PDA

View Full Version : Its Leaving


Keith Hobman
December 6th 03, 09:06 PM
Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on its way to Big
Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic on him.

Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some purple socks.
However, I felt butched up enough wearing the darn skirt, I didn't feel a
need to wear the knee-highs as well.

Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.

"I done kilt that guys reputation!"

Robert Dorf
December 6th 03, 09:32 PM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:06:15 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on its way to Big
>Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic on him.
>
>Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some purple socks.
>However, I felt butched up enough wearing the darn skirt, I didn't feel a
>need to wear the knee-highs as well.
>
>Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
>
>"I done kilt that guys reputation!"

You looked fab-o Keith! ;-)

On the bright side, with an Ivanko Iron Kilt there'd be no chance of a
blow out...

David Cohen
December 7th 03, 12:27 AM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote
> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on its way
to Big
> Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic on him.

You gave away the Precioussssssss!?!?

David

gps
December 7th 03, 02:01 AM
Keith Hobman wrote:
>
> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on its way to Big
> Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic on him.
>
> Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some purple socks.
> However, I felt butched up enough wearing the darn skirt, I didn't feel a
> need to wear the knee-highs as well.
>
> Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
>
> "I done kilt that guys reputation!"

I just want to know if Wayne will ever wear that kilt again or if it's
going straight into the incinerator.
ps

Wayne S. Hill
December 7th 03, 02:26 PM
gps wrote:

> Keith Hobman wrote:
>>
>> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on
>> its way to Big Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic
>> on him.
>>
>> Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some
>> purple socks.

Keith is color blind. Those socks are garnet, and match the
Southerland tartan.

>> However, I felt butched up enough wearing the
>> darn skirt, I didn't feel a need to wear the knee-highs as
>> well.
>>
>> Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
>>
>> "I done kilt that guys reputation!"

Okay, so why do they call them 'tutus'?

> I just want to know if Wayne will ever wear that kilt again
> or if it's going straight into the incinerator.
> ps

<insert witty response>

--
-Wayne

Keith Hobman
December 7th 03, 02:29 PM
In article >, "Wayne S. Hill"
> wrote:

> gps wrote:
>
> > Keith Hobman wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on
> >> its way to Big Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic
> >> on him.
> >>
> >> Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some
> >> purple socks.
>
> Keith is color blind. Those socks are garnet, and match the
> Southerland tartan.

Right. I noticed they matched. Perhaps Scott is braver than I.

>
> >> However, I felt butched up enough wearing the
> >> darn skirt, I didn't feel a need to wear the knee-highs as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
> >>
> >> "I done kilt that guys reputation!"
>
> Okay, so why do they call them 'tutus'?
>
> > I just want to know if Wayne will ever wear that kilt again
> > or if it's going straight into the incinerator.
> > ps
>
> <insert witty response>

BTW - thanks Wayne for the loan. It was a lot of fun and a great idea.

Kilts are cool. The air-flow is amazing and I was wearing briefs underneath.

Otherwise you'd need a longer kilt.

:^o

Wayne S. Hill
December 7th 03, 02:33 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:

> BTW - thanks Wayne for the loan. It was a lot of fun and a
> great idea.

Dude: throwing heavy things while wearing a kilt. Now THAT's
fun!

Elzi's suggests picking out an MFW tartan.

> Kilts are cool. The air-flow is amazing and I was wearing
> briefs underneath.
>
> Otherwise you'd need a longer kilt.
>
>:^o

8-|

--
-Wayne

Elzinator
December 7th 03, 05:00 PM
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>>
>>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
>>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
>
>(grin)
>
>>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
>>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
>>of the mid-late 1800's.
>
>Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
>Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
>him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
>see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
>than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
>the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
>but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
>to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.

Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.

However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
traditional ways, e.g. the Samurai and their way of life, and the same
scenario seen in the demise of our American Indians with the advent of
the same plaguing Western so-called morality and 'civilization'.

But then I'm a cynic,,,

The scenery was wonderful and the costumes stupendous.
Watanabe knows how to ride horses, too. I'm impressed. He can come
ride Shadow any day.....

I also thoroughly enjoyed the sword and stick play, both the training
and the battle scenes.

>>It was a powerful movie, but I couldn't take the horses going down in
>>battle (heck with the humans).
>
>Yup, it's always harder for me to watch animals hurt on film than
>people.

I don't know how they filmed the battle, but too many horses taking
too convincing falls.

Also, I understand that the horses of that time period in Japan were
very small. These were good sized Arab crosses.

Elzinator
December 8th 03, 04:22 AM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:32:40 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:06:15 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>wrote:
>
>>Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on its way to Big
>>Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic on him.
>>
>>Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some purple socks.
>>However, I felt butched up enough wearing the darn skirt, I didn't feel a
>>need to wear the knee-highs as well.

Purple? I agree. Gotta draw a line there...

>>Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
>>
>>"I done kilt that guys reputation!"
>
>You looked fab-o Keith! ;-)
>
>On the bright side, with an Ivanko Iron Kilt there'd be no chance of a
>blow out...

I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.

And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
of the mid-late 1800's.

It was a powerful movie, but I couldn't take the horses going down in
battle (heck with the humans).

(recently reunited with the real man in my life, Mr. Shadow)

Elzinator
December 8th 03, 04:24 AM
On 7 Dec 2003 14:26:06 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>gps wrote:
>
>> Keith Hobman wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on
>>> its way to Big Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic
>>> on him.
>>>
>>> Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some
>>> purple socks.
>
>Keith is color blind. Those socks are garnet, and match the
>Southerland tartan.

Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Keith got taken. :)

Elzinator
December 8th 03, 04:44 AM
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:29:20 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, "Wayne S. Hill"
> wrote:
>
>> gps wrote:
>>
>> > Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now that my reputation is destroyed forever, the kilt is on
>> >> its way to Big Sirloin's house, to work its dastardly magic
>> >> on him.
>> >>
>> >> Also the socks. I neglected to mention Wayne included some
>> >> purple socks.
>>
>> Keith is color blind. Those socks are garnet, and match the
>> Southerland tartan.
>
>Right. I noticed they matched. Perhaps Scott is braver than I.
>
>>
>> >> However, I felt butched up enough wearing the
>> >> darn skirt, I didn't feel a need to wear the knee-highs as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> Now I know why they call them 'kilts'.
>> >>
>> >> "I done kilt that guys reputation!"
>>
>> Okay, so why do they call them 'tutus'?
>>
>> > I just want to know if Wayne will ever wear that kilt again
>> > or if it's going straight into the incinerator.
>> > ps
>>
>> <insert witty response>
>
>BTW - thanks Wayne for the loan. It was a lot of fun and a great idea.
>
>Kilts are cool. The air-flow is amazing and I was wearing briefs underneath.
>
>Otherwise you'd need a longer kilt.

Have to interject a story (or two) here:

A friend in Maine long ago worked horses (Percherons) in the woods,
specializing in selective cutting of small woodlots: horses = less
wear and tear on the soil and can get in and out where big skidders
can't. He, like many other woodsmen in Maine, was of Scottish descent,
and worked and lived in the woods of Maine.

Sean was a loner, living in a teepee in the summer and a tin-covered
wagon in the winter not far from his 4-legged co-workers. He wore a
kilt during most of the summer working in the woods, and, often on
mild winter days with long johns underneath (sometimes several
layers). He had 6 or so pairs of kilts, and seeing them hanging on a
clothesline in the woods was a token that Sean was nearby. On really
cold frigid winter days, he broke down and donned insulated Carharts
that by the end of the winter could stand up all by itself. He bathed
once in awhile, actually, like many of us, used the local sauna (since
I didn't have a bathroom, I was there often).

Another friend, again a logger with a Master's degree in Russian (but
Scottish; go figure), died under a tree. He was one of the best bird
hunters I ever met and a fine gentlemen who could put away Scotch like
no one else. A fine wake was held and he was buried in his family's
kilt (a Cameron; lots of Camerons in New England).

A lot of kilts don a lot of male backsides in New England and they are
worn with pride.

Tanaya's father was a MacMahon (2rd generation from Scotland). Imagine
a 6'7" man wearing a kilt.....

Elzinator
December 8th 03, 04:45 AM
On 7 Dec 2003 14:33:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Keith Hobman wrote:
>
>> BTW - thanks Wayne for the loan. It was a lot of fun and a
>> great idea.
>
>Dude: throwing heavy things while wearing a kilt. Now THAT's
>fun!
>
>Elzi's suggests picking out an MFW tartan.

That would be cool. Preferences?
I'm partial to red and black meself.....

Robert Dorf
December 8th 03, 05:27 AM
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:
>
>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.

(grin)

>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
>of the mid-late 1800's.

Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.

>It was a powerful movie, but I couldn't take the horses going down in
>battle (heck with the humans).

Yup, it's always harder for me to watch animals hurt on film than
people.

Robert Dorf
December 8th 03, 06:53 AM
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:00:44 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
>>>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
>>
>>(grin)
>>
>>>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
>>>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
>>>of the mid-late 1800's.
>>
>>Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
>>Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
>>him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
>>see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
>>than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
>>the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
>>but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
>>to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.
>
>Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
>Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
>enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
>he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
>differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
>differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
>loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
>However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
>were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
>movie portrays.

The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
violently xenophobic.

> Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
>man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
>lacking in modern man.

A complaint that the Romans were voicing 2000 years ago.

> What intrigued me was the parallels of
>encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
>traditional ways, e.g. the Samurai and their way of life, and the same
>scenario seen in the demise of our American Indians with the advent of
>the same plaguing Western so-called morality and 'civilization'.

Minus the whole genocide issue. (grin)

I'm sure that the parallel was intentional, but the fact is that there
had always been tension between the Bakufu (and their predecessors)
and the Samurai, those who favored a city based central government on
the Chinese model and those who wanted to retain traditional feudal
fiefdoms. If anyone had bothered to ask the peasants (not that anyone
would) I expect they'd have backed the Bakufu; freedom to come to the
cities, work and grow rich was part of the Bakufu's rallying cry, and
the merchants liked the idea of limiting the number of people who
could demand tribute at sword point.

The warrior ideal is appealing because people generally imagine
themselves in the role of warrior. Things look different on the
pointy end of the sword.

>But then I'm a cynic,,,

Always liked that about you.

>The scenery was wonderful and the costumes stupendous.
>Watanabe knows how to ride horses, too. I'm impressed. He can come
>ride Shadow any day.....

Watanabe has been a star for a while. Did a few TV shows, some
romantic dramas, some comedies.

Wayne S. Hill
December 8th 03, 01:35 PM
Elzinator wrote:

> A friend in Maine long ago worked horses (Percherons) in the
> woods, specializing in selective cutting of small woodlots:
> horses = less wear and tear on the soil and can get in and
> out where big skidders can't. He, like many other woodsmen
> in Maine, was of Scottish descent, and worked and lived in
> the woods of Maine.

Because of the much reduced damage, wood cutters that use horses
are still in demand, particularly by people building or
improving vacation homes (who don't want the wholesale carnage
of conventional logging).

> Sean was a loner, living in a teepee in the summer and a
> tin-covered wagon in the winter not far from his 4-legged
> co-workers. He wore a kilt during most of the summer working
> in the woods, and, often on mild winter days with long johns
> underneath (sometimes several layers). He had 6 or so pairs
> of kilts, and seeing them hanging on a clothesline in the
> woods was a token that Sean was nearby. On really cold
> frigid winter days, he broke down and donned insulated
> Carharts that by the end of the winter could stand up all by
> itself. He bathed once in awhile, actually, like many of us,
> used the local sauna (since I didn't have a bathroom, I was
> there often).
>
> Another friend, again a logger with a Master's degree in
> Russian (but Scottish; go figure), died under a tree. He was
> one of the best bird hunters I ever met and a fine gentlemen
> who could put away Scotch like no one else. A fine wake was
> held and he was buried in his family's kilt (a Cameron; lots
> of Camerons in New England).

My wife is a Cameron. Camerons were aboriginal Scots.

