to bed without worrying even a little about what the consequences might be. I honestly thought that the context of the thread and the contrived loopyness of my post would combine to signal everyone that here was a fool celebrateing the one day a year we set aside to honor tomfoolery with more gusto than good sense. We were talking about the realtime consequences of communicative acts performed in virtual spaces. My post was an attempt to demonstrate by example that these real world consequences will all depend on (A) the norms of some virtual community (B) the thread considered as a context which fixes meaning and (C) those signals embedded in the post itself whic h cue the audience as to the author's intention in posting. I meant to post a publick anouncement of my intention to committ suicide which would have no real world consequences at all simply because it could not be taken seriously as such. Boy, did I screw up. I've always thought of FC as a place where people in general are willing to tolerate a certain amount of weird noise in exchange for a near total freedom of self expression. FC is not the place to be if you're the kind of person who enjoys network TV and needs a speec h code to feel comfy on campus or medication to keep the monsters out from under your bed. My audience analysis of FC was that people here are both significantly brighter and significantly less phobic than people in general. For that reason, I once felt safe saying thi ngs here that I would not say too many other places. I won't feel that way anymore. I also thought I was safe in assuming everyone would read whatever I posted in the context of the ongoing thread and be sensitive in reading for context cues that might signal ironic intent. I thought "crazy as a loon" and "bite dat tree" where pretty obvious as cues of such intent. In hindsight, I must confess that they were not obvious enough for some people. But, even now, this frankly surprises me. I had no idea when I posted that anyone would take me seriously. Then again, as I said, I was picturing a reader who was brighter, more sensitive to irony and less phobic than Mr. and Ms. Neilson. My post was a joke and a bad one. It was a bad one because it was not, even read in the context of the thread and with a reasonable sensitivity to irony, as clearly a joke as I meant it to be. If I had enjoyed the benefit of Greg Ritter's good rhetorical advice before posting, I could and would have made it quite plainly a joke and therefor harmless. In the form that it was posted it was neither ,and for that, I am deeply sorry. In a real way, the net just died for me. It's still an important educational resource. It's still something I need and will use. But, the sense of openess, of magic, the sense that I can play here and joke here without worrying how Joe Friday or our local pc princess might feel about it is gone. I'll be more self protective from now on. I'll post picturing my reader as a troubled man wandering lost in the endless dark night of his own wounded soul. I'll post knowing that what the most damaged and confused of my readers may think I meant and do in response is more important by far than what the people who got the joke I meant to make heard me say. I won't make any jokes that might be misunderstood. I won't make any jokes at all. Goodnight, Poster Michael Article: 7526 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "GARY PULLIS (VALENTINE)" <6705146@SUNYBROOME.EDU> Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: all this yap yap Date: 6 Apr 1994 08:27:56 +0200 Organization: Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY, USA Lines: 49 Message-ID: <2ntkpc$chj@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060627.12844.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 02:27:16 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Chuck Adams [cadams@WEATHER.BROCKPORT.EDU]: >(subject line is another stock phrase: all this ___ yap.) > >This is getting fucking nuts, but I guess I deserved it. I mean I >posted my own thoughts on it, forwarded something else, and turned it >into a debate, and now some nipplehead has posted his intent to kill >himself, a post with dubious credibility. I feel somehow ridiculed. > >But if I throw my psychological problems to the peanut gallery, I >guess I should have expected it. Someone a while ago posted a message where they talked about the phenomena where people on an e-list move from talking about the subject of the list to talking about technology of talking. We seemed to have moved beyond talking about the technology -- now we're talking about ourselves. Is this an attempt to link the observer to the observed in some antropological discourse? Have we just become so comfortable with each other that we feel safe sharing our feelings? Are we leveraging our personal lives to try and squeeze that last ounce of bitterness into our prose? ... I'm sure the message of the "intent to kill" post was illustrative only (please, god, I hope so). It seemed to be asking: "here I am posting this message, what will happen to me?" It was an illustration of absurdity -- but not the absurdity of the potential suicide, if you take my meaning. ... From what I've read, we all have rich personalities. I think that if we really want to talk about our culture, we have to talk about ourselves as deeply and personally as possible. We have to sustain an environment where we feel comfortable doing this. This is the only way we can attain real validity in our discourse. Chuck, In the short time I've been here, you've consitently left great posts. I think the widespread responce to your threads are an indication of their interest to all of us. Nothing is worse that starting a thread that no one wants to continue. You make people respond, and that's great. It's my hope deeply personal prose becomes the norm on FC. < <> <> | Gary Pullis: 6705146@sunybroome.edu > < |------------------------------------------------ > < |"Biosphere 2 is living proof that you can't do > < | real science if everyone has to wear an > < | identical red jumpsuit." > < | -- Erich Schneider > Article: 7513 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: "GARY PULLIS (VALENTINE)" <6705146@SUNYBROOME.EDU> Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: public announcement of intention to committ suicide Date: 6 Apr 1994 01:58:12 +0200 Organization: Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY, USA Lines: 20 Message-ID: <2nstuk$3fs@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404052358.3577.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:55:14 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC >I would just like to take this oppurtunity to publickly >announce that I am crazy as a loon and will kill myself by >drinking drano in the Kings Common here at Northern Illinois >University at exaqctly 9;30am tommarow. Unless, off course, I >am stoped by a group of helping professionals. > Bite dat tree, > Michael Roberts Damned. I knew I should've stayed caught up on my email. Been nice knowing you, Michael. If I only had a chance to call the nice men from the institution.... < <> <> | Gary Pullis: 6705146@sunybroome.edu > < |------------------------------------------------ > < |"Biosphere 2 is living proof that you can't do > < | real science if everyone has to wear an > < | identical red jumpsuit." > < | -- Erich Schneider > Article: 7528 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Current Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 09:09:44 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 142 Message-ID: <2ntn7o$du4@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060709.14272.