Won't we eventually forget where we saved this stuff?
Or the formats won't be readable owing to "technological progress".
A few years ago the local high school put out their yearbook on CD-ROM. *Only* on CD-ROM. Twenty years from now, how many CD-ROM players will there be?
Why, this very comment is formatted in HTML tags that may or may not be browser-supported twenty years from now.
So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's webpages don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.
One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.
True enough. Of course, capitalism is known less for its rhetoric than for its fruits. It'll be interesting to see how the Powers That Be in China spin this idea of "permanent revolution" to a generation that wants iPods.
Dang, if you'd've gone through with it, I was going to reply you keep using that catchphrase, I do not think etc. Been waiting for years to do that. Oh well. Next time.;-)
Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain.
On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.
Agreed. There are a lot of these people. Two of them (spouse, teen) live in my house.
Also, I would think this development would be welcomed by camera manufacturers, who could offload the production of retouching software and give them another marketing tie-in opportunity.
Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?
*sigh* The point of yours that I saw was this one: There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. RTFPP.
Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning.
This was not the meaning of the original poster's statement. Please. Here, again, is the original poster's statement:
Words are by their nature are harmless. They cannot physical kill you are hurt you in any physical way unless you are already "broken". If any incorrect/unwanted "touching" goes on even in the above described environment then I agree that is harassment.
As I explained previously, verbal harassment (including direct and indirect threats) causes harm. This is the point you should be addressing.
"I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous.
First, you are still moving the goalposts. You previously said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." That's wrong. Please address this point if for some reason you still feel like replying. (Perhaps you are trying to win an argument and discounting fact.)
Second, I do understand the meaning of the word "threat". What you seem to believe is that a threatening statement must be explicitly stated to constitute a threat. (Previously, you also seemed to believe that a threat had to have some sort of "imminent" quality to it, but you seem to have abandoned that line of thinking.) It is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you xxx" can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Context is important, and different people react differently. If the real-life equivalent of Tony Soprano says he hopes you swim with the fishes with his jaw set and his face four inches from yours, I assure you that you will interpret that as a threat and that other people, including law enforcement, will too. And, as I have previously argued, the definition of the word "threat" is broad enough to admit that view. I am not "demonstrably wrong" and there is nothing "disingenuous" about my argument; I have consisently made it throughout this thread. The more narrow definition you've offered and that you seem to think I do not understand is wrong in practice and wrong legally, because such indirectly threatening statements have in fact been used as evidence of real physical threats and harassment in investigations and prosecutions. I've seen it. I know. Every law enforcement officer and prosecutor (not to mention people such as myself who work in the field of security) understands this. This is why Ms Sierra's reaction is natural and understandable. I am forming the opinion that you are capable of reading a dictionary but are choosing a narrow definition deliberately to avoid this consideration.
Finally, you are missing the point I was trying to make to the original poster, which was that verbal threats and harassment alone are enough to constitute harassment. At this point I think you are taking an impracticably narrow interpretation of the word "threat" to avoid trying to address that point, and that, because I reject it, you're asserting I am trying to change the definition. I'm not, and have tried repeatedly to explain why not.
If you are still confused on this point, I recommend that you study the identification and prediction of physical threats. The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker as an excellent popular introduction.
No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them.
Not my point. My experience has been that it is not easy for people who have not had harassing/threatening experiences closely analogous with Ms Sierra's to judge hers. I think it's important to recognize that and give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I think most people do in fact respect experiences other than their own, and make deliberate decisions to do so or not do so. I am suggesting that you consider doing so in this case because the analogous experiences you have provided as a basis for your reaction don't seem to me to be adequate to Ms Sierra's situation.
Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background.
I think they are. Everyone accords some respect for others' experiences without truly understanding them.
But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.
That's an interesting point. I guess I don't regard sympathy as something which requires a 'right'. I do think most of us are sympathetic to people in obvious distress even if we don't know why.
Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse.
Well, I think it's cherry picking because it's so generic and just because it's an isolated example. I guess I think the sum is more than the parts, that the context of the blogs as user communities (i.e. where a lot of people know each other) is important, and that the pattern emerging is one of sustained, condoned sexual harassment, which is significantly more dangerous that the random Internet type of sexual harassment. I also thought the graphic posted was seriously out of line. I also take into account that she has to get up on stage in front of people who have posted this crap, and participate in forums with them, have them for students, etc. not knowing who they are, etc. This sort of dynamic is incredibly destructive because it undermines trust, and it's why, when people do this in workplaces or schools, they generally get disciplined/fired/expelled. In a sense (which I admit is a stretch), this is like workplace harassment because she is a public figure and makes her living in public forums. Your view may differ.
Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public.
I'm too lazy to find it now, but I believe that is the case.
And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.