> A lot of kilts don a lot of male backsides in New England
> and they are worn with pride.
>
> Tanaya's father was a MacMahon (2rd generation from
> Scotland). Imagine a 6'7" man wearing a kilt.....

I saw it all the time this summer.

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
December 8th 03, 02:19 PM
Elzinator wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2003 14:33:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>
>>Elzi's suggests picking out an MFW tartan.
>
> That would be cool. Preferences?
> I'm partial to red and black meself.....

Y'all can look at the choices at

http://www.sportkilt.com

under Kilt Patterns. Only consider the polyester kilts, which
look much better with use than the cotton kilts. My kilt is a
Southerland, which I don't believe is the same as the Old
Southerland shown on the page (patterns may come and go). The
patterns look quite different in a kilt than they do as a
pattern sample, as you can see in the pics of the kilts. I
personally prefer the smaller patterns over most of the larger
patterns, but y'all judge for yourselves.

The front of these kilts is flat, but the sides and back are
pleated. Thus, the frontal shots don't give the best
impression of the overall appearance.

The McNaughton tartan is off limits, as it's the pattern for
the Highland Games Team USA (as seen on Elzi's site).

--
-Wayne

Lucas Buck
December 8th 03, 09:38 PM
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:44:05 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>Sean was a loner, living in a teepee in the summer and a tin-covered
>wagon in the winter not far from his 4-legged co-workers. He wore a
>kilt during most of the summer working in the woods, and, often on
>mild winter days with long johns underneath (sometimes several
>layers). He had 6 or so pairs of kilts, and seeing them hanging on a
>clothesline in the woods was a token that Sean was nearby. On really
>cold frigid winter days, he broke down and donned insulated Carharts
>that by the end of the winter could stand up all by itself. He bathed
>once in awhile, actually, like many of us, used the local sauna (since
>I didn't have a bathroom, I was there often).


Ewww. It was YOU who was pooping in the sauna?!

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 01:45 AM
On 8 Dec 2003 13:35:42 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> A friend in Maine long ago worked horses (Percherons) in the
>> woods, specializing in selective cutting of small woodlots:
>> horses = less wear and tear on the soil and can get in and
>> out where big skidders can't. He, like many other woodsmen
>> in Maine, was of Scottish descent, and worked and lived in
>> the woods of Maine.
>
>Because of the much reduced damage, wood cutters that use horses
>are still in demand, particularly by people building or
>improving vacation homes (who don't want the wholesale carnage
>of conventional logging).

Yup (I worked a year as a forester cruising small woodlots and marking
trees for cutting). Maine had incentive programs for small woodlot
management, which placed specialty loggers in high demand. They made
good money, too. I recall the comments of a forester visiting from
Oregon: "These trees here are nothin' but pecker poles."

>> Another friend, again a logger with a Master's degree in
>> Russian (but Scottish; go figure), died under a tree. He was
>> one of the best bird hunters I ever met and a fine gentlemen
>> who could put away Scotch like no one else. A fine wake was
>> held and he was buried in his family's kilt (a Cameron; lots
>> of Camerons in New England).
>
>My wife is a Cameron. Camerons were aboriginal Scots.

With alot of history.

>> A lot of kilts don a lot of male backsides in New England
>> and they are worn with pride.
>>
>> Tanaya's father was a MacMahon (2rd generation from
>> Scotland). Imagine a 6'7" man wearing a kilt.....
>
>I saw it all the time this summer.

Larry was tall and very lanky, not exactly the best type for wearing a
kilt. His brother on the other hand was perfectly suited: shorter and
stockier, with more muscle. Larry was nothing but big long bones
(which Tanaya inherited). Both brothers wore kilts during a MacMahon
reunion. What a party that was.

So, did you get snowed in? It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 01:57 AM
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:38:12 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:44:05 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>Sean was a loner, living in a teepee in the summer and a tin-covered
>>wagon in the winter not far from his 4-legged co-workers. He wore a
>>kilt during most of the summer working in the woods, and, often on
>>mild winter days with long johns underneath (sometimes several
>>layers). He had 6 or so pairs of kilts, and seeing them hanging on a
>>clothesline in the woods was a token that Sean was nearby. On really
>>cold frigid winter days, he broke down and donned insulated Carharts
>>that by the end of the winter could stand up all by itself. He bathed
>>once in awhile, actually, like many of us, used the local sauna (since
>>I didn't have a bathroom, I was there often).
>
>
>Ewww. It was YOU who was pooping in the sauna?!

Funny you should say that (no, it wasn't me, but my offspring).

Saunas relax you, mind and body. Which was one reason why laborers,
carpenters, loggers, etc, were usually found at the saunas at the end
of the day. Physiologically, the heat relaxes the muscles, including
smooth muscle. Which includes intestinal and sphincter.

My daughter spent her first 4 years taking saunas or bathing in a big
metal tub in front of the woodstove. The heat of the sauna seemed to
quite effective in relaxing her because invariably, during every sauna
little poopers would float to the top of the water in her big metal
tub that I set up with warm water for her to soak and play in.

She'd be enjoying her play in the tub water for about half an hour and
then she would sit still with a concentrated look on her face which
turned a shade of pink. Not sure if the facial color was from the heat
or the effort of pushing out little floaters, but there they would
appear. No plop plop warning. And I'd have to dump the tub after
removing her, rinse it out with hot water, chase it with cold water
from the hose, refill the tub and plop her back in after washing off
her hiney. God forbid if she did another round.

If she knew I recounted this on the Internet, she'd disown me......

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 02:14 AM
On 8 Dec 2003 14:19:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> On 7 Dec 2003 14:33:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>
>>>Elzi's suggests picking out an MFW tartan.
>>
>> That would be cool. Preferences?
>> I'm partial to red and black meself.....
>
>Y'all can look at the choices at
>
>http://www.sportkilt.com
>
>under Kilt Patterns. Only consider the polyester kilts, which
>look much better with use than the cotton kilts. My kilt is a
>Southerland, which I don't believe is the same as the Old
>Southerland shown on the page (patterns may come and go). The
>patterns look quite different in a kilt than they do as a
>pattern sample, as you can see in the pics of the kilts. I
>personally prefer the smaller patterns over most of the larger
>patterns, but y'all judge for yourselves.

My personal preferences:

Garrison
Amber Scot
Freedom Red
Stewart (family preference, long story)

You will notice the preference for red and black (also Mr. Shadow's
colors; hmmm...... a kilt saddle blanket. I like that idea!)

I made and wore a pleated skirt in the Royal Cockburn pattern in high
school. I wore it to tatters.

BTW, there is a Ninja pattern for Lyle...

>The front of these kilts is flat, but the sides and back are
>pleated. Thus, the frontal shots don't give the best
>impression of the overall appearance.
>
>The McNaughton tartan is off limits, as it's the pattern for
>the Highland Games Team USA (as seen on Elzi's site).

I like the Noggin' Naps. I bet they'd be cool for riding (I usually
wear a ball cap, but they tend to slip).

ps. Who's the big-armed dood in the tank top?

Wayne S. Hill
December 9th 03, 02:35 AM
Elzinator wrote:

> So, did you get snowed in?

Heck, no: my town only got 10". Other towns got as much as 39".
For me, it was just a good excuse to lie around and do nothing.

> It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)

How can you survive in such conditions? 8-)

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
December 9th 03, 03:02 AM
Elzinator wrote:

> My personal preferences:
>
> Garrison
> Amber Scot
> Freedom Red
> Stewart (family preference, long story)

Royal Stewart? That's a common favorite. There's also Dress
Stewart, Black Stewart, and Stewart Navy.

> I made and wore a pleated skirt in the Royal Cockburn
> pattern in high school. I wore it to tatters.

Jpegs.

> BTW, there is a Ninja pattern for Lyle...

The black could look great with black cleats, black socks, and a
black shirt. Perhaps not the best for a hot day in July...

> ps. Who's the big-armed dood in the tank top?

I believe (not sure, though) that's Vicken Atarian, nicknamed
the Genetic Freak (Orange, CA). I tried looking at the Freak's
website (http://geneticfreak750.tripod.com/), but it disappeared
and isn't in the internet archive.

--
-Wayne

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 03:12 AM
On 9 Dec 2003 02:35:14 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> So, did you get snowed in?
>
>Heck, no: my town only got 10". Other towns got as much as 39".
>For me, it was just a good excuse to lie around and do nothing.

My veterinarian friend from Ohia called me to give me reports on the
accumulation of white crap (as I refer to it) falling there. She hates
it, too. When I told her I wore a T-shirt and sunglasses, she told me
I suck. I just laughed.

>> It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)
>
>How can you survive in such conditions? 8-)

Very well, thank you :)

(beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)

David Cohen
December 9th 03, 03:20 AM
"Elzinator" > wrote
> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
> >Elzinator wrote:
> >> So, did you get snowed in?
> >
> >Heck, no: my town only got 10". Other towns got as much as 39".
> >For me, it was just a good excuse to lie around and do nothing.
>
> My veterinarian friend from Ohia called me to give me reports on the
> accumulation of white crap (as I refer to it) falling there. She
hates
> it, too. When I told her I wore a T-shirt and sunglasses, she told
me
> I suck. I just laughed.
>
> >> It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)
> >
> >How can you survive in such conditions? 8-)
>
> Very well, thank you :)
>
> (beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
> That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)

Really?

David
>

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 03:21 AM
On 9 Dec 2003 03:02:10 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> My personal preferences:
>>
>> Garrison
>> Amber Scot
>> Freedom Red
>> Stewart (family preference, long story)
>
>Royal Stewart? That's a common favorite. There's also Dress
>Stewart, Black Stewart, and Stewart Navy.

My grandfather used to occasionally wear a Dress Stewart kilt. One
reason was because, although he was raised in Japan by missionaries
(and wore a 'dress'), he was of Scottish descent and his first name
was Stewart. Man, he looked like Santa Claus in a kilt (minus the
hair; he had not a hair on his head).

>> I made and wore a pleated skirt in the Royal Cockburn
>> pattern in high school. I wore it to tatters.
>
>Jpegs.

Sorry, the only pics I have of me as a yungun are of me at age 1 or so
sitting naked on my bed with my Airedale guardian, and at sixteen in a
very short silver slinky velvet dress.

>> BTW, there is a Ninja pattern for Lyle...
>
>The black could look great with black cleats, black socks, and a
>black shirt. Perhaps not the best for a hot day in July...

I like it! Don't forget the Doc Martin's.

>> ps. Who's the big-armed dood in the tank top?
>
>I believe (not sure, though) that's Vicken Atarian, nicknamed
>the Genetic Freak (Orange, CA). I tried looking at the Freak's
>website (http://geneticfreak750.tripod.com/), but it disappeared
>and isn't in the internet archive.

He's a big dood!

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 03:36 AM
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:20:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Elzinator" > wrote
>> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>> >Elzinator wrote:
>> >> It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)
>> >
>> >How can you survive in such conditions? 8-)
>>
>> Very well, thank you :)
>>
>> (beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
>> That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)
>
>Really?
>
>David

Sure, he's puppy size, but he's stuffed.
Nevertheless, he was a good companion on my walkabout. I found him
abandoned at a truck stop. He sat on the console next to me in the
front seat for 2K miles.

Although when I was discovered talking to him and scratching his ears,
I was pronounced insane.

As soon as I get a place, I'll be on the lookout for a Blue Heeler
and/or Border Collie cross. A real one.

David Cohen
December 9th 03, 05:28 AM
"Elzinator" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >"Elzinator" > wrote
> >> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
> >> >Elzinator wrote:
> >> >> It was a sunny 72 degrees here today ;)
> >> >
> >> >How can you survive in such conditions? 8-)
> >>
> >> Very well, thank you :)
> >>
> >> (beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
> >> That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)
> >
> >Really?
>
> Sure, he's puppy size, but he's stuffed.
> Nevertheless, he was a good companion on my walkabout. I found him
> abandoned at a truck stop. He sat on the console next to me in the
> front seat for 2K miles.
>
> Although when I was discovered talking to him and scratching his
ears,
> I was pronounced insane.