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 02:10:21 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404060559.AAA04747@picard.infonet.net> from "Michael Roberts" at Apr 6, 94 00:55:00 am You just don't get it, Michael. I have to say that your three follow-ups to your original prank post make you seem fairly manic. In the first, you are apologetic. (I thought, given the time stamp on that post, that it had been posted _after_ your encounter with the campus authorities). In the second, you are full of venom and finger-pointing. In the third, you are more calm and rational, I get fewer pejorative adjectives per sentence thrown my way, you seem to more fully realize how you messed up, and yet you are still convinced that the problem is my (or *my* as an archetype for a certain kind of Net personality) mental pathology. I'm not really sure where you are coming from, in the end. Partly, you seem to want to call this an "experiment," admit that it was flawed, and still place all the blame on the audience that the experiment went awry. That does not make a lot of sense. What I find most offensive is not all the names you have called me, but rather your assumption that you know and understand me and my "type." I am, apparently, some sort of fairly right-wing, meddling, Iowa yokel (as opposed to all those enlightened people over across the eastern border - I grew up in Davenport, on the river, and that sure was not my experience. . .) who is shallow, uneducated, and spends too much time watching t.v. soap operas or something. Well, think what you want. I would just suggest that you talk to someone who is respected here and also knows me - Erich Schneider for example - to make sure that your powers of divination are as keen as you think they are. One learns, in experimenting, that the variables are not as subject to one's expectations and control as you appear to think. Nobody who is unable to deal with unexpected consequences should be experimenting, especially if we are talking _social_ experimentation. Perhaps you need to read a bit more chaos theory. As for your Net access, I am glad it has not been pulled. That was never my intent. I do think you have yet to learn a useful lesson from this, but I am of the mindset that punishment seldom leads to as much learning as society would have us believe. I was just about, in fact, to post a message, part of which said that I didn't think that termination of your Net access, at least on more than a temporary basis, was a good idea, and expressing my willingness to do whatever I could in conjunction with other FC'ers to try and help you get it back - certainly before it impacted too severely on your academic work. I still feel that way. So if you find your Net access about to be pulled, let us know. If it gets pulled suddenly and you don't have a chance to tell us over the Net, write or call one of us (my info. is in my sig). I really would do whatever I could to argue against such a measure, or at least to argue that it should be temporary rather than permanent. As for your remaining on this list and a member of this community, I feel a bit differently about that. What you did was harmful to me, and you have continued to rub salt in the wound. Everybody jokes here, Erich and I do little else on IRC, to the point that we sometimes drive people off the channel. I am not some humorless bureaucrat. And yes, this should be a safe space for people. It should be a safe space to talk about suicidality, if people want - its pain, its excitement, its irony. But I don't agree that it ought to be safe to threaten to actually commit suicide here as a "joke." It simply is not funny. Nor do I yet understand how it is of "experimental" interest - what the purpose of your experiment was, and why it was worth doing. You may write that off as provincialism if you wish, but I think you would be in error. Again, it seems like your fixation with some kind of pop culture notion about Iowa and the idea that I have just gotten in from slopping the hogs or some such when I log on and read my FC mail has gotten the best of you. This snobbishness does not speak well of someone who wants to be understood as so enlightened and so much on the cutting edge. People who take my view about threats of suicide can be found in every state and profession and at every level of intellectual achievement amongst people of every ideological persuasion. It is not some fucking "hip" vs. "unhip" thing. It is a question of how one is formed by life experiences. They have life experiences outside of Iowa, so far as I know. At least they did before I moved back here from the east coast. As for your "disillusionment," I am afraid it is with the diverse make-up of society, not with the Net. The Net, after all, is just people, not some transcendent elite insider crowd who have all social and personal context wiped out of them every time they hit the dial buttom on their term-soft. Yes, I suffer from a treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, and yes, I take medication for it. I have never hidden that fact, or had it belittled on the Net, ever, by anyone, in any Net space - except for you. And yes, due to years of peer counseling work, AND the fact that I tend to hang-out with a fringe crowd that thinks and feels too much, I've seen suicide first-hand too many times to be unaffected by it. Sorry. If I read your post right, at one point you suggest that part of the magic of the Net is going to be spoiled for you by the fact that you are going to have to realize that amongst the Net community there are people in pain who will be reading you. Um, how long have you been on the Net????? How long have you been alive, for that matter? This is not the type of disillusionment that I can shed any tears over. Looked at from this angle, I have done you a great favor by shattering whatever mystification you had conjured up that would have made any academic treatment of the Net you might produce less than realistic and well-grounded. Perhaps you have also learned some of the indignity that those of us with serious mental health problems face. If I guess right, the people who dealt with you probably acted fairly idiotic. That is typically the case. Now, imagine if you really were suicidal and had to face the same idiotic behaviors. It sucks, man! Don't think I found the idea of calling the "authorities" at all pleasant, or had any high hopes for how they would behave - bitter experience has taught me otherwise. Sadly, sadly, sadly this is what the establishment is like in this country when it comes to this sort of thing. Part of my work, both at the level of theory and practice, is to try and change that. But for now, it is all we got, and there is no choice but to use it when you have to and hope for the best, or simply to sit back and allow tragedies to occur because you despise the mental health establishment. Neither one strikes me as an attractive choice, but one may be better than the other for the time being. My best friend in college had a schizophrenic breakdown while we were living together. My disdain for the mental health establishment was so great at that point that I waited far too long to get him any help, trying to shield him from stupid (if not worse) hospitals and arrogant, bumbling psychiatrists. Turned out his