I think she deserves some sympathy. She does not deserve this treatment. I also saw her post as calling bullsh*t on the general problem. The people who do it, and allow it on their blogs, should be called on it. Finally, because it is typically so upsetting to some people, I tend to give victims of harrassing behavior the benefit of the doubt in their reactions until proven otherwise, and since there are still some unknowns in this situation, I am reserving judgement as to overreaction until more is known. Again, your view may differ.
Not really. What I am trying to say is that people expect not to be subjected to unwarranted threats and harassment in their daily lives. This expectation is reflected in numerous laws, not least US employment law. There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. You are making a straw man because this is clearly not the case for Ms Sierra nor for the general class of threats and harassment to which she was subjected, which is the context of my remark, which I had thought to be obvious and which I think you do actually understand.
No, the poster most certainly DID NOT (say that words can't hurt you).
The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference.
If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.
You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Law enforcement certainly treats them as such. And, while the degree to which one treats such threats as credible obviously differs for each situation, I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. I wonder if you could address that point?
Now THAT is a straw man.
See the previous point. The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat. That's simply not true. The previous poster also seems to believe that no harm results from harassment or threats; I argued previously that that is not the case.
You're cherry-picking. Read TFA. There was plenty else there and personally directed stuff besides.
her being a public figure makes each threat less significant
No, the likelihood of violence against public figures is well-known enough that some of them hire security guards and get police protection. What I think you mean is that public figures receive more threats and have a higher profile, the likelihood of any individual threat being carried out is less, which is probably true, but not relevant to my point. There is clearly a pattern here, and, again, Ms Sierra asserts other, non-public information that makes a threat more credible.
So her reaction was more severe than mine was
I agree, it was. So was the threat.
Do I have to murder to judge a murderer?
I think most reasonable people would say, no.
Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting?
Not necessarily, but it sure helps. A lot of people on this thread are arguing that Ms Sierra is overreacting because they would have reacted differently, and, when pushed, it emerges that they have never experienced a threat of this nature but are arguing from their own experience anyway. Having had indirect experience with the impact of these sort of threats in my professional life, I can assure you that they are a major reckoning in people's lives if they believe them to be credible, and particularly so if acted upon. I can also assure you that they are, on sad occasion, acted upon. Most of the people in this thread who are asserting similar experience seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt, and until proven otherwise I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.
Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.
Well, maybe. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
This statement is at best a half truth
Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man.
Words are not threats, yet you equate the two.
*sigh* Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you. Since you can construct a threat or a slur from words, and threats and words can cause harm by invoking a rational reaction, it follows that they cause harm. Again, this premise underlies US law on workplace harassment, discrimination, and, for that matter, slander and libel.
There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat.
No, an empty threat is still a threat. And I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter.
Ms. Sierra doesn't think so. You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable, and it seems clear to me that that was intended by the perpetrators all along.
The environment should not have to change for one individual. No majority should have to walk on eggshells because of one individual.
Yes they should. Minority workers in ANY US workplace are entitled to a non-threatening work environment (a sentiment clearly enshrined in US employment law) and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others.
Words are by their nature are harmless.
Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate, which means they are intended to make people make decisions based on their assessment of the reality of the threat. This assessment differs for different people, and I think one should be inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt. Offensive comments are intended to upset the recipient, thereby making them less able or willing to participate in the environment, and frequently serve to denigrate the individual in the eyes of others as well. In the workplace (your example), economic harm frequently results. It may be that Ms. Sierra suffers economic harm as a result of these incidents, since, to a certain extent, her workplace is in public fora.
You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us?
Yes, I do. Like a lot of people posting in say "she's overreacting", you're assuming that your limited personal experience is an acceptable metric. It isn't.
the person actually did know my name and where I lived
Case in point. Apples and oranges. You are not a public figure subject to multiple sexually disturbed anonymous threats. Assuming the threat in your case was limited to the person you describe, she has less recourse than you did and is much more exposed owing to her role.
... of course, are the bloggers who let themselves be conduits for abusive speech. This thread is now over 100 posts and I've seen almost nothing on this. C'mon, all you messaging admins, everyone who has to answer abuse@domain mail... what is their culpability?
Slashdot Mirror
Then I come to a cluster of semis
Hm, I am guessing you aren't old enough and Midwestern enough to remember Convoy?
Da, tovarish, and don't worry, they'll never convict you. ;-)
Won't we eventually forget where we saved this stuff?
Or the formats won't be readable owing to "technological progress".
A few years ago the local high school put out their yearbook on CD-ROM. *Only* on CD-ROM. Twenty years from now, how many CD-ROM players will there be?
Why, this very comment is formatted in HTML tags that may or may not be browser-supported twenty years from now.
Lucky for us that Slashdot does, 25 comments later, forget. Except for subscribers, dammit.