Oh, we already knew that. Talking to stuffed animals isn't insane,
however. Theraputic.
>
> As soon as I get a place, I'll be on the lookout for a Blue Heeler
> and/or Border Collie cross. A real one.

With each other? I wouldn't think crossing a cattle herder with a
sheep herder would be a good idea. Very different herding styles.

Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed, related to
the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle herder,
which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is it's
style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't have
a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to go,
and the rest of the herd follows.

Get a bumber sticker: "My cattle herding dog can eat your cattle
herding dog!"

David
>

Lee Michaels
December 9th 03, 05:44 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote
>
> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed, related to
> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle herder,
> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is it's
> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't have
> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to go,
> and the rest of the herd follows.
>

How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.

My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to sense the
alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing to one
another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of this context,
the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.

But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.

John HUDSON
December 9th 03, 06:58 AM
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:57:45 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:38:12 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:44:05 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>>Sean was a loner, living in a teepee in the summer and a tin-covered
>>>wagon in the winter not far from his 4-legged co-workers. He wore a
>>>kilt during most of the summer working in the woods, and, often on
>>>mild winter days with long johns underneath (sometimes several
>>>layers). He had 6 or so pairs of kilts, and seeing them hanging on a
>>>clothesline in the woods was a token that Sean was nearby. On really
>>>cold frigid winter days, he broke down and donned insulated Carharts
>>>that by the end of the winter could stand up all by itself. He bathed

>>>once in awhile, actually, like many of us, used the local sauna (since
>>>I didn't have a bathroom, I was there often).
>>
>>
>>Ewww. It was YOU who was pooping in the sauna?!
>
>Funny you should say that (no, it wasn't me, but my offspring).
>
>Saunas relax you, mind and body. Which was one reason why laborers,
>carpenters, loggers, etc, were usually found at the saunas at the end
>of the day. Physiologically, the heat relaxes the muscles, including
>smooth muscle. Which includes intestinal and sphincter.
>
>My daughter spent her first 4 years taking saunas or bathing in a big
>metal tub in front of the woodstove. The heat of the sauna seemed to
>quite effective in relaxing her because invariably, during every sauna
>little poopers would float to the top of the water in her big metal
>tub that I set up with warm water for her to soak and play in.
>
>She'd be enjoying her play in the tub water for about half an hour and
>then she would sit still with a concentrated look on her face which
>turned a shade of pink. Not sure if the facial color was from the heat
>or the effort of pushing out little floaters, but there they would
>appear. No plop plop warning. And I'd have to dump the tub after
>removing her, rinse it out with hot water, chase it with cold water
>from the hose, refill the tub and plop her back in after washing off
>her hiney. God forbid if she did another round.
>
>If she knew I recounted this on the Internet, she'd disown me......

And not without some justification; this is far too much information!

Lucas Buck
December 9th 03, 07:58 AM
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:14:54 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On 8 Dec 2003 14:19:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>
>>Elzinator wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Dec 2003 14:33:13 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Elzi's suggests picking out an MFW tartan.
>>>
>>> That would be cool. Preferences?
>>> I'm partial to red and black meself.....
>>
>>Y'all can look at the choices at
>>
>>http://www.sportkilt.com
>>
>>under Kilt Patterns. Only consider the polyester kilts, which
>>look much better with use than the cotton kilts. My kilt is a
>>Southerland, which I don't believe is the same as the Old
>>Southerland shown on the page (patterns may come and go). The
>>patterns look quite different in a kilt than they do as a
>>pattern sample, as you can see in the pics of the kilts. I
>>personally prefer the smaller patterns over most of the larger
>>patterns, but y'all judge for yourselves.
>
>My personal preferences:
>
>Garrison
>Amber Scot
>Freedom Red
>Stewart (family preference, long story)
>
>You will notice the preference for red and black (also Mr. Shadow's
>colors; hmmm...... a kilt saddle blanket. I like that idea!)
>
>I made and wore a pleated skirt in the Royal Cockburn pattern in high
>school. I wore it to tatters.
>
>BTW, there is a Ninja pattern for Lyle...


You'd think the McDonalds would have their own tartan already.

Red with golden arches, maybe.

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 12:52 PM
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:28:08 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>"Elzinator" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> >"Elzinator" > wrote
>> >> (beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
>> >> That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)
>> >
>> >Really?
>>
>> Sure, he's puppy size, but he's stuffed.
>> Nevertheless, he was a good companion on my walkabout. I found him
>> abandoned at a truck stop. He sat on the console next to me in the
>> front seat for 2K miles.
>>
>> Although when I was discovered talking to him and scratching his
>ears, I was pronounced insane.
>
>Oh, we already knew that.

I'd rather be abbynormal than normal. Normal is boring.

>Talking to stuffed animals isn't insane, however. Theraputic.

It was for me on my walkabout. So was sticking my middle finger up in
the air out the window as I left.


>> As soon as I get a place, I'll be on the lookout for a Blue Heeler
>> and/or Border Collie cross. A real one.
>
>With each other? I wouldn't think crossing a cattle herder with a
>sheep herder would be a good idea. Very different herding styles.

Well, Maggs the Demon Dog that I posted the pics of is just that. She
is by far the most intelligent and athletic dog I've met. She's high
energy, but I like that. We played alot and I tested her trainability
(her Mom doesn't have the time to devote to training her much, she's
training a new horse); she learns quick. Needs lots of reinforcement,
but then she's 2 yo and cooped in the house most of the day during the
week. In the right environment, she'd be a phenomenal dog.

I spent 2 days with her before I left and I'm going to miss her alot.
Hence my adoption of El Lupo.

>Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed, related to
>the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle herder,
>which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is it's
>style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't have
>a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
>including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to go,
>and the rest of the herd follows.

Interesting. Although I have long wanted a Mastiff, I'm not sure if I
really want one at this point. I'd much prefer a smaller and athletic
dog, such as a Border Collie. Not that herding anything is a
prerequisite. I'm not sure if Mr. Shadow would appreciate a dog trying
to herd him; he might get ****ed off and plant a hoof in it's face.

>Get a bumber sticker: "My cattle herding dog can eat your cattle
>herding dog!"

How about "My dog can paw press more than your dog"?

Elzinator
December 9th 03, 12:53 PM
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:16 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" > wrote
>>
>> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed, related to
>> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle herder,
>> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is it's
>> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't have
>> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
>> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to go,
>> and the rest of the herd follows.
>>
>
>How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.
>
>My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to sense the
>alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing to one
>another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of this context,
>the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.
>
>But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.

Is it? I've seen some sheep dogs utilize the same strategy.They use
eye contact on the alpha ewe and seem to capitalize on their status.

The problem is that not all sheep flocks have an alpha ewe; some
breeds have less propensity for this (I can't remember the breed, but
they also have short hair rather than wool and they don't flock
together like most sheep breeds do).

David Cohen
December 9th 03, 02:26 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:16 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Cohen" > wrote
> >>
> >> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed,
related to
> >> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle
herder,
> >> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is
it's
> >> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't
have
> >> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
> >> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to
go,
> >> and the rest of the herd follows.
> >>
> >
> >How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.
> >
> >My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to
sense the
> >alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing to
one
> >another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of this
context,
> >the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.
> >
> >But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.
>
> Is it? I've seen some sheep dogs utilize the same strategy.They use
> eye contact on the alpha ewe and seem to capitalize on their status.

But don't cattle herders use more of a nip-at-the-heel strategy? Hard
to imagine one of Pat's Corgis staring down a big cowbeast :)

David

David Cohen
December 9th 03, 02:32 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >"Elzinator" > wrote
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >> >"Elzinator" > wrote
> >> >> (beautiful full moon out there tonight. Owwooooooooo!!!!!!!
> >> >> That's my wolf puppy I adopted on my walkabout....)
> >> >
> >> >Really?
> >>
> >> Sure, he's puppy size, but he's stuffed.
> >> Nevertheless, he was a good companion on my walkabout. I found
him
> >> abandoned at a truck stop. He sat on the console next to me in
the
> >> front seat for 2K miles.
> >>
> >> Although when I was discovered talking to him and scratching his
> >ears, I was pronounced insane.
> >
> >Oh, we already knew that.
>
> I'd rather be abbynormal than normal. Normal is boring.
>
> >Talking to stuffed animals isn't insane, however. Theraputic.
>
> It was for me on my walkabout. So was sticking my middle finger up
in
> the air out the window as I left.
>
> >> As soon as I get a place, I'll be on the lookout for a Blue
Heeler
> >> and/or Border Collie cross. A real one.
> >
> >With each other? I wouldn't think crossing a cattle herder with a
> >sheep herder would be a good idea. Very different herding styles.
>
> Well, Maggs the Demon Dog that I posted the pics of is just that.
She
> is by far the most intelligent and athletic dog I've met. She's high
> energy, but I like that. We played alot and I tested her
trainability
> (her Mom doesn't have the time to devote to training her much, she's
> training a new horse); she learns quick. Needs lots of
reinforcement,
> but then she's 2 yo and cooped in the house most of the day during
the
> week. In the right environment, she'd be a phenomenal dog.

Does Maggs herd with a give-'em-the-eye Border Collie style or a
nip-'em-on-the-heel Heeler style? Or some combo?

Or do you just provide the dog with a long, detailed, well-referenced
argument as to why she should perform as requested?

:)

David

August Pamplona
December 10th 03, 12:33 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:16 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"David Cohen" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed,
> related to
> > >> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle
> herder,
> > >> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is
> it's
> > >> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't
> have
> > >> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
> > >> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to
> go,
> > >> and the rest of the herd follows.
> > >>
> > >
> > >How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.
> > >
> > >My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to
> sense the
> > >alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing to
> one
> > >another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of this
> context,
> > >the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.
> > >
> > >But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.
> >
> > Is it? I've seen some sheep dogs utilize the same strategy.They use
> > eye contact on the alpha ewe and seem to capitalize on their status.
>
> But don't cattle herders use more of a nip-at-the-heel strategy? Hard
> to imagine one of Pat's Corgis staring down a big cowbeast :)
>
> David

Did someone say Corgi? You might be interested in this article:
http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm

Or, for the long version (7 parts):
http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES1.html

I might have stumbled upon a descendant of these efforts while I was
in Spain. I was accompanying my dad while he was walking the dog and we
came across a fellow walking a quite young boxer puppy. My dad made a
comment on the tail being cropped to closely and the fellow replied that
this is the way he was born.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

David Cohen
December 10th 03, 01:02 AM
"August Pamplona" >
wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
> > "Elzinator" > wrote
> > > "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
> > > >"David Cohen" > wrote
> > > >> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed,
> > related to
> > > >> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle
> > herder,
> > > >> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual
is
> > it's
> > > >> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I
don't
> > have
> > > >> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates
it,
> > > >> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants
it to
> > go,
> > > >> and the rest of the herd follows.
> > > >>
> > > >How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.
> > > >
> > > >My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to
> > sense the
> > > >alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing
to
> > one
> > > >another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of
this
> > context,
> > > >the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.
> > > >
> > > >But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.
> > >
> > > Is it? I've seen some sheep dogs utilize the same strategy.They
use
> > > eye contact on the alpha ewe and seem to capitalize on their
status.
> >
> > But don't cattle herders use more of a nip-at-the-heel strategy?
Hard
> > to imagine one of Pat's Corgis staring down a big cowbeast :)
>
> Did someone say Corgi? You might be interested in this article:
> http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm

Show dog people are so ****ing weird.