condition improved almost immediately with medication. He felt very strongly that the attendant bullshit was worth it in order to get back into his right mind. It was not very hard to get him to understand and accept why I waited as long as I did - until I was sick just from the effort of covering up for him. But that first conversation after he was better, when he asked why I let it all go on so long, was really awful. I frankly think until you apologize without pointing fingers and show some sign of opening your mind to the experience and feelings of others that does not involve putting them down as inferior, you are not suited to be in this community. That is not up to me, of course. But if I have to put up with your insults much longer, I will be forced to unsub myself, and I don't want to do that, because this is one of the two most important spaces on the Net for me. Michael -- ---------------------------Michael J. Current---------------------------- mcurrent@picard.infonet.net -or- @ins.infonet.net -or- @nyx.cs.du.edu Specializing in Philosophy, Queer Studies, Depression, & Unemployment :) 737 - 18th Street, #9 * Des Moines, IA * 50314-1031 *** (515) 283-2142 "AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article: 7530 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Eric C Cook Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 10:18:42 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 66 Message-ID: <2ntr92$g80@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060818.16637.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 04:15:37 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9404060558.AA35137@student5.cl.msu.edu> from "Michael Roberts" at Apr 6, 94 00:55:00 am "Poster Micheal" said: > I also thought I was safe in assuming everyone > would read whatever I posted in the context of the ongoing thread > and be sensitive in reading for context cues that might signal > ironic intent. I thought "crazy as a loon" and "bite dat tree" > where pretty obvious as cues of such intent. In hindsight, I must > confess that they were not obvious enough for some people. But, > even now, this frankly surprises me. I had no idea when I posted > that anyone would take me seriously. Then again, as I said, I was > picturing a reader who was brighter, more sensitive to irony and > less phobic than Mr. and Ms. Neilson. Assumptions on context: --I was ignoring the thread that your post was a response to. Yet, I read your post. There is no guaranteed context. --You didn't stop to consider that other's may have had a personal context that was removed from yours. My context in the situation: In High School, one of my best friends wrote poetry as a joke. Really *bad* poetry, mocking poetry, set in the context of poking fun at the "troubled" teens who spent near every waking hour telling everyone how horrible their lives were, complaining about how horrible it was to have uppermiddle class parents, and so on. "I wish I was impaled, on a big pole; my heart's been buried, in a big dark hole..", that sort of thing, achingly bad poetry, that he would show you each morning at the locker with a giggle. Only, it turned out to be not so funny, because at the end of that year, he stuck a gun in his mouth, and pulled the goddamn trigger. ***************************************************************************** Look, I didn't intend this to be a flame, but you hit a nerve... So excuse the fuck out of me if my "context" doesn't allow me to appreciate the "irony" in your post. > My post was a joke and a bad one. It was a bad one because it was > not, even read in the context of the thread and with a reasonable > sensitivity to irony, as clearly a joke as I meant it to be. Actually, I think it was bad because it failed to be joke at all. > In a real way, the net just died for me. It's still an important > educational resource. It's still something I need and will use. But, > the sense of openess, of magic, the sense that I can play here and > joke here without worrying how Joe Friday or our local pc princess > might feel about it is gone. I'll be more self protective from now > on. I'll post picturing my reader as a troubled man wandering lost > in the endless dark night of his own wounded soul. I'll post knowing > that what the most damaged and confused of my readers may think I > meant and do in response is more important by far than what the > people who got the joke I meant to make heard me say. I won't make > any jokes that might be misunderstood. I won't make any jokes at > all. Imagine my deep sympathy for you. (And yeah, that's supposed to be fucking sarcastic.) --Eric Article: 7532 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Marius Ibenhardt Watz Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 10:36:52 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 66 Message-ID: <2ntsb4$gqe@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060836.17225.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:36:14 +0200 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In article <2nsema$plt@ifi.uio.no>, Eric write: > Ok..I have a question in response for both Marius and indigo: > > If you both considered the action that Micheal took as being the "Right Thing", > why did neither of you do something similar? > [Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, please read this as a query, > *not* as any sort of accusation.] I'm curious, and considered what the > appropriate response was as well at the time...In the end, I also did nothing. It's a good question. For me, it was never an option since I didn't even get the suicide post at the time. But I probably wouldn't have done anything like it, not only because I live in Norway and not in the US, but simply because for *me*, it wouldn't be the right reaction. I have neither the experience with suicidal behavior nor the personal emotional experience with it that M.Current has. I stand by my view that what M.Current did was a right thing, but please note the "a" instead of a "the". There are no absolute solutions, only relative ones. For him, his reaction was obviously the right one. Not only that, for him to actually go through with his attempt it had to be a solution which he *couldn't* avoid taking. He could not stand by and take the chance that it was a real cry for help. I think this issue goes one step further in pointing out that the net is not separate from real life, and that it can have real effects on you. As I stated, I can sympathize with M.Roberts in his bitterness, but I think he got one of many possible reactions, and he took the chance of getting it. M.Current didn't take the chance, and for that I respect him. It's so easy to say on the net that you care about people, but so hard to *take* care of them. It takes a lot of courage and feeling to attempt to reach through the wires by any means necessary and attempt to save someone. Knowing that someone might be having a laugh at your expense makes it doubly hard. So think about it: Do we really want the possibility of joking about anything at all (including identity, gender and emotional state) in a very serious way, and then not take the responsibility? I do not think so. It would make the net an unsafe place to be, a place without trust, without integrity and without the possibility for true emotional relationships. Playing around is all good fun until you hurt someone. Gender switching is very interesting, educational and playful up to the point where you fool someone for real and that person starts to care. Saying you will kill yourself can be a philosophical prank, but it's a prank that touches upon themes better left alone. And it it blows up in your face, don't plead innocence. > Inquiringly, > --Eric -- Marius mariusw@ifi.uio.no http://www.ifi.uio.no/~mariusw/futurec/ Article: 7533 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Eric C Cook Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 10:43:15 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 19 Message-ID: <2ntsn3$h2t@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060843.17496.