misKellaneous sTuff

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

Subject: Rub a Dub Dub

> From: Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu>

> And distributing copies of privately-recorded demo tapes that she has
> EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT DISTRIBUTED *isn't* stealing
> from her?  If not, then what the hell *is* stealing from her?  There's
> no moral high ground here, Doug . . .

I didn't say it wasn't stealing.  I just said that it isn't stealing
"money".  Look, we've already covered every point that is going to be
made on this topic.  No one is saying anything new.  Why don't we give
it a rest.  But at least if you are going to accuse someone of
something, please accuse them of the crime they have done or are
likely to do.  IED has not considered here distributing copyrighted
material that is widely available commercially.  So don't say that he
is likely to.  This is slander, and is also a crime.

What IED was considering may or may not be wrong, but it is
*different* in many ways, and you do not do intelligent discussion any
service by refusing to acknowledge the difference.

Subject: The Ninth Drug Trip

There was an interviewer (*Hot Press*, 1985) who really thought that
the "The Ninth Wave" was about a drug trip.  He too mentioned "racing
white horses" and "cutting out little lines in the ice".

Subject: We are living in a digital world and I am a digital guy

> From: "Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 513, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com>

> Hey wait a second.  If the CD contains the code, the CD player would 
> certainly have to still output digital information--what else are CD
> players good for?

Why would the CD player have to output the digital information?  The
vast majority of CD payers don't have any digital outputs at all --
only analog.

Subject: Singing in the rain

> From: Michael Mendelson <mendel@cs.uiuc.edu>

> I do not know the details, and this is second-hand information, but
> apparently, sometime last week, the Canadian news show "As It
> Happens" did a piece on a scientist (I don't know from where or who)
> who, using Reichian Cloudbusting-based methods, has achieved a
> rain-inducing machine which (he claims) works with 80% reliability.
> Did anyone else hear about this?  I'm sure we'd all be interested in
> details given the recent revival of interest in the Organon
> discussion.

If this machine truly uses Reichian cloudbusting methods, then it
works no better than sacrificing a virgin and praying to the great god
Omlagagol.  The latter method is much more fun, however.

Subject: *Castaways*

The soundtrack to the movie *Castaways* was definitely released -- I
own it -- but whether or not it is still in print, I cannot say.

Subject: Grammar

> From: adams%bosco.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey P. Adams)

> I must admit, though, that it bothers me greatly to see professional
> users of English, Kate included, make fundamental mistakes of
> grammar and usage.  It also bothers me that so many people want to
> justify the perversion of formal rules of language.

It appears that you ignored my previous message on the topic.  What
bothers me is that so many silly grammarians want to pervert the
naturally evolved English language into something else for their own
whims.

> If you pay close attention, you'll notice that lots of people you
> know speak properly and it doesn't sound unnatural.

You don't appear to understand the notion of "dialect".  There is no
one "proper" dialect.  There are currently many dialects of English,
"Standard Written English" is only one of these dialects, and it is an
artificial one (i.e. invented, rather than evolved).

> It amuses me that many of these same people complain about exceptions
> to the rules of grammar, yet advocate creating many more such
> exceptions by making "street English" acceptable.

Colloquial English was acceptible long before "Standard Written
English" ever existed.  It's not a matter of "making 'street English'
acceptable", but more a matter of returning to sanity.

Honky with an attitude,

|>oug