David
--
"As perpetually juvenile apes, we have created a playmate for
ourselves in a
perpetually juvenile wolf."...Dr Stanley Coren, "How To Speak Dog"

Elzinator
December 10th 03, 02:13 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message et>...
> "Elzinator" > wrote
> > Well, Maggs the Demon Dog that I posted the pics of is just that.
> She
> > is by far the most intelligent and athletic dog I've met. She's high
> > energy, but I like that. We played alot and I tested her
> trainability
> > (her Mom doesn't have the time to devote to training her much, she's
> > training a new horse); she learns quick. Needs lots of
> reinforcement,
> > but then she's 2 yo and cooped in the house most of the day during
> the
> > week. In the right environment, she'd be a phenomenal dog.
>
> Does Maggs herd with a give-'em-the-eye Border Collie style or a
> nip-'em-on-the-heel Heeler style? Or some combo?

I don't know about Maggs herdability. She's more of a frisbee/ball
dog. I haven't had the opportunity to see her demonstrate herding
abilities.

> Or do you just provide the dog with a long, detailed, well-referenced
> argument as to why she should perform as requested?

I draw pictures :)

Elzinator
December 10th 03, 02:16 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message et>...
> "Elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:16 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"David Cohen" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> Be different...get a Cane Corso. An Italian mastiff breed,
> related to
> > >> the Neapolitan Mastiff. It was developed and used as a cattle
> herder,
> > >> which is itself unusual for a mastiff breed. But most unusual is
> it's
> > >> style of herding...it identifies the leader of the herd (I don't
> have
> > >> a clue how...biggest bull?...I'm a city boy), and intimidates it,
> > >> including attacking it, to get it to go where the dog wants it to
> go,
> > >> and the rest of the herd follows.
> > >>
> > >
> > >How unusual. I have never heard of such a thing.
> > >
> > >My guess is that there has to be some means that allows them to
> sense the
> > >alpha cow. Since aggressive animals are constantly posturing to
> one
> > >another, it is probably an extension of that behavior. Out of this
> context,
> > >the dog would become the alpha cow????? I am guessing here.
> > >
> > >But like you said, this style of herding is very unusual.
> >
> > Is it? I've seen some sheep dogs utilize the same strategy.They use
> > eye contact on the alpha ewe and seem to capitalize on their status.
>
> But don't cattle herders use more of a nip-at-the-heel strategy? Hard
> to imagine one of Pat's Corgis staring down a big cowbeast :)

That's the primary difference between Blue Heeler and Border Collies,
which is why one serves cattle herding better and the other sheep.

Don't Corgis chase rats?

Lucas Buck
December 10th 03, 03:03 AM
On 9 Dec 2003 18:13:57 -0800, (Elzinator) wrote:

>"David Cohen" > wrote in message et>...
>> "Elzinator" > wrote
>> > Well, Maggs the Demon Dog that I posted the pics of is just that.
>> She
>> > is by far the most intelligent and athletic dog I've met. She's high
>> > energy, but I like that. We played alot and I tested her
>> trainability
>> > (her Mom doesn't have the time to devote to training her much, she's
>> > training a new horse); she learns quick. Needs lots of
>> reinforcement,
>> > but then she's 2 yo and cooped in the house most of the day during
>> the
>> > week. In the right environment, she'd be a phenomenal dog.
>>
>> Does Maggs herd with a give-'em-the-eye Border Collie style or a
>> nip-'em-on-the-heel Heeler style? Or some combo?
>
>I don't know about Maggs herdability. She's more of a frisbee/ball
>dog. I haven't had the opportunity to see her demonstrate herding
>abilities.

But then, frisbees and balls are non-migratory.

Elzinator
December 10th 03, 03:32 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:03:03 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On 9 Dec 2003 18:13:57 -0800, (Elzinator) wrote:
>
>>"David Cohen" > wrote in message et>...
>>> "Elzinator" > wrote
>>> > Well, Maggs the Demon Dog that I posted the pics of is just that.
>>> She
>>> > is by far the most intelligent and athletic dog I've met. She's high
>>> > energy, but I like that. We played alot and I tested her
>>> trainability
>>> > (her Mom doesn't have the time to devote to training her much, she's
>>> > training a new horse); she learns quick. Needs lots of
>>> reinforcement,
>>> > but then she's 2 yo and cooped in the house most of the day during
>>> the
>>> > week. In the right environment, she'd be a phenomenal dog.
>>>
>>> Does Maggs herd with a give-'em-the-eye Border Collie style or a
>>> nip-'em-on-the-heel Heeler style? Or some combo?
>>
>>I don't know about Maggs herdability. She's more of a frisbee/ball
>>dog. I haven't had the opportunity to see her demonstrate herding
>>abilities.
>
>But then, frisbees and balls are non-migratory.

Not necessarily.They travel distance by air, then return in the jaws
of a dog.

My favorite ploy with Maggie was throwing a frisbee, then a ball, then
another frisbee, etc one right after another. She got confused at
first, realized I was ****ing with her head, then ignored me and went
after the first thrown item.

However, the well-placed woobies continued to confuse her. The woobies
are coveted creatures, destined to eventually be eviscerated. \

gps
December 10th 03, 04:22 AM
Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:00:44 -0500, Elzinator >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
> >>>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
> >>
> >>(grin)
> >>
> >>>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
> >>>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
> >>>of the mid-late 1800's.
> >>
> >>Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
> >>Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
> >>him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
> >>see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
> >>than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
> >>the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
> >>but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
> >>to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.
> >
> >Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
> >Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
> >enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
> >he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
> >differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
> >differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
> >loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
> >However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
> >were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
> >movie portrays.
>
> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
> violently xenophobic.

Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
ps

Robert Dorf
December 10th 03, 05:38 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:

>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>

>>
>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>> violently xenophobic.
>
>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!

I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
problem with.

Jacob Andersen
December 10th 03, 02:42 PM
"Robert Dorf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>
> >Robert Dorf wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
> >> violently xenophobic.
> >
> >Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>
> I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
> being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
> problem with.

If they can do it with Richard Chamberlain, why not Tom Cruise?

/Jacob

Robert Dorf
December 10th 03, 02:59 PM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:42:34 +0100, "Jacob Andersen" >
wrote:

>"Robert Dorf" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>>
>> >Robert Dorf wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>> >> violently xenophobic.
>> >
>> >Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>>
>> I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
>> being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
>> problem with.
>
>If they can do it with Richard Chamberlain, why not Tom Cruise?
>
Never liked Shogun either.

Even so, Will Adams (parts of Shogun are very loosely based on his
life) was the pet of Shogun Ieyasu, an early 17th century Japanese
progressive interested in trade with the west, especially England.
Cruise becomes the pet of 19th century isolationists devoted to
holding on to power.

Suspension of disbelief or no, that's just goofy.

Elzinator
December 11th 03, 02:00 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:38:43 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>
>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>>> violently xenophobic.
>>
>>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>
>I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
>being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
>problem with.

I thought the Samurai didn't like the White Monkeys.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 11th 03, 02:38 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:38:43 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>>>> violently xenophobic.
>>>
>>>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>>
>>I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
>>being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
>>problem with.
>
>I thought the Samurai didn't like the White Monkeys.
>
They weren't too fond of anyone really.

Oh well.

Marty Feldman
December 11th 03, 03:45 AM
Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
> >>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
> >
> >(grin)
> >
> >>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
> >>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
> >>of the mid-late 1800's.
> >
> >Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
> >Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
> >him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
> >see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
> >than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
> >the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
> >but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
> >to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.
>
> Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
> Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
> enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
> he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
> differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
> differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
> loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
>
> However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
> were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
> movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
> man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
> lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
> encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
> traditional ways,



this part of the movie bothered me, because they got that reversed,
imho. it's the "traditional" values of the samurais, that is the
basis for modern societies. ie. it's not modern society that corrupts
values -- corrupt values inhibits modern societies. esoteric point,
but i dig that kinda stuff.










e.g. the Samurai and their way of life, and the same
> scenario seen in the demise of our American Indians with the advent of
> the same plaguing Western so-called morality and 'civilization'.
>
> But then I'm a cynic,,,
>
> The scenery was wonderful and the costumes stupendous.
> Watanabe knows how to ride horses, too. I'm impressed. He can come
> ride Shadow any day.....
>
> I also thoroughly enjoyed the sword and stick play, both the training
> and the battle scenes.
>
> >>It was a powerful movie, but I couldn't take the horses going down in
> >>battle (heck with the humans).
> >
> >Yup, it's always harder for me to watch animals hurt on film than
> >people.
>
> I don't know how they filmed the battle, but too many horses taking
> too convincing falls.
>
> Also, I understand that the horses of that time period in Japan were
> very small. These were good sized Arab crosses.

Elzinator
December 11th 03, 04:09 AM
On 10 Dec 2003 19:45:04 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
wrote:

>Elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
>> >>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
>> >
>> >(grin)
>> >
>> >>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
>> >>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
>> >>of the mid-late 1800's.
>> >
>> >Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
>> >Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
>> >him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
>> >see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
>> >than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
>> >the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
>> >but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
>> >to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.
>>
>> Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
>> Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
>> enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
>> he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
>> differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
>> differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
>> loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
>>
>> However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
>> were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
>> movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
>> man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
>> lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
>> encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
>> traditional ways,
>
>
>
>this part of the movie bothered me, because they got that reversed,
>imho. it's the "traditional" values of the samurais, that is the
>basis for modern societies. ie. it's not modern society that corrupts
>values -- corrupt values inhibits modern societies.

Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
and less corrupt. The complexity arises when populations increase and
new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
human nature still exists.

Not waxing philosophical or anything.......

> esoteric point, but i dig that kinda stuff.

You would enjoy discussing this with my friend in Austin, who also
digs discussing this stuff. We used to engage in these conversations
every Sunday am sitting in comfy chairs with coffee (as we did just
last Sat am after a 2 year hiatus). He is a keen observer of human
nature.



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 11th 03, 04:18 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:


>Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
>reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
>latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
>and less corrupt.

Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
all).

>The complexity arises when populations increase and
>new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
>human nature still exists.

People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
order. ;-)

Elzinator
December 11th 03, 05:35 AM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>
>>Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
>>reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
>>latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
>>and less corrupt.
>
>Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
>syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
>all).

I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
was/is.

>>The complexity arises when populations increase and
>>new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
>>human nature still exists.
>
>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>order. ;-)

I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.

I trust no one.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Lyle McDonald
December 11th 03, 06:07 AM
Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:38:43 -0500, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Robert Dorf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
> >>>> violently xenophobic.
> >>>
> >>>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
> >>
> >>I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
> >>being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
> >>problem with.
> >
> >I thought the Samurai didn't like the White Monkeys.
> >
> They weren't too fond of anyone really.

Especially ninja.

Always sneakin' up and stabbin' 'em and stuff.

**** anybody off.

Lyle

Robert Dorf
December 11th 03, 06:10 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
>>>reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
>>>latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
>>>and less corrupt.
>>
>>Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
>>syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
>>all).
>
>I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
>my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
>any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
>morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
>was/is.

Agreed, though on the other hand I'd say that there is arguably a core
group of moral rules that continues to crop up in almost any working
society; very basic things related to avoiding anti-personal/group
survival behaviors (Thou Shalt Not Kill And Eat Thy Neighbors So Long
As Any Other Protein Sources Are Available, Same Goes For Your
Children). Of course how far protections extend and when they get
retracted varies tremendously.

Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
tremendous lip service almost everywhere.

>>>The complexity arises when populations increase and
>>>new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
>>>human nature still exists.
>>
>>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>>order. ;-)
>
>I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
>the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
>stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
>permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.

Good luck with that. I've been in situations where it was advisable
to remain armed and cautious even at "home." Not a pleasant
sensation.

>I trust no one.

That must make holiday dinners very stressful.

Robert Dorf
December 11th 03, 06:17 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:07:05 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:38:43 -0500, Robert Dorf
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>> >>>> violently xenophobic.
>> >>>
>> >>>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>> >>
>> >>I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
>> >>being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
>> >>problem with.
>> >
>> >I thought the Samurai didn't like the White Monkeys.
>> >
>> They weren't too fond of anyone really.
>
>Especially ninja.
>
>Always sneakin' up and stabbin' 'em and stuff.
>
>**** anybody off.
>
Yes, but what could they do about it? I mean, ninja can just flip out
and kill people whenever they want. Well known fact (ref:
www.realultimatepower.net ).