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 04:40:13 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9404060558.AA35137@student5.cl.msu.edu> from "Michael Roberts" at Apr 6, 94 00:55:00 am Ok, to continue my prior thought... -No, you don't have to stop making jokes. -No, you don't have to stop making "bad" jokes. -No, although it might be polite (which is a very distinct thing from p.c.) to consider how others might misinterpret what you say, you don't have to. But, in exchange, you must accept the fact that: -Some people might not get the joke. -Some people might not like the joke. -Some people might, in fact, react in an entirely different manner than you had desired, intended, or anticipated. Good Night. --Eric Article: 7535 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Marius Ibenhardt Watz Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 10:58:35 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 58 Message-ID: <2nttjr$hrg@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404060858.18276.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:57:57 +0200 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In article <2nsm8h$t8t@ifi.uio.no>, Kelly write: > recursive nature of that argument). Second, I don't believe that > Michael Roberts thought he was taking a risk. This sort of > attitude discourages action, brings about unwarranted distrust of > your fellows. Hmm, I didn't quite catch your point here. Which Michael is bringing about "unwarranted distrust of your fellows"? > Great point, Eric. I find the concept of more than one correct course > of action questionable. I wish the two who posted "a right thing" > would eloborate on how "a right thing" != "THE right thing" I did in my other post, I hope. [Greg's stuff deleted] I agree with Greg that contextuality is crucial to the interpretation of an article such as M.Roberts'. That is a very big problem with net.communication, and is one of the reasons why irony is so often misunderstood on the net. All parties have to take the consequence of that. So in a way, both Michaels are victims of this mechanism. > In my opinion, that is an excellent ananlysis. However, I think > we've diverged a bit from the most important point. Was Michael > Current's interevention appropriate? This brings in many other > questions such as whether or not suicide is ok, but that's another I'm not going to go into the euthanasia thread. M.Current stated that he does believe in the right to commit suicide, but that his experience is that people who announce it publicly don't really want to do it. As for appropriate, I don't think there's an answer to that question. Even though this is putting words in Michael's mouth, I'd guess he never had a choice. He had to do it, in light of his earlier experiences with suicide. > which has already been pointed out. That is, mail security. > Like someone said and demonstrated on the list, anybody with > a brain can fake mail... I have, and I don't have too much up there. Ah, well. There is a point in that, seeing as noone knows you're a dog on the internet. But if Roberts actually had killed himself, who would be content with using mail security as an excuse for inaction? The bottom line here is what you believe, and how you act on that belief. Do you ultimately believe words on a screen or do you not. That screen has lied before and will lie again, but this is here and now and the question is belief. Do you believe? > Kelly (at the moment) -- Marius mariusw@ifi.uio.no http://www.ifi.uio.no/~mariusw/futurec/ Article: 7537 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Chuck Adams Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:13:31 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 65 Message-ID: <2nu5gr$om7@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404061113.25277.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 07:13:10 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: from "Michael Roberts" at Apr 6, 94 00:55:00 am > I honestly thought that the context of the thread and the contrived > loopyness of my post would combine to signal everyone that here was > a fool celebrateing the one day a year we set aside to honor > tomfoolery with more gusto than good sense. We were talking about > the realtime consequences of communicative acts performed in virtual > spaces. My post was an attempt to demonstrate by example that these > real world consequences will all depend on (A) the norms of some > virtual community (B) the thread considered as a context which > fixes meaning and (C) those signals embedded in the post itself whic > h cue the audience as to the author's intention in posting. I meant > to post a publick anouncement of my intention to committ suicide > which would have no real world consequences at all simply because > it could not be taken seriously as such. Boy, did I screw up. Lousy timing. I'll tell you WHY later in the post. > not, even read in the context of the thread and with a reasonable > sensitivity to irony, as clearly a joke as I meant it to be. If I > had enjoyed the benefit of Greg Ritter's good rhetorical advice > before posting, I could and would have made it quite plainly a joke > and therefor harmless. In the form that it was posted it was neither > ,and for that, I am deeply sorry. We just had a story of some kid's death followed by my quite REAL suicidal thoughts, then ANOTHER post about suicide. Don't mean to center this around me, but at that time, I was still getting letters from concerned parties, but had regained my sanity (okay, my functionality, since I my faculties hacen't been in order for months.) So we had a lot of concerned people here. Along comes your post. Looked a lot like mockery to me, so as I STARTED writing a reply, I just thought that this would only feed this line of crap further. You poured gasoline on a burning fire. See, the irony is, if you posted this another time, more people might have taken you seriously, and you might have gotten the SAME response. Moral of the story? If you bluff, prepare to have it called. > In a real way, the net just died for me. It's still an important > educational resource. It's still something I need and will use. But, > the sense of openess, of magic, the sense that I can play here and > joke here without worrying how Joe Friday or our local pc princess > might feel about it is gone. I'll be more self protective from now > on. I'll post picturing my reader as a troubled man wandering lost > in the endless dark night of his own wounded soul. I'll post knowing > that what the most damaged and confused of my readers may think I > meant and do in response is more important by far than what the > people who got the joke I meant to make heard me say. I won't make > any jokes that might be misunderstood. I won't make any jokes at > all. > Goodnight, > Poster Michael > I doubt that. Everybody loses their sense of wonder at the supposed "magic" of the net sooner or later. You realize that there are REAL people with REAL thoughts and feelings, who make REAL reactions, some of which may not be to your liking. You see it simply as a tool. Same here. The magic is with the PEOPLE on the other end. I don't want your access pulled either. I don't figure a letter to your sysadmin from another party would be too helpful. Or would it? Chuck, dammit. Article: 7538 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: John Frost Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 16:07:40 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 21 Message-ID: <2nufnc$6p8@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404061407.6941.