I am really tempted to comment on this, but I'm worried that it will be archived and used against me later.
which would make it difficult to dial while driving
That would be a "feature" not a "bug".
Please punch the first suit you hear complaining about that.
So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web pages don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.
One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.
True enough. Of course, capitalism is known less for its rhetoric than for its fruits. It'll be interesting to see how the Powers That Be in China spin this idea of "permanent revolution" to a generation that wants iPods.
Wikipedia is your friend YMMV. ;-)
I remember the part about circumventing blocking by ignoring the reset packets being publicized about a year ago. Dunno if it was ever fixed, though.
"Consolidate the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological sphere"
"Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance"
"Internet cultural units must conscientiously take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values"
Boy, does that Politburo know how to turn a phrase. I know I'm inspired.
And what, exactly, is an "Internet cultural unit"?
Dang, if you'd've gone through with it, I was going to reply you keep using that catchphrase, I do not think etc. Been waiting for years to do that. Oh well. Next time. ;-)
that this would be a Slashdot story.
i don't know if he will admit it, but i will.
Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain.
On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.
Agreed. There are a lot of these people. Two of them (spouse, teen) live in my house.
Also, I would think this development would be welcomed by camera manufacturers, who could offload the production of retouching software and give them another marketing tie-in opportunity.
Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?
*sigh* The point of yours that I saw was this one: There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. RTFPP.
Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning.
This was not the meaning of the original poster's statement. Please. Here, again, is the original poster's statement:
Words are by their nature are harmless. They cannot physical kill you are hurt you in any physical way unless you are already "broken". If any incorrect/unwanted "touching" goes on even in the above described environment then I agree that is harassment.
As I explained previously, verbal harassment (including direct and indirect threats) causes harm. This is the point you should be addressing.
"I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous.
First, you are still moving the goalposts. You previously said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." That's wrong. Please address this point if for some reason you still feel like replying. (Perhaps you are trying to win an argument and discounting fact.)
Second, I do understand the meaning of the word "threat". What you seem to believe is that a threatening statement must be explicitly stated to constitute a threat. (Previously, you also seemed to believe that a threat had to have some sort of "imminent" quality to it, but you seem to have abandoned that line of thinking.) It is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you xxx" can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Context is important, and different people react differently. If the real-life equivalent of Tony Soprano says he hopes you swim with the fishes with his jaw set and his face four inches from yours, I assure you that you will interpret that as a threat and that other people, including law enforcement, will too. And, as I have previously argued, the definition of the word "threat" is broad enough to admit that view. I am not "demonstrably wrong" and there is nothing "disingenuous" about my argument; I have consisently made it throughout this thread. The more narrow definition you've offered and that you seem to think I do not understand is wrong in practice and wrong legally, because such indirectly threatening statements have in fact been used as evidence of real physical threats and harassment in investigations and prosecutions. I've seen it. I know. Every law enforcement officer and prosecutor (not to mention people such as myself who work in the field of security) understands this. This is why Ms Sierra's reaction is natural and understandable. I am forming the opinion that you are capable of reading a dictionary but are choosing a narrow definition deliberately to avoid this consideration.
Finally, you are missing the point I was trying to make to the original poster, which was that verbal threats and harassment alone are enough to constitute harassment. At this point I think you are taking an impracticably narrow interpretation of the word "threat" to avoid trying to address that point, and that, because I reject it, you're asserting I am trying to change the definition. I'm not, and have tried repeatedly to explain why not.
If you are still confused on this point, I recommend that you study the identification and prediction of physical threats. The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker as an excellent popular introduction.
No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them.
Not my point. My experience has been that it is not easy for people who have not had harassing/threatening experiences closely analogous with Ms Sierra's to judge hers. I think it's important to recognize that and give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I think most people do in fact respect experiences other than their own, and make deliberate decisions to do so or not do so. I am suggesting that you consider doing so in this case because the analogous experiences you have provided as a basis for your reaction don't seem to me to be adequate to Ms Sierra's situation.
Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background.
I think they are. Everyone accords some respect for others' experiences without truly understanding them.
But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.
That's an interesting point. I guess I don't regard sympathy as something which requires a 'right'. I do think most of us are sympathetic to people in obvious distress even if we don't know why.
Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse.
Well, I think it's cherry picking because it's so generic and just because it's an isolated example. I guess I think the sum is more than the parts, that the context of the blogs as user communities (i.e. where a lot of people know each other) is important, and that the pattern emerging is one of sustained, condoned sexual harassment, which is significantly more dangerous that the random Internet type of sexual harassment. I also thought the graphic posted was seriously out of line. I also take into account that she has to get up on stage in front of people who have posted this crap, and participate in forums with them, have them for students, etc. not knowing who they are, etc. This sort of dynamic is incredibly destructive because it undermines trust, and it's why, when people do this in workplaces or schools, they generally get disciplined/fired/expelled. In a sense (which I admit is a stretch), this is like workplace harassment because she is a public figure and makes her living in public forums. Your view may differ.
Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public.
I'm too lazy to find it now, but I believe that is the case.
And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.
I think she deserves some sympathy. She does not deserve this treatment. I also saw her post as calling bullsh*t on the general problem. The people who do it, and allow it on their blogs, should be called on it. Finally, because it is typically so upsetting to some people, I tend to give victims of harrassing behavior the benefit of the doubt in their reactions until proven otherwise, and since there are still some unknowns in this situation, I am reserving judgement as to overreaction until more is known. Again, your view may differ.
The answer is that I do have a point
Not really. What I am trying to say is that people expect not to be subjected to unwarranted threats and harassment in their daily lives. This expectation is reflected in numerous laws, not least US employment law. There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. You are making a straw man because this is clearly not the case for Ms Sierra nor for the general class of threats and harassment to which she was subjected, which is the context of my remark, which I had thought to be obvious and which I think you do actually understand.
No, the poster most certainly DID NOT (say that words can't hurt you).
The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference.
If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.
You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Law enforcement certainly treats them as such. And, while the degree to which one treats such threats as credible obviously differs for each situation, I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. I wonder if you could address that point?
Now THAT is a straw man.
See the previous point. The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat. That's simply not true. The previous poster also seems to believe that no harm results from harassment or threats; I argued previously that that is not the case.
I see stuff like this all the time
You're cherry-picking. Read TFA. There was plenty else there and personally directed stuff besides.
her being a public figure makes each threat less significant
No, the likelihood of violence against public figures is well-known enough that some of them hire security guards and get police protection. What I think you mean is that public figures receive more threats and have a higher profile, the likelihood of any individual threat being carried out is less, which is probably true, but not relevant to my point. There is clearly a pattern here, and, again, Ms Sierra asserts other, non-public information that makes a threat more credible.
So her reaction was more severe than mine was
I agree, it was. So was the threat.
Do I have to murder to judge a murderer?
I think most reasonable people would say, no.
Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting?
Not necessarily, but it sure helps. A lot of people on this thread are arguing that Ms Sierra is overreacting because they would have reacted differently, and, when pushed, it emerges that they have never experienced a threat of this nature but are arguing from their own experience anyway. Having had indirect experience with the impact of these sort of threats in my professional life, I can assure you that they are a major reckoning in people's lives if they believe them to be credible, and particularly so if acted upon. I can also assure you that they are, on sad occasion, acted upon. Most of the people in this thread who are asserting similar experience seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt, and until proven otherwise I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.
Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.
Well, maybe. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
This statement is at best a half truth
Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man.
Words are not threats, yet you equate the two.
*sigh* Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you. Since you can construct a threat or a slur from words, and threats and words can cause harm by invoking a rational reaction, it follows that they cause harm. Again, this premise underlies US law on workplace harassment, discrimination, and, for that matter, slander and libel.
There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat.
No, an empty threat is still a threat. And I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter.
This is the etc.
Ms. Sierra doesn't think so. You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable, and it seems clear to me that that was intended by the perpetrators all along.
The environment should not have to change for one individual. No majority should have to walk on eggshells because of one individual.
Yes they should. Minority workers in ANY US workplace are entitled to a non-threatening work environment (a sentiment clearly enshrined in US employment law) and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others.
Words are by their nature are harmless.
Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate, which means they are intended to make people make decisions based on their assessment of the reality of the threat. This assessment differs for different people, and I think one should be inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt. Offensive comments are intended to upset the recipient, thereby making them less able or willing to participate in the environment, and frequently serve to denigrate the individual in the eyes of others as well. In the workplace (your example), economic harm frequently results. It may be that Ms. Sierra suffers economic harm as a result of these incidents, since, to a certain extent, her workplace is in public fora.
Women are a minority of technical workers in almost all communities/organizations, generally lopsidedly so.
You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us?
Yes, I do. Like a lot of people posting in say "she's overreacting", you're assuming that your limited personal experience is an acceptable metric. It isn't.
the person actually did know my name and where I lived
Case in point. Apples and oranges. You are not a public figure subject to multiple sexually disturbed anonymous threats. Assuming the threat in your case was limited to the person you describe, she has less recourse than you did and is much more exposed owing to her role.
... of course, are the bloggers who let themselves be conduits for abusive speech. This thread is now over 100 posts and I've seen almost nothing on this. C'mon, all you messaging admins, everyone who has to answer abuse@domain mail... what is their culpability?
People have made all kinds of threats against me, but none of them have been carried out since high school
Big deal. The situation is different for 1) women, 2) attractive women, and 3) public figures.