Lucas Buck
December 11th 03, 07:09 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
>>>reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
>>>latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
>>>and less corrupt.
>>
>>Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
>>syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
>>all).
>
>I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
>my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
>any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
>morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
>was/is.
>
>>>The complexity arises when populations increase and
>>>new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
>>>human nature still exists.
>>
>>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>>order. ;-)
>
>I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
>the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
>stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
>permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.
>
>I trust no one.


Are you in a firearm-friendly state? You might consider starting the process.
There's a waiting period, but if you order online and type "NINJA" into
the Presale Password box, you can get it waived!


--
Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com
"Kids are beautiful, aren't they? Who can forget the
look in a child's eyes when you first take em out of your trunk?"
- Dave Attel

John M. Williams
December 11th 03, 08:16 AM
Robert Dorf > wrote:

> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:38:43 -0500, Robert Dorf
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:21 GMT, gps > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The stated ideal is authentic; the actual Samurai of the time were
>>> >>>> violently xenophobic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Xenophobic japanese? You don't say!
>>> >>
>>> >>I think it's the reactionary xenophobic Japanese Samurai of the time
>>> >>being shown accepting and bonding with Tom Cruise that I have a
>>> >>problem with.
>>> >
>>> >I thought the Samurai didn't like the White Monkeys.
>>> >
>>> They weren't too fond of anyone really.
>>
>>Especially ninja.
>>
>>Always sneakin' up and stabbin' 'em and stuff.
>>
>>**** anybody off.
>>
>Yes, but what could they do about it? I mean, ninja can just flip out
>and kill people whenever they want. Well known fact (ref:
>www.realultimatepower.net ).

One of the things that bothered me about the film was the ninjas going
sword-to-sword with the samurais. It's always been my understanding
that ninjitsu relied heavily upon stealth, surprise, and auxiliary
weaponry because they could not come close to matching a samurai in a
sword battle. Of course, their swords weren't nearly as good as a
samurai katana, either.

It also bothered me a little that when Katsumoto gave Algren the
engraved sword before the battle, Algren jerked it out of the scabbard
to examine it. I would think that he would have learned by then that
such actions were considered gauche, and that one examines a blade by
politely withdrawing only about six inches of blade from the scabbard.

Barbarian.

Marty Feldman
December 11th 03, 03:48 PM
Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On 10 Dec 2003 19:45:04 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
> wrote:
>
> >Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:22:48 -0500, Elzinator >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>I had to laugh when Tom Cruise commented to his silent watcher in the
> >> >>Last Samurai about the Japanese Samurai wearing 'dresses'.
> >> >
> >> >(grin)
> >> >
> >> >>And I thought of you, Mr. Japanese, while watching the movie,
> >> >>wondering re the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the samurai
> >> >>of the mid-late 1800's.
> >> >
> >> >Haven't seen the movie, so I dunno. There was one English Samurai,
> >> >Will Adams (the book "Shogun" borrowed parts of his life story, making
> >> >him a bit sexier in the bargain), but that was around 1600. I can't
> >> >see the Samurai of the 1800s accepting an American as anything other
> >> >than maybe a gun salesman, but that's Hollywood. Making the Samurai
> >> >the heroes of the new film is kind of a strange choice historically,
> >> >but again the only real choice available in the genre; no one is going
> >> >to want to see a movie about modernizing bureaucrats.
> >>
> >> Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
> >> Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
> >> enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
> >> he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
> >> differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
> >> differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
> >> loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
> >>
> >> However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
> >> were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
> >> movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
> >> man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
> >> lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
> >> encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
> >> traditional ways,
> >
> >
> >
> >this part of the movie bothered me, because they got that reversed,
> >imho. it's the "traditional" values of the samurais, that is the
> >basis for modern societies. ie. it's not modern society that corrupts
> >values -- corrupt values inhibits modern societies.
>
> Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> and less corrupt.


i think if you look at values across the globe and across time, values
are far more geographically-specific, rather than time-specific. the
so-called "traditional" values expressed in last samurai are OUR
values, in modern america and i suspect modern japan. how many in the
audience identified with the values of tom cruise's character? i'd
wager it was easily the majority, the majority of modern american
society. so, is it really traditional values we're talking about
then? i don't think so. when the movie is arguing that modernism or
westernization has a corrupting influence on traditional japanese
society, they only got it partly right. corruption is bad, but
modernism isn't responsible.

if americans believed that every election result in america was
corrupted by payoffs, fear, bribes of government officials, etc. what
would happen? riots or rock-solid stability? riots, of course.
during chaotic times, nothing progresses: everyone becomes fearful,
economic growth is dampened, education stops, inventors stop
inventing, civil liberties are thrown out the window, crime runs
wild...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
than it is a time-specific value.







The complexity arises when populations increase and
> new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
> human nature still exists.
>
> Not waxing philosophical or anything.......
>
> > esoteric point, but i dig that kinda stuff.
>
> You would enjoy discussing this with my friend in Austin, who also
> digs discussing this stuff. We used to engage in these conversations
> every Sunday am sitting in comfy chairs with coffee (as we did just
> last Sat am after a 2 year hiatus). He is a keen observer of human
> nature.
>
>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Marty Feldman
December 11th 03, 03:53 PM
Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> >>reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> >>latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> >>and less corrupt.
> >
> >Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
> >syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
> >all).
>
> I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
> my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
> any more moral than they are now, but only less complex.


excellent point. you rule!



Nor are
> morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
> was/is.
>
> >>The complexity arises when populations increase and
> >>new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
> >>human nature still exists.
> >
> >People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
> >order. ;-)
>
> I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
> the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
> stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
> permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.
>
> I trust no one.
>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

yes. you've got to have something to believe in. vote democratic. :)

Lyle McDonald
December 11th 03, 06:23 PM
Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator >
> wrote:

> >I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
> >my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
> >any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
> >morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
> >was/is.
>
> Agreed, though on the other hand I'd say that there is arguably a core
> group of moral rules that continues to crop up in almost any working
> society;

A very few perhaps. Such as:
Don't kill each other. Well, not unless you have a good reason to such
as self-defense, he stole your pigs and needed killin', he ****ed your
woman and needed killin' and about a thousand other exceptions to this
moral 'rule'.

> very basic things related to avoiding anti-personal/group
> survival behaviors (Thou Shalt Not Kill And Eat Thy Neighbors So Long
> As Any Other Protein Sources Are Available, Same Goes For Your
> Children). Of course how far protections extend and when they get
> retracted varies tremendously.

Also depends on how much power you have to back it up (i.e. what the
potential consequences of said actions are).

> Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
> tremendous lip service almost everywhere.

Wow, you named two whole moral globalities (and calling them lip
service, that is, what pepole say they do, as opposed to what they
actually do, was good phrasing). And I bet you can find cultures where
there are exceptions to those.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
December 11th 03, 06:32 PM
Marty Feldman wrote:
>
> Elzinator > wrote in message >...

g Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> > reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> > latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> > and less corrupt.
>
> i think if you look at values across the globe and across time, values
> are far more geographically-specific, rather than time-specific. the
> so-called "traditional" values expressed in last samurai are OUR
> values, in modern america and i suspect modern japan. how many in the
> audience identified with the values of tom cruise's character? i'd
> wager it was easily the majority, the majority of modern american
> society. so, is it really traditional values we're talking about
> then? i don't think so. when the movie is arguing that modernism or
> westernization has a corrupting influence on traditional japanese
> society, they only got it partly right. corruption is bad, but
> modernism isn't responsible.

Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of cool. - Katra Sutra of the
Neo Wobblies

Modernism has little to do with it except inasmuch as it might allow
some an easier (relatively) time of garnering power and then only
compared to a less modern group. Compared to sword wielding samurai or
stick wielding primitives, the group with guns (modern tech) has power.
When the aliens from Omicron Persei 8 show up to enslave us and bring
their lasers (Oh hail our alien masters!), they'll have power and we'll
be pets or food. Or both.

>
> if americans believed that every election result in america was
> corrupted by payoffs, fear, bribes of government officials, etc. what
> would happen? riots or rock-solid stability? riots, of course.

Err, don't Americans pretty much believe this?

> during chaotic times, nothing progresses: everyone becomes fearful,
> economic growth is dampened, education stops, inventors stop
> inventing, civil liberties are thrown out the window, crime runs
> wild

dogs and cats, living together.
Mass hysteria!

....in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
> and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
> anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
> than it is a time-specific value.

I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
**** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
of alpha male savannah baboons for example (or Saddam and his sons).
You get to **** who you want (whether they want to or not and whether
another male wants them or not), take food/resources from lesser males
if you want, beat up who you want, and generally abuse your power. At
least until someone comes along and kicks the **** out of you. At which
point they get to do the same thing. This type of power abuse has gone
on for about as long as we've existed.

why?

Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second and everyone
else about 9th or 10th on down the road (and humans are not an exception
to this except inasmuch that social, religious, etc. programming can
make people over-ride their biologically inherent selfish urges). So if
you have the power and the ability to take more for yourself and your
relations, you generally will and **** anybody who gets in your way.

most 'morals' (i.e. societal game rules and that's all they are) are set
up to avoid that kind of abuse of power. So you get punished for doing
the things that you are more or less biologically programmed to want to do.

Lyle

Marty Feldman
December 11th 03, 10:54 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in message >...
> Marty Feldman wrote:
> >
> > Elzinator > wrote in message >...
>
> g Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> > > reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> > > latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> > > and less corrupt.
> >
> > i think if you look at values across the globe and across time, values
> > are far more geographically-specific, rather than time-specific. the
> > so-called "traditional" values expressed in last samurai are OUR
> > values, in modern america and i suspect modern japan. how many in the
> > audience identified with the values of tom cruise's character? i'd
> > wager it was easily the majority, the majority of modern american
> > society. so, is it really traditional values we're talking about
> > then? i don't think so. when the movie is arguing that modernism or
> > westernization has a corrupting influence on traditional japanese
> > society, they only got it partly right. corruption is bad, but
> > modernism isn't responsible.
>
> Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of cool. - Katra Sutra of the
> Neo Wobblies
>
> Modernism has little to do with it except inasmuch as it might allow
> some an easier (relatively) time of garnering power and then only
> compared to a less modern group. Compared to sword wielding samurai or
> stick wielding primitives, the group with guns (modern tech) has power.
> When the aliens from Omicron Persei 8 show up to enslave us and bring
> their lasers (Oh hail our alien masters!), they'll have power and we'll
> be pets or food. Or both.
>
> >
> > if americans believed that every election result in america was
> > corrupted by payoffs, fear, bribes of government officials, etc. what
> > would happen? riots or rock-solid stability? riots, of course.
>
> Err, don't Americans pretty much believe this?
>
> > during chaotic times, nothing progresses: everyone becomes fearful,
> > economic growth is dampened, education stops, inventors stop
> > inventing, civil liberties are thrown out the window, crime runs
> > wild
>
> dogs and cats, living together.
> Mass hysteria!
>
> ...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
> > and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
> > anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
> > than it is a time-specific value.
>
> I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
> you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
> **** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
> you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
> of alpha male savannah baboons


i don't like rumsfeld, either, but that's going too far.





for example (or Saddam and his sons).
> You get to **** who you want (whether they want to or not and whether
> another male wants them or not), take food/resources from lesser males
> if you want, beat up who you want, and generally abuse your power. At
> least until someone comes along and kicks the **** out of you. At which
> point they get to do the same thing. This type of power abuse has gone
> on for about as long as we've existed.
>
> why?
>
> Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second and everyone
> else about 9th or 10th on down the road (and humans are not an exception
> to this except inasmuch that social, religious, etc. programming can
> make people over-ride their biologically inherent selfish urges). So if
> you have the power and the ability to take more for yourself and your
> relations, you generally will and **** anybody who gets in your way.
>
> most 'morals' (i.e. societal game rules and that's all they are) are set
> up to avoid that kind of abuse of power. So you get punished for doing
> the things that you are more or less biologically programmed to want to do.
>
> Lyle

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 01:30 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
>>my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
>>any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
>>morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
>>was/is.
>
>Agreed, though on the other hand I'd say that there is arguably a core
>group of moral rules that continues to crop up in almost any working
>society; very basic things related to avoiding anti-personal/group
>survival behaviors (Thou Shalt Not Kill And Eat Thy Neighbors So Long
>As Any Other Protein Sources Are Available, Same Goes For Your
>Children). Of course how far protections extend and when they get
>retracted varies tremendously.