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 06:56:06 -0700 Comments: To: Future Culture Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404060559.WAA17139@mail.netcom.com> On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, Michael Roberts wrote: > Hi Folks! > This is poster Michael again. I'm really a bit surprised that the > plug hasn't been pulled on me yet. Surprised enough, in fact, to > start wondering if my sense of how the Ed. Admin types here at > N.I.U. intend to react to this episode might be as faulty as my > sense of how my original posting would be received. I haven't heard > from anyone official since friday. When and if I do, my biggest > regret will be that Greg Ritter isn't here at Northern to help me > explain how I could have done something this stupid and then simply > toddled off to bed without worrying even a little about what the > consequences might be. Hi Poster Mike! =) Why don't you give us the email addresses of the admin types who want to ban you. We can explain the atmosphere in which you posted and hopefully get your punishment reduced. -john Article: 7544 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Roberts Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 19:00:20 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 10 Message-ID: <2nupr4$gfv@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404061700.16887.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:50:00 CDT To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC I owe Michael Current a detailed apology and he will get it later tonight. I will be leaving this space shortly after I post. Not out of anger but out of a feeling that Michael Current participates more and thus both profits more from being here and is more of a resource for others than I ever was or will be. I am very busy right now. So busy that I haven't read any of the posts that followed Michael Current's latest response to me. I will read them all tonight and respond as best I can to anything anyone felt the need to say to me. Thanks, Michael Roberts Article: 7550 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: West Walker Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 21:21:46 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 103 Message-ID: <2nv24a$mt6@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404061921.23441.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:20:26 CDT Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404060304.WAA12455@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>; from "Michael Current" at Apr 5, 94 9:51 pm Michael Current said: > > Kelly, > > I certainly considered the possibility that someone had forged the post > in Michael Roberts' name, or that someone had illegally accessed his > account. Obviously, there was no way I could determine if this was > the case or not, especially in so short a time. The truth, of course, > is that neither of those things happened. > This argument holds no water. No one knew that it was a joke until after the fact. It'd be like a doctor performing a triple bypass before even performing an EKG (or whatever other tests) and then saying, "yep, I was right, he needed a triple bypass" AFTER the tests had come back. I hope that anology more clearly illustrates the problem with your argument. > I tend to think that you simply disagree with my approach and are > attempting to state that by raising side issues rather than approaching > your disagreement head on. > Oddly enough, you are exactly right. I do disagree with your actions, but that is an opinion which I'm not prepared to substantiate. You *might* be right, but you might be wrong, too. However, these "side issues" are important no matter what my personal standpoint is. I will not discuss my opinions on intereference or suicide right now. > Life is not precise or certain. There are RL equivalents to the fears > you sight. People prank the police and fire departments with fake calls ^^^^^ should be "cite"? > for help - this happens right here in Des Moines, despite elaborate > technology for processing and tracking calls, links to the phone company, > etc. This makes it risky for the subject, unless, of course, they call > for a pay phone to say that a building is on fire up the street or a > woman is being raped or whatever. Then they can get the hell out of there > before the police or fire trucks arrive. I know about this because it > really ticks off the fire department, especially, since it apparently costs > them a great deal of money each time they deploy their forces. > > But I suspect that none of us would be too happy if the fire deparment > let our home, apartment building or dorm burn down because they could > not be sure that a call about a fire was not a prank I suspect that > none of us would be happy if a rape was allowed to proceed and the > rapist go unpunished because the police could not immediately determine > the veracity of the call reporting the rape. > The issue is not the action of the "fire department" (in this case, the university's student services). The issue is whether or not an uninvolved bystander should or should not call said fire department. You finally revise the argument in the paragraph below to be a little more relevant. (If any of this is relevant. Sometimes I wonder if this is all rhetoric, and if there is any gain for anyone in our debating.) > Is that what you want to have happen? Is that the kind of world you > want to live in - where nobody lifts a hand to help without empirical > proof that will generally be unavailable until it is too late? This Several things. First, the subject did not need help. You were correct (in hindsight, by chance) about the message's origin but you were dead wrong about the intent. (Bad) Analogy: Diving in to break up a "rape" in central park, only to discover it was a bf and gf happily making love. I think the fact that you misunderstood Michael Roberts' intention is an issue, but (sadly), M. Robert's has been turned into a victim...is this right? You (seem to) fail to realize that the other extreme has it's bad points too. Where do you draw the line--> here we intervene, and here we do not? > is like the people who die of heart attacks in New York City subways > because the other passengers - I have witnessed this - take no action > when somebody keels over because it is known to sometimes be a technique > for getting someone in a vulnerable position and then pulling a knife or > gun and robbing them. Surely, if we hope to remain human, we have to > take chances. . . . . > You stated earlier (I think It was you) that "he took a chance and paid for it". You took a chance, and I can't help but think that you should face some consequences for raising a false