Evolution of the species depends on several layers of survival. The
survival of the individual, the mating pair, a larger group and the
species. Humans more than any other species demonstrate the various
complexities at each of these levels, and sometimes our innate drives
to survive as an individual opposes those that are required for our
species to survive as a group. I think this has been named, but I
can't recall the term.

Following this, there are generalized classes of individuals based on
how they interact with others in the group. I commented on this a
month ago in another thread that they are commonly referred to as the
Altruists, the Cheaters, the Pretenders (a subset of Cheaters), and
the Opportunists. I posited (to another in a 3-year long ongoing
discussion) that a population, i.e. society, requires individuals from
each of these categories for evolution, albeit the ratio of the
subpopulations are not static (dynamic indeed as history has
revealed).

Although I am not well versed in game theory, it is often used by
researchers in the soft sciences (no offense intended, Krista and
Jack) to study the dynamics. A recent study was published in one of
the major high-impact journals (Nature or Science, don't recall which)
demonstrating some of the evolutionary biology of altruism in humans
(true altruism in humans has been received with much skepticism in
biological circles).

I digressed (again). The point I wished to make was that morals serve
a purpose for survival of the species, but not always necessary for
the individual. The definition of these morals, and the value placed
upon them, change as everything in our environment changes:
technology, population pressure, mating capability, physical strength,
etc.

Again, as Elzi's Law #2 states: It's all relative.

This discussion reminds me of Robert Sapolsky's book "Memoirs of a
Primate", where he subtly describes the disparities and similarities
between cultures (he being an educated American Jew and those around
him being uneducated indigenous Africans) and between humans and the
primates that he is studying in Africa. A profound and personal book
by a biologist with a wonderful talent in writing.


>Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
>tremendous lip service almost everywhere.

Sure, and for several reasons that permit propagation and perpetuation
of the species. Some individuals place great importance on both, or
one and less so on the other. Then again, some pretend to place
importance on aspects of the service to the group (morals, values,
what have you), for appearances sake (aka the Pretender) as long as
they receive what they want. Some do this consciously, some
unconsciously. Which is where the borders between hypocrite and
Pretender gets blurred. (aka Cheaters and Pretenders).


>>I trust no one.
>
>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.

I feed the canary first.



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 01:35 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:23:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator >
>> wrote:
>
>> >I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
>> >my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
>> >any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
>> >morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
>> >was/is.
>>
>> Agreed, though on the other hand I'd say that there is arguably a core
>> group of moral rules that continues to crop up in almost any working
>> society;
>
>A very few perhaps. Such as:
>Don't kill each other. Well, not unless you have a good reason to such
>as self-defense, he stole your pigs and needed killin', he ****ed your
>woman and needed killin' and about a thousand other exceptions to this
>moral 'rule'.

Reminds me of religions.

>> very basic things related to avoiding anti-personal/group
>> survival behaviors (Thou Shalt Not Kill And Eat Thy Neighbors So Long
>> As Any Other Protein Sources Are Available, Same Goes For Your
>> Children). Of course how far protections extend and when they get
>> retracted varies tremendously.
>
>Also depends on how much power you have to back it up (i.e. what the
>potential consequences of said actions are).

That is an important issue: consequences. It is the fulcrum of the
equation, and power is a force that can be used to move the seesaw.


>> Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
>> tremendous lip service almost everywhere.
>
>Wow, you named two whole moral globalities (and calling them lip
>service, that is, what pepole say they do, as opposed to what they
>actually do, was good phrasing). And I bet you can find cultures where
>there are exceptions to those.

Of course. However, familial love can also be overpowered by other
beliefs or morals. Honor? I'm not sure if that has the same importance
these days in our society than it did long ago.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 01:45 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:09:18 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>>>order. ;-)
>>
>>I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
>>the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
>>stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
>>permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.
>>
>>I trust no one.
>
>
>Are you in a firearm-friendly state? You might consider starting the process.
>There's a waiting period, but if you order online and type "NINJA" into
>the Presale Password box, you can get it waived!

Dude, I'm in Texas. Does the bear **** in the woods? :)

Ninja's use knives. My swords are packed.

I thought about acquiring a firearm the other day, a small one with
alot of power, but they kick alot.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 12th 03, 02:27 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>>I commented that I was being a DA, whose opinions are not necessarily
>>>my own. (Hell's Disclaimer) I don't believe that older societies were
>>>any more moral than they are now, but only less complex. Nor are
>>>morals static; they are dynamic, just as the evolution of our society
>>>was/is.
>>
>>Agreed, though on the other hand I'd say that there is arguably a core
>>group of moral rules that continues to crop up in almost any working
>>society; very basic things related to avoiding anti-personal/group
>>survival behaviors (Thou Shalt Not Kill And Eat Thy Neighbors So Long
>>As Any Other Protein Sources Are Available, Same Goes For Your
>>Children). Of course how far protections extend and when they get
>>retracted varies tremendously.
>
>Evolution of the species depends on several layers of survival. The
>survival of the individual, the mating pair, a larger group and the
>species. Humans more than any other species demonstrate the various
>complexities at each of these levels, and sometimes our innate drives
>to survive as an individual opposes those that are required for our
>species to survive as a group. I think this has been named, but I
>can't recall the term.

I never knew the term, but this sounds a bit like things I've read on
altruism and "the selfish gene."


>Following this, there are generalized classes of individuals based on
>how they interact with others in the group. I commented on this a
>month ago in another thread that they are commonly referred to as the
>Altruists, the Cheaters, the Pretenders (a subset of Cheaters), and
>the Opportunists. I posited (to another in a 3-year long ongoing
>discussion) that a population, i.e. society, requires individuals from
>each of these categories for evolution, albeit the ratio of the
>subpopulations are not static (dynamic indeed as history has
>revealed).
>
>Although I am not well versed in game theory, it is often used by
>researchers in the soft sciences (no offense intended, Krista and
>Jack) to study the dynamics. A recent study was published in one of
>the major high-impact journals (Nature or Science, don't recall which)
>demonstrating some of the evolutionary biology of altruism in humans
>(true altruism in humans has been received with much skepticism in
>biological circles).

Depends on how you define "true altruism." People act for emotional
rather than material advantage or survival (individual or group)
rewards every day. Whether those emotional rewards are genetically
wired, result from some misinterpretation of the situation (say a
subconscious failure to fully accept that a cause is in fact lost) or
conditioned hardly matters from the point of view of the end result.
I'm guessing that the researchers exclude emotional rewards from their
definition of altruism?

>I digressed (again). The point I wished to make was that morals serve
>a purpose for survival of the species, but not always necessary for
>the individual. The definition of these morals, and the value placed
>upon them, change as everything in our environment changes:
>technology, population pressure, mating capability, physical strength,
>etc.

Within certain limits, I'd agree. As an example, no society that
places a genuinely high value on celibacy within marriage will survive
more than a generation or two, though of course you can pay lip
service to that value for as many generations as you'd like.

>Again, as Elzi's Law #2 states: It's all relative.

Let's not even talk about my relatives. Oy.

>This discussion reminds me of Robert Sapolsky's book "Memoirs of a
>Primate", where he subtly describes the disparities and similarities
>between cultures (he being an educated American Jew and those around
>him being uneducated indigenous Africans) and between humans and the
>primates that he is studying in Africa. A profound and personal book
>by a biologist with a wonderful talent in writing.

I've been seeing Sapolsky recommended here and elsewhere for years,
but I still haven't read his work. I'll take a look at Why Zebra's
Don't Get Ulcers.

Looking on Amazon, I see he recently did one called The Trouble With
Testosterone. Not sure I like the sound of that. ;-)

>
>>Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
>>tremendous lip service almost everywhere.
>
>Sure, and for several reasons that permit propagation and perpetuation
>of the species. Some individuals place great importance on both, or
>one and less so on the other. Then again, some pretend to place
>importance on aspects of the service to the group (morals, values,
>what have you), for appearances sake (aka the Pretender) as long as
>they receive what they want. Some do this consciously, some
>unconsciously. Which is where the borders between hypocrite and
>Pretender gets blurred. (aka Cheaters and Pretenders).
>

As with any clarification system when applied to humans (or any really
complex system), the standard disclaimers apply; people certainly move
within and between categories over time and depending on
circumstances.

>>>I trust no one.
>>
>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>
>I feed the canary first.
>
Good move.

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 02:29 AM
On 11 Dec 2003 07:48:27 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
wrote:

>Elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> On 10 Dec 2003 19:45:04 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
>> >> > wrote:

>> >> Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
>> >> Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
>> >> enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
>> >> he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
>> >> differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
>> >> differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
>> >> loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
>> >>
>> >> However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
>> >> were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
>> >> movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
>> >> man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
>> >> lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
>> >> encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
>> >> traditional ways,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >this part of the movie bothered me, because they got that reversed,
>> >imho. it's the "traditional" values of the samurais, that is the
>> >basis for modern societies. ie. it's not modern society that corrupts
>> >values -- corrupt values inhibits modern societies.
>>
>> Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
>> reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
>> latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
>> and less corrupt.
>
>
>i think if you look at values across the globe and across time, values
>are far more geographically-specific, rather than time-specific. the
>so-called "traditional" values expressed in last samurai are OUR
>values, in modern america and i suspect modern japan. how many in the
>audience identified with the values of tom cruise's character? i'd
>wager it was easily the majority, the majority of modern american
>society. so, is it really traditional values we're talking about
>then? i don't think so. when the movie is arguing that modernism or
>westernization has a corrupting influence on traditional japanese
>society, they only got it partly right. corruption is bad, but
>modernism isn't responsible.

I don't disagree. I think that morals and values are redefined
temporally and spatially (geographically).

Nevertheless, we have to remember that the primary goals of the movie
producers and company was not to present a story that was historically
accurate and factual, but one that could be emphatic and romantic
(i.e. sold to most Americans). I do suspect that the plot was
deliberately romanticized, serving as a vehicle to present a moral
(oh, so redundant!).


>if americans believed that every election result in america was
>corrupted by payoffs, fear, bribes of government officials, etc. what
>would happen? riots or rock-solid stability? riots, of course.

Dude, the '60's :)

>during chaotic times, nothing progresses: everyone becomes fearful,
>economic growth is dampened, education stops, inventors stop
>inventing, civil liberties are thrown out the window, crime runs
>wild...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
>and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
>anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
>than it is a time-specific value.

And on the other spectrum, post-911 NYC.
A friend who lives in Manhattan related to me how people have changed
since then, and when I visited last April, it was slightly different
than when I had previously visited 5 years prior.

Cataclysmic events tend to do that; catalyze extreme changes. Which
way those changes tend depends on many factors. The same tendencies
can be seen in biological systems. The question is, is the ultimate
change, and the process, good for the common society as a whole?

Not to digress or anything, but here is another point: change. Most
humans don't like change, and hence resist it. Others, like me, are
not afraid of it and even welcome it occasionally. Such tolerance to
change corresponds with personality types (I get bored easily, another
individual I know freaks at changes in his everyday routine). However,
in general, humans thrive on sameness, tradition and routine. These
play important roles in their lives, they cushion the impact of
change. (but it appears to me that they can also inhibit flexibility)

Let's look at biological systems. In most systems, hormone levels are
deceiving. For couched and hidden in these levels are actually timed
pulses, varying throughout the day. Studies with many hormones have
shown that the timing and duration of these pulses are more important
than the total concentrations in the circulation. Continual secretion
of a given hormone can induce disruption, almost as much as complete
absence (the other side of the seesaw, however).

Students of history will note that civilization follows a similar
pattern.

One that note, I shall resign as DA for the night.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 02:37 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:32:50 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Marty Feldman wrote:

>Modernism has little to do with it except inasmuch as it might allow
>some an easier (relatively) time of garnering power and then only
>compared to a less modern group. Compared to sword wielding samurai or
>stick wielding primitives, the group with guns (modern tech) has power.

The rate of technological advancement certain has invited and induced
change in societies (much more rapid than in previous generations) and
I suspect the crux is just that: power.

>...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
>> and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
>> anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
>> than it is a time-specific value.
>
>I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
>you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
>**** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
>you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
>of alpha male savannah baboons for example (or Saddam and his sons).

Sapolsky did a great job of presenting this in his book.


>You get to **** who you want (whether they want to or not and whether
>another male wants them or not), take food/resources from lesser males
>if you want, beat up who you want, and generally abuse your power. At
>least until someone comes along and kicks the **** out of you. At which
>point they get to do the same thing. This type of power abuse has gone
>on for about as long as we've existed.
>
>why?
>
>Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second and everyone
>else about 9th or 10th on down the road (and humans are not an exception
>to this except inasmuch that social, religious, etc. programming can
>make people over-ride their biologically inherent selfish urges). So if
>you have the power and the ability to take more for yourself and your
>relations, you generally will and **** anybody who gets in your way.

I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.

>most 'morals' (i.e. societal game rules and that's all they are) are set
>up to avoid that kind of abuse of power. So you get punished for doing
>the things that you are more or less biologically programmed to want to do.

Those rules and the associated institutions may be what has kept our
species evolving all these thousands of years. Although I do have to
wonder if there is a turning point.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 12th 03, 02:39 AM
On 11 Dec 2003 07:53:09 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
wrote:

>Elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
>> > wrote:

>> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.
>
>yes. you've got to have something to believe in. vote democratic. :)

I would rather vote on issues than vote for a person. But I guess that
ain't gonna happen, is it?


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 12th 03, 02:51 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:


>
>I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
>are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
>don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
>individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
>self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>
It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.

Lucas Buck
December 12th 03, 07:26 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:45:19 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:09:18 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>>>>order. ;-)
>>>
>>>I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
>>>the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
>>>stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
>>>permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.
>>>
>>>I trust no one.
>>
>>
>>Are you in a firearm-friendly state? You might consider starting the process.
>>There's a waiting period, but if you order online and type "NINJA" into
>>the Presale Password box, you can get it waived!
>
>Dude, I'm in Texas.

Oh.
In that case, I'll write slowly and use small words.

>Does the bear **** in the woods? :)

Which bear? Some compost instead.

>Ninja's use knives. My swords are packed.

How about sharpened chopsticks?

>I thought about acquiring a firearm the other day, a small one with
>alot of power, but they kick alot.

Physics is hard.

Get a Kimber -- they don't kick at all. They just "click" a lot.



--
Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com
"Beautiful women. You know, they get away with murder.
You never see one of them lift anything over three pounds."
George Costanza

Lucas Buck
December 12th 03, 07:27 AM
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>
>>>I trust no one.
>>
>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>
>I feed the canary first.

A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to carve with any knife
larger than a scalpel.

Marty Feldman
December 12th 03, 07:29 AM
Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On 11 Dec 2003 07:48:27 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
> wrote:
>
> >Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> >> On 10 Dec 2003 19:45:04 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> >> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:27:11 -0500, Robert Dorf
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe, who is definitely hot) captured
> >> >> Capt. Algren (Cruise) and kept him alive to learn more about his
> >> >> enemy. Logical. But Katsumoto also recognized the Warrior within. As
> >> >> he commented later, the true Warrior knows know color or is barred by
> >> >> differences in languages. Nor, as I will add, recognizes no
> >> >> differences in gender. The movie was more about honor, trust and
> >> >> loyalty than it was a historic account, I believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, I don't think the portrayal of the Samurai was accurate. They
> >> >> were soldiers of feudal lords, and not always as honorable as the
> >> >> movie portrays. Yet it was a good vehicle for questioning the honor of
> >> >> man and the test of honor and loyalty, attributes that appear to be
> >> >> lacking in modern man. What intrigued me was the parallels of
> >> >> encroaching Westernization into Japan and the demise of the
> >> >> traditional ways,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >this part of the movie bothered me, because they got that reversed,
> >> >imho. it's the "traditional" values of the samurais, that is the
> >> >basis for modern societies. ie. it's not modern society that corrupts
> >> >values -- corrupt values inhibits modern societies.
> >>
> >> Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> >> reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> >> latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> >> and less corrupt.
> >
> >
> >i think if you look at values across the globe and across time, values
> >are far more geographically-specific, rather than time-specific. the
> >so-called "traditional" values expressed in last samurai are OUR
> >values, in modern america and i suspect modern japan. how many in the
> >audience identified with the values of tom cruise's character? i'd
> >wager it was easily the majority, the majority of modern american
> >society. so, is it really traditional values we're talking about
> >then? i don't think so. when the movie is arguing that modernism or
> >westernization has a corrupting influence on traditional japanese
> >society, they only got it partly right. corruption is bad, but
> >modernism isn't responsible.
>
> I don't disagree. I think that morals and values are redefined
> temporally and spatially (geographically).
>
> Nevertheless, we have to remember that the primary goals of the movie
> producers and company was not to present a story that was historically
> accurate and factual, but one that could be emphatic and romantic
> (i.e. sold to most Americans). I do suspect that the plot was
> deliberately romanticized, serving as a vehicle to present a moral
> (oh, so redundant!).

i agree. :)

>
>
> >if americans believed that every election result in america was
> >corrupted by payoffs, fear, bribes of government officials, etc. what
> >would happen? riots or rock-solid stability? riots, of course.
>
> Dude, the '60's :)


righteous. :)



>
> >during chaotic times, nothing progresses: everyone becomes fearful,
> >economic growth is dampened, education stops, inventors stop
> >inventing, civil liberties are thrown out the window, crime runs
> >wild...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
> >and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
> >anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
> >than it is a time-specific value.
>
> And on the other spectrum, post-911 NYC.
> A friend who lives in Manhattan related to me how people have changed
> since then, and when I visited last April, it was slightly different
> than when I had previously visited 5 years prior.
>
> Cataclysmic events tend to do that; catalyze extreme changes. Which
> way those changes tend depends on many factors. The same tendencies
> can be seen in biological systems. The question is, is the ultimate
> change, and the process, good for the common society as a whole?
>
> Not to digress or anything, but here is another point: change. Most
> humans don't like change, and hence resist it. Others, like me, are
> not afraid of it and even welcome it occasionally. Such tolerance to
> change corresponds with personality types (I get bored easily, another
> individual I know freaks at changes in his everyday routine). However,
> in general, humans thrive on sameness, tradition and routine. These
> play important roles in their lives, they cushion the impact of
> change. (but it appears to me that they can also inhibit flexibility)
>
> Let's look at biological systems. In most systems, hormone levels are
> deceiving. For couched and hidden in these levels are actually timed
> pulses, varying throughout the day.


otherwise known as chocolate!


Studies with many hormones have
> shown that the timing and duration of these pulses are more important
> than the total concentrations in the circulation. Continual secretion
> of a given hormone can induce disruption, almost as much as complete
> absence (the other side of the seesaw, however).
>
> Students of history will note that civilization follows a similar
> pattern.
>
> One that note, I shall resign as DA for the night.
>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Marty Feldman
December 12th 03, 07:32 AM
Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On 11 Dec 2003 07:53:09 -0800, (Marty Feldman)
> wrote:
>
> >Elzinator > wrote in message >...
> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.
> >
> >yes. you've got to have something to believe in. vote democratic. :)
>
> I would rather vote on issues than vote for a person. But I guess that
> ain't gonna happen, is it?


cable companies own american politics. always making you buy the whole darn thing.





>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 04:51 PM
Marty Feldman wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald > wrote in message news:<

> > ...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
> > > and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
> > > anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
> > > than it is a time-specific value.
> >
> > I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
> > you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
> > **** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
> > you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
> > of alpha male savannah baboons
>
> i don't like rumsfeld, either, but that's going too far.

Ok, *that's* funny.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 04:56 PM
Elzinator wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:23:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:

> >A very few perhaps. Such as:
> >Don't kill each other. Well, not unless you have a good reason to such
> >as self-defense, he stole your pigs and needed killin', he ****ed your
> >woman and needed killin' and about a thousand other exceptions to this
> >moral 'rule'.
>
> Reminds me of religions.

religions are one way to controlling 'normal' human behavior. Most
religious decrees are attempts to regulate those behaviors that we would
like to engage in. And nevermind all of the hypocrisy that most
religious engage in in this regards (it's bad to kill your neighbor, but
ok to kill the heathen non-believers over the hill).

So if you do X (kill someone, **** your neighbor's wife, steal), the
great gaseous buddy in the sky will punish you. Of course, it has the
same structure as a parent telling their kid that the monster will get
them but some people are gullible enough to believe in this.

Societal laws (i.e. game rules) act similiarly: you are threatened with
punishment (pay a fine, go to jail, get your hands hacked off depending
on where you live) for committing a behavior that the leaders (who are
generally concerned with their own and their friend's welfare first and
everyone else second) say is bad.

> >> Familial love and honor and various forms of service to the group get
> >> tremendous lip service almost everywhere.
> >
> >Wow, you named two whole moral globalities (and calling them lip
> >service, that is, what pepole say they do, as opposed to what they
> >actually do, was good phrasing). And I bet you can find cultures where
> >there are exceptions to those.
>
> Of course. However, familial love can also be overpowered by other
> beliefs or morals. Honor? I'm not sure if that has the same importance
> these days in our society than it did long ago.

I suspect that, outside of a few minor groups, and even then it was
probably exaggerated, honor is mostly a myth. On the battlefield, all
that matters is that you are alive and your opponent is dead.
Everything else is negotiable.

Lyle

OmegaZero2003
December 12th 03, 05:00 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:32:50 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
> >Marty Feldman wrote:
>
> >Modernism has little to do with it except inasmuch as it might allow
> >some an easier (relatively) time of garnering power and then only
> >compared to a less modern group. Compared to sword wielding samurai or
> >stick wielding primitives, the group with guns (modern tech) has power.
>
> The rate of technological advancement certain has invited and induced
> change in societies (much more rapid than in previous generations) and
> I suspect the crux is just that: power.
>
> >...in a word, present day iraq. for iraq to become more modern
> >> and more democratic it must become less corrupt. corruption is
> >> anti-modern, and that is why it's far more a culturally-specific value
> >> than it is a time-specific value.
> >
> >I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
> >you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
> >**** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
> >you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
> >of alpha male savannah baboons for example (or Saddam and his sons).
>
> Sapolsky did a great job of presenting this in his book.
>
>
> >You get to **** who you want (whether they want to or not and whether
> >another male wants them or not), take food/resources from lesser males
> >if you want, beat up who you want, and generally abuse your power. At
> >least until someone comes along and kicks the **** out of you. At which
> >point they get to do the same thing. This type of power abuse has gone
> >on for about as long as we've existed.
> >
> >why?
> >
> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second

Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
the overall specieis genome.

But then, what in human mind/brain is not also so - to what extent we do not
yet know!


"
Death through altruism appears to be more common in the world than death
through aggression by a member of the same species. Biologists usually
define "altruism" as behavior of an animal that is risky-perhaps deadly-for
that animal, but benefits other members of its community.

Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her young
at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior. As would crows in a
scattered family group calling out a warning to the others at the risk of
being located by the predator at large.