alarm...you *were* very concerned about false alarms in the previous paragraphs. > Michael > This leads to some rough territory: First, M. Roberts has been treated like a criminal, and I get the impression from you that he did something which should bear some punishment. If a crime has been commited, show me a victim. If you cite M. Roberts as the victim, should it not be his responsibilty to pursue justice (aka help)? I guess I'm suggesting that interefence is wrong in this particular case (just an opinion). If you claim yourself or the fc community to be the victim(s), then you handled justice inappropriately for sure. I have what I consider to be a crushing question: Did you ever try to contact M. Roberts before you called his university's hired thughs? Why not (provided the answer is no). I think I was fairly thorough, but I'm afraid I was not concise enough to be clear... Kelly -- Disclaimer: My opinions are not necessarily those of Vanderbilt University, even though they should be. Article: 7551 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Alan Sondheim Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 6 Apr 1994 21:42:04 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 23 Message-ID: <2nv3ac$nqm@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404061941.24387.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:38:18 EDT Comments: To: Michael Roberts , FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Michael, well for one I'd hate to see jokes come to an end here or anywhere else - what you did do actually was create a terrific sort of novel involving everyone. I certainly wouldn't despair about the net, fc, or anything like that. The problem is this - I knew a student at an artschool in Canada who was saying things like he couldn't draw because the lead in his pencil was screaming, that he couldn't walk down the street because he was attracted to the iron beams of buildings, etc. Everyone also thought he was joking and then he tried to kill himself. Signs are subtle in madness and sometimes they're not signs. You should again in some weird way be glad people took you seriously (I didn't - I agree that the clues were there - but what if they weren't clues?) - fc and rl shouldn't be all that much apart. Alan Sondheim // [ // ] ...rain... // \\ [ \\ ] \\ ...still... Article: 7558 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Chuck Adams Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 7 Apr 1994 00:36:19 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 20 Message-ID: <2nvdh3$1le@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404062236.1689.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:33:38 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: from "Michael Roberts" at Apr 6, 94 11:50:00 am > I owe Michael Current a detailed apology and he will get it later > tonight. I will be leaving this space shortly after I post. Not out > of anger but out of a feeling that Michael Current participates more > and thus both profits more from being here and is more of a resource > for others than I ever was or will be. I am very busy right now. So > busy that I haven't read any of the posts that followed Michael > Current's latest response to me. I will read them all tonight and > respond as best I can to anything anyone felt the need to say to me. > Thanks, > Michael Roberts I hate to see you leave. There's room for all sorts here, and I don't want someone else's flaming to drive you out. Of course, you seem to have bandwidth considerations too, and I certainly don't want to forcefeed someone the high traffic. I'd like to thank you for all the thoughtful postings you've put to this list. You've been a contributor here too. I wish you wouldn't leave, but I still zwish you the best. Chuck. Article: 7560 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: heath michael rezabek Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: with friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 7 Apr 1994 02:31:45 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 16 Message-ID: <2nvk9h$5rs@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404070031.5965.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:26:45 -0600 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC > michael > My audience analysis of FC was that people > here are both significantly brighter and significantly less phobic > than people in general. For that reason, I once felt safe saying thi > ngs here that I would not say too many other places. I won't feel > that way anymore. nonsense. you're safe as any other here; but you're also accountable. no biggie, no end of any worlds, any illusions shattered here must have been fragile to begin with and are more easily discarded. i feel very comfortable here. but always accountable for my fuckups. remember when i mistook Anne Balsamo for Amy Bruckman? [heh, everyone had almost forgotten.. ;) ] rez Article: 7562 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Roberts Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: With friends like I've got in Iowa:::::::: Date: 7 Apr 1994 02:40:18 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 16 Message-ID: <2nvkpi$61j@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404070040.6184.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:38:00 CDT To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC I have done you a great favor by shattering whatever mystification you had conjured up that would have made any academic treatment of the Net you might produce less than realistic and well-grounded. Michael current Thanks, Michael Roberts P.S fill in the above according to your own devine interpretive wisdon Michael Current. Article: 7645 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: tommyc Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 9 Apr 1994 19:10:27 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 218 Message-ID: <2o6ni3$f8s@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404091710.15633.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 09:18:26 -0700 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404061922.MAA15321@kaiwan.kaiwan.com> Now that I've finished, I see too many words, too many different ideas, too many subtleties too easily misunderstood and not easily enough understood. However. Having written it all, I'm not gonna cancel it now. And having too little time to make it short or coherent, I offer it up to such as care to work their way through to watch the wanderings of my mind as it riffs round about this whole thread, beginning with the absurdity that finally set me off: ======== On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, West Walker wrote: > This argument holds no water. No one knew that it was a joke until > after the fact. It'd be like a doctor performing a triple bypass before I was reading this thread peacefully until this came along. To say no one knew it was a joke until after the fact is to imply an accusation against all of us (as you apparently do later in the article I've just quoted) of standing by like people in New York watchin someone die of a heart attack. ("I have seen this," you say, which suggests the possibility that you were among the inactive spectators.) Of course it was a joke. Actually, I thought it was pretty funny, and I said to myself when I read it, "Ohh, this is going to cause trouble." Then I settled back to watch the fur fly. Well, the fur has flown. I though the April Fool's Day posting was funny because I had been, willy-nilly, following the story and saw this as a new plot point in an unfolding discussion. That does not mean I thought it was well advised. I think there are things to be learned here. People are quick to point out that we don't know a person's gender or orientation, race or religion, or most anything else about a person on the net except as s/he tells it to us or reveals it to us. Not everyone has the same holidays as most of those people on this list. (Though, curiously, I did see someone remark about "our generation" which not only makes an unwarranted assumption but a damned offensive one at that; ageism at its worst--and now watch the assumptions that statement will produce, same like the guy on alt.censorship or wherever it was who objected to antigay bigotry and was immediately called a fag when he was not gay at all, but I digress. Again.) I have seen people say, on the net, "the message just before mine," as if all messages arrive at all sites in the same order. And I have seen them say, "message #239 said this and message #247 said that," as if everyone's local site had the same numbering scheme. When someone posted on news.newusers.questions some advice similar to saying that what you do is type: compress filename etc., I replied that I tried doing that on my pc and nothing happened. My point was that they were assuming the questioner was on the same kind of host that they were on. Got a bunch of responses that indicated that most of the readers didn't seem to have noticed my deadpan remark was not so idiotically inane as it might have been if it had been honest confusion and ignorance instead of gentle joshing. (It was, however, gratifiying to see that not everyone was irony-imparied.) And now we see that no message, no matter how outrageous it may seem to the poster, will translate equally well into all countries, all cultures, all personal individual histories and perspectives, all host machines, all timezones, all spoken languages, all computer languages, all modes of Internet access from BBS daily batch email/newsgroup ties to .edus and .coms and CI$/AOL/Delphi and individual SLIPs. In Zen and the Art of Internet, if I recall correctly, Brendan Kehoe says something about not using words spelled funny for humorous effect because many people do not have English as their first language and will not get the joke or have any idea what the meaning is supposed to be. He suggests taking into account the idea that your audience is international and multilingual etc. etc. In fact, few of us do that consistently and some fail to show the slightest sign when they post the entire David Rhodes letter, for instance, to add a single line saying it's crap, that they have even the vaguest sense that some people have limited disk space, that idiotically frivolous postings and huge binaries sent to the wrong groups mean that people may lose actual personal mail or that Usenet newsgroup postings will be retired faster, or that people may actually be out of pocket to pay for the storage, the extra long message, the extra number of messages, etc. (It is, for instance, the volume of messages that keeps me from subscribing to some other lists where I know they are discussing topics dear to my heart.) Why, just the other day (yesterday), I saw a message on alt.games.doom calling for the posting of large binaries to that group as a matter of personal convenience to the person asking (apparently because he didn't know how to to ftp by email and had no other access to the items in question). He chuckled something about "the self-proclaimed Net police." I just shrugged and went on, leaving someone else to handle him, for a change. It is a matter of good netizenship to share a clue in such a case, but I was tired and the absolute pandemic clue deficit disorder that afflicts the net sometimes makes me dispair--and not least when I find definite symptoms right here at my own keyboard, but let it pass, let it pass.) Of course, the reason not to post binaries like that has nothing to do with the Net Police. The problem is not that it is Forbidden, but that it is Wrong. I'm tired of the crap that says drugs are wrong because they are illegal. No, no. OTH, I am prepared to hear that drugs are illegal because they are wrong. That's nonsense of a different kind, where facts just might make a difference. But somehow that kind of argument, that it's wrong because it's forbidden or seems to lead to the idea that just because it's forbidden is no reason to pay any attention to those who say it is wrong. Key thesis here (and about time). It is certainly true that there are things that are forbidden that ALSO are wrong, and that it is because they are wrong that they are forbidden. Not everything wrong is forbidden (people turn up in Ann Landers all the time saying, "It's not illegal so it's not wrong." What makes them think the law's purpose is to mandate morality? Too many things, movements, people, that's who makes them think that, but that's another topic; let it pass.) Not everything forbidden is wrong. But some things that are forbidden are indeed forbidden for good and sufficient reason. Threatening violence against elected federal officials, announcing plans to perform illegal acts, announcing the commission of a crime-- these are sayings that are not just speech, they are what John Searle calls "speech acts." Leastways that's what I think he calls 'em. Some speech is an act in itself, as yelling fire in a crowded etc. Me, I'm interested in those phrases that by themselves accomplish a defined act when said in the right place and time: "You are under arrest." (You are now) "Case dismissed." (It is now.) "I now pronounce you man and wife." These words, as Jean-Luc always says, "make it so." But also some "languaging" has consequences even if no one believes the content. "I'm going to kill the president by the power of telepathy," is a statement that may get you investigated on sound "general principles," no matter how long it's been since you last showered. "I'm smuggling a bomb aboard this plane and their security systems won't be able to spot it ha ha just kidding," will lead to delays at the airport. Likewise, announcing a plan to suicide yourself will likely cause someone to wonder why you would say this if suicide were not a current topic of interest to you. To assume that all of your readers worldwide are paying enough attention to get the joke or even to believe the smileys if that message had been surrounded by them would be (and, as it turned out, WAS) not a valid assumption. Okay, what set me off was the idea that no one knew this was a joke. Oh, come on. And having said that, I want to add that one would like to think people have learned that not everyone will reach the intended understanding of any given message. Surely we have all been misunderstood at some times in the past, and even to the point of having inconvenient consequences. Obviously we should be even more wary concerning life and death issues. That is, having launched myself, out comes this inchoate mass of half-thoughts about the whole matter, only a few of them devoted to the absurd allegation that no one knew this was a joke until long after. I am reminded of Joan Littleton's "Oh, What a Lovely War!" This anti-Vietnam War review from England ended with several live moths being set aflame. That made a powerful point. Most people sat there and watched and many of those watchers felt bad and concerned. A few people got up on stage to prevent the burning of those moths. When he was an undergraduate, Joe Spano (known to you, perhaps, for his excellent work in "Hill Street Blues") was in a homebrew anti-war play that concluded with the playing of the American national anthem. Some people stood. Some people sat and wished they dared to stand. Some people intentionally sat. The issue of taking a public stand, so to speak, was raised clearly. Some people sat awhile and then stood. Some people stood and first and then sat. When it was all over, the tape played the first portion again and again until finally one had no option but to walk out on it. In a sense, I think the original April Fool's post was like those moments, where an issue was being raised, a gauntlet flung. Unfortunately, the person doing so apparently had not considered the consequences and possibilities and was not prepared to deal with them. Lamentably, his response has been to blame others, sometimes even to flame others, and his response in general has been to indicate that he still doesn't realise that his words constituted a speech act of a type that is likely to produce consequences because it exists and independent of his intentions. Also, he fails to show that he was prepared to accept the consequences, play the cards he was dealt, or pick up the chips wherever they might fall. He claims betrayal and disillusion and a loss of magic. James Thurber: "You're disenchanted? I'm disenchanted. We're all disenchanted." (from memory). And finally, as a list member and a person playing on the net, he kills himself. He shows up announcing that he's been too busy to follow the thread and anyway, this list isn't big enough for both of us so I'm getting the hell out of Dodge. Quitting. Lots of people offered to intervene to help him if he was faced with the Internet Death Penalty, but it seems to have been more important for him to be right about his betrayal and the loss of magic than to stay around. And it seems to have been more important to him to quit than to stay. So he inflicted it upon himself. Here, he ceases to exist. The meat persists in RL, but this isn't quite exactly RL, precisely. And despite the title of this tread, I actually know nothing of the friends our late member had or has in Iowa. But seems to me the quality of the friends he has here in cspace is pretty good, all things considered. The announcement that he has decided to terminate his presence here amonsts us certainly does raise some interesting questions and, if anything, reinforces the notion that while did he not get the response he wanted, he may have got the response he needed. Maybe it was a good thing he made too many assumptions about everyone reading his words and underestimated his ability to commit speech actions (and "unsubscribe" is a speech action too). To me, the fact that he got a personal response, and that none of the people involved in this discussion, of whichever viewpoint, took either his posting or the response casually indicates to me that people here are groping as hard and fast as they can toward each other and toward some sense of how to behave in a community. One way is to make the assumption going in that this IS a community, and by golly, if that isn't just want everyone seems to have done. Far out. Bite DAT tree. Article: 7649 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Michael Current Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: With friends like I've got in Iowa Date: 9 Apr 1994 21:21:02 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 36 Message-ID: <2o6v6u$ib2@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199404091920.18783.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 14:22:12 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199404091712.MAA09967@picard.infonet.net> from "tommyc" at Apr 9, 94 09:18:26 am tommyc, Thank you for that post. It helped put a lot of things in context, at least for me. I don't know how other people will read it, but that is one of the joys of being around here in FC-Land - one is always surprised. Just one note: If I read you correctly, your are thinking that the opening quote and the statements that you refer to in your first paragraph came from the came person. If so, you got it a bit confused. The opening quote is from a post by Chris, addressed to me. The statements in your first paragraph are from my response to that post. And by the way, no, I didn't stand back and do nothing when the guy fell over in the subway. I kinda thought the overall thrust of my post made that something I didn't have to spell out. This business of assumptions gets us all in trouble. Ya know, I wonder if there is something good about that, though. I suspect that we all are guilty of a lot of unfounded assumptions in "real life," too. Somehow, although the initial confusion they can create is perhaps greater - usually, but obviously not always, to comic effect - I sense that we get called on them more here in virtual culture. For whatever reasons. . . . Just a thought. Michael -- ---------------------------Michael J. Current---------------------------- mcurrent@picard.infonet.net -or- @ins.infonet.net -or- @nyx.cs.du.edu Specializing in Philosophy, Queer Studies, Depression, & Unemployment :) 737 - 18th Street, #9 * Des Moines, IA * 50314-1031 *** (515) 283-2142 "AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU Sun Oct 9 20:02:24 1994 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 14:00:00 CDT Reply-To: Future Culture <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> Sender: Future Culture <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> From: Michael Roberts Subject: Reports of my formerity are greatly exaggerated Comments: To: futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC <@lilje.uib.no:FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.bitnet> Michael Current is, unfortunatly, late but I am not quite former just yet. Though some folks on list will probably say that this is unfortunate also. I've been out here lurking for a while and, I believe, may have even posted once or twice since the drano episode. My post appeared on April fools' day. The april fools' day a year before I had graced the participants on this and every other list to which I am subbed with a well thought out and creativly spelled proposal that we all write congress demanding that the national anthem be changed from "star spangled banner" to "addams family theme". Nothing ever came of this. My drano post caused Michael Current and a few Ed. Admin. types here at my RL ground zero to lose spincter control for a while but, really, nothing much ever came of that either. You might notice, for example, that I am coming to you from the same account as I used to post back on April one. In hindsight, I don't regret the drano post as much as I regret flaming Micheal Current for a few days after being meet on the quad the morning after my post by six or so folks representin this University in various regulatary capacities. They basically said "are you O.K." and cut me loose after I insisted a few times that the whole thing was all a joke that had gone wrong. I expected more to happen later and flamed Current up one side and down the other under the influence of this expectation. Nothing further happened here at ground zero and Michael Current died shortly therafter. Anyway, I'm still here lurking quietly and I still enjoy the list even though I seldom post anymore. Thanks, Michael (Drano) Roberts