Although there are differences in opinion, it is generally believed that
animal altruism exists and survives as a behavior pattern because there is
some reproductive advantage to the group.

Altruism has been working well for ants for over 100 million years. Rising
to an astonishing level of specialization, there are species of ants in
which castes of individual members function as farmers, nannies, warriors,
builders, even storage containers, walls, and bridges. Individuals whose
specialized role requires them to leave the nest do so at grave risk on
behalf of the colony. Certain worker ants have an average a life span of
only a week. In effect, huge numbers of worker ants trade their individual
reproductive opportunities for the improved success of the entire colony of
their sisters.

Like other social insects, ants readily sacrifice their individual lives in
ways that benefit the group. Bees die in the attempt to sting, wild dogs
hunt to feed the puppies of their pack's lead female, lone baboons will
charge an attacking lion while the troop escapes to safety-in fact, most
social animals exhibit some level of instinctual altruism that serves the
economics of reproduction."
(http://www.wavecrestdiscoveries.com/altruism.htm)






>and everyone
> >else about 9th or 10th on down the road (and humans are not an exception
> >to this except inasmuch that social, religious, etc. programming can
> >make people over-ride their biologically inherent selfish urges). So if
> >you have the power and the ability to take more for yourself and your
> >relations, you generally will and **** anybody who gets in your way.
>
> I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
> are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
> don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>
> >most 'morals' (i.e. societal game rules and that's all they are) are set
> >up to avoid that kind of abuse of power. So you get punished for doing
> >the things that you are more or less biologically programmed to want to
do.
>
> Those rules and the associated institutions may be what has kept our
> species evolving all these thousands of years. Although I do have to
> wonder if there is a turning point.
>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 05:08 PM
Elzinator wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:32:50 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:

> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second and everyone
> >else about 9th or 10th on down the road (and humans are not an exception
> >to this except inasmuch that social, religious, etc. programming can
> >make people over-ride their biologically inherent selfish urges). So if
> >you have the power and the ability to take more for yourself and your
> >relations, you generally will and **** anybody who gets in your way.
>
> I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
> are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
> don't understand it).

There are outliers in any population.

Sapolsky even mentions a case in his third book, a case where a baboon
with exactly zero invested interest (= he had NO chance of being the
kid's parents) risked his own life to save two kids from certain death.

This is by far and away the exception to the rule among both animals and man.

In 99.9% of the cases, if a male isn't fairly sure that the kid is his
(or that a female is protecting a kid that is his), he'll hide in a tree
when a predator attacks. The old Animal Kingdom image (with your host:
Marlin Perkins) of the alpha baboon fighting a predator to save the
tribe is so much bull****. He'll watch out for himself first, his
genetic kin second and everyone else is one their ****ing own.

In humans the percentage is probably higher because we have that added
layer of social and religious conditioning where moral values of 'Do
nice things for other people' and such are beaten into us (some of us)
from an early age. And, of course, see below: we know that, in many
cases, doing something altruistic probably gets us something in return.
Which makes it not altruistic in the first place.


> Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.

And that's where it gets complicated. In modern society, heroes (i.e.
those who act seemingly altruistically) do get rewards, some of which
are quite tangible. TV, book deals, movies of the week, fame, status
can all come from such a public action. Making a claim of true altruism
hard to defend.

Of course, by definition then, you won't be aware of acts of 'true'
altruism because, by definition, you won't be made aware of them.

> >most 'morals' (i.e. societal game rules and that's all they are) are set
> >up to avoid that kind of abuse of power. So you get punished for doing
> >the things that you are more or less biologically programmed to want to do.
>
> Those rules and the associated institutions may be what has kept our
> species evolving all these thousands of years. Although I do have to
> wonder if there is a turning point.

Don't misunderstand me as so many generally do when this discussion
turns up.

I'm not saying that such game rules don't have value. I don't think
anarchy (in the true sense) is workeable for society either (1).

But don't think they are anthing more than arbitrary societal game rules
set up by whomever is in power. Morals are simply the law of the land,
a set of more or less agreed upon game rules to keep things running.
They may have immense value or even be 'necessary' for proper
functioning of society but that doesn't change their arbitrariness.

Lyle
1. Noting that any true anarchy (i.e. do what thou wilt shall be the
whole of the law) would rapidly, IMO, degrade into just another power
structure situation. Some group would realize that banding together and
imposing *their* beliefs onto everyone else is better than trying to go
it alone. And you'd end up with the exact same situation at the end of
the day: one group in power imposing its belief system on the group that
is not in power.

Which is why it doesn't ultimatley matter whether republicans or
democrats are in charge. It still comes down to one group (with the
power to back it up: in this case the power of the federal government)
imposing a set of beliefs on another group (who may or may not share
that same belief).

Or as I put it over Thanksgiving to someone trying to draw me into a
party political debate: At the end of the day, republican or democrat,
it's still a bunch of rich white men watching out for their own
interests ahead of everyone elses.

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 05:16 PM
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
>
> "Elzinator" > wrote in message

> > >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> > >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>
> Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
> debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
> the overall specieis genome.

Your reading materials are far out of date. See the work of Zahavi for example.

> Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her young
> at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior.

No it wouldn't, she's protecting her kin (i.e. her genes) which is
clearly a selfish (from the standpoint of seeing her genetic legacy live
on) thing to do. Now, if she attacked a predator attacking a young one
that was not geentically tied to her, that woudl be altruistic. Birds
(and most other animals) do no such thing.

As would crows in a
> scattered family group calling out a warning to the others at the risk of
> being located by the predator at large.

Zahavi has shown that animals do this to show off how badass they are.
If they survive, they are likely to get rewards for that behavior. Not altruistic.

>
> Although there are differences in opinion, it is generally believed that
> animal altruism exists and survives as a behavior pattern because there is
> some reproductive advantage to the group.

Again, read some newer materials.

> Altruism has been working well for ants for over 100 million years. Rising
> to an astonishing level of specialization, there are species of ants in
> which castes of individual members function as farmers, nannies, warriors,
> builders, even storage containers, walls, and bridges. Individuals whose
> specialized role requires them to leave the nest do so at grave risk on
> behalf of the colony. Certain worker ants have an average a life span of
> only a week. In effect, huge numbers of worker ants trade their individual
> reproductive opportunities for the improved success of the entire colony of
> their sisters.

now you get into complicated genetic issues. I believe that most ants
in any given caste share the same genetics. They are interchangeable
and if one dies, it makes no nevermind in terms of the survival of their
genes. In some bug species (think bees who may die defending the hive)
the critters that appear to act altruistically don't reproduce in the
first place. So they have no genes to protect.

>
> Like other social insects, ants readily sacrifice their individual lives in
> ways that benefit the group. Bees die in the attempt to sting, wild dogs
> hunt to feed the puppies of their pack's lead female, lone baboons will
> charge an attacking lion while the troop escapes to safety-in fact,

See, you need to read more currently, this last one is totally and
utterly wrong (the others most assuredly so as well). Baboons do no
such thing. They will only defend a child that is almost certain to be
theirs. In most all other cases, they will hide in a tree.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 05:18 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> Elzinator wrote:

> > Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> > individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> > self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>
> And that's where it gets complicated. In modern society, heroes (i.e.
> those who act seemingly altruistically) do get rewards, some of which
> are quite tangible. TV, book deals, movies of the week, fame, status
> can all come from such a public action. Making a claim of true altruism
> hard to defend.

Adding, even prior that modern invention, there might have been benefits
to your genetic legacy. So a solider falls on a grenade to save his
buddies. Tells them 'Watch out for my wife and kids'. Bingo, he's
sacrificed himself for others (seemingly altruistic) but, at the same
time, ensured that his wife/kids will most likely receive benefits from
it (selfish from the standpoint of his genes). Families of heroes
killed in battle often got this type of preferential treatment making
any such heroic acts hard to defend on purely altruistic behavior.

Lyle

Adam Fahy
December 12th 03, 05:26 PM
Robert Dorf wrote:

> Depends on how you define "true altruism." People act for emotional
> rather than material advantage or survival (individual or group)
> rewards every day.

I think I'm going to tangent/make an ass of myself with this post.

Altruism: selfless action.

I've never really cared about altruism. Is it possible to act
selflessly, in a manner that ends-up benefiting others (this includes
w/o emotional rewards you indicate above)? Of course it is. The
question in my mind is, is altruistic behavior somehow deserving of the
nobility it seems to be granted? Selfless action == careless action,
IMO. Morality is about decision making--and often about sacrifices--not
unintended consequences. The idea that good deeds are somehow tainted
if there is any motivation behind their performance is just so much
Puritanical BS. Dispassion is not noble. It's neutral.


-Adam

Keith Hobman
December 12th 03, 05:28 PM
In article >,
wrote:

> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Elzinator wrote:
>
> > > Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> > > individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> > > self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
> >
> > And that's where it gets complicated. In modern society, heroes (i.e.
> > those who act seemingly altruistically) do get rewards, some of which
> > are quite tangible. TV, book deals, movies of the week, fame, status
> > can all come from such a public action. Making a claim of true altruism
> > hard to defend.
>
> Adding, even prior that modern invention, there might have been benefits
> to your genetic legacy. So a solider falls on a grenade to save his
> buddies. Tells them 'Watch out for my wife and kids'. Bingo, he's
> sacrificed himself for others (seemingly altruistic) but, at the same
> time, ensured that his wife/kids will most likely receive benefits from
> it (selfish from the standpoint of his genes). Families of heroes
> killed in battle often got this type of preferential treatment making
> any such heroic acts hard to defend on purely altruistic behavior.

This kind of micro analysis is a little much.

The person is dead.

If they fell on the grenade it would have far more to do with conditioning
in boot camp or society in general than thinking of their heirs.

Especially as prior to the recent wars most wars were fought by kids
because they naturally think they are indestructable. Kids don't have wife
and kids, for the most part.

But the ethos built into soldiers is sacrifice one to save many. So it
still isn't completely altruistic.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Adam Fahy
December 12th 03, 05:30 PM
Marty Feldman wrote:

> Lyle McDonald > wrote in message >...

>>I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
>>you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
>>**** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
>>you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
>>of alpha male savannah baboons
>
> i don't like rumsfeld, either, but that's going too far.

I like Rumsfeld (or at least I respect him); he is the most precise
politician I've seen in a long time, and the fact that journalists and
other demagogues don't understand a word he says speaks volumes IMO.


-Adam

Robert Dorf
December 12th 03, 06:23 PM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:56:13 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:


>I suspect that, outside of a few minor groups, and even then it was
>probably exaggerated, honor is mostly a myth. On the battlefield, all
>that matters is that you are alive and your opponent is dead.
>Everything else is negotiable.

I'd agree on the group level, but not the personal level. Once the
concept of Honor has been internalized, individuals will go to great
lengths to retain whatever it is that they perceive to be their honor,
though of course much of that perception will be shaped by other
factors (perceived needs, pack position, etc.). Still, many
individuals will at one time or another go to great lengths to avoid
behaving "dishonorably."

Proton Soup
December 12th 03, 06:37 PM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:30:52 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Marty Feldman wrote:
>
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote in message >...
>
>>>I think it is more a primate (and probably animal) specific value. If
>>>you have power and the ability to back it up, you can act like a total
>>>**** to everyone else and get away with it (at least until everyone
>>>you've ****ed off gangs up on you and takes you down). See the majority
>>>of alpha male savannah baboons
>>
>> i don't like rumsfeld, either, but that's going too far.
>
>I like Rumsfeld (or at least I respect him); he is the most precise
>politician I've seen in a long time, and the fact that journalists and
>other demagogues don't understand a word he says speaks volumes IMO.

He is very entertaining. Given a choice between covering an
edumacation press briefing, or a defense dept. briefing, which do you
think most journalists would choose? They will choose the man who
talks like the Cat in the Hat every time.

Proton Soup

Adam Fahy
December 12th 03, 06:49 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Adding, even prior that modern invention, there might have been benefits
> to your genetic legacy. So a solider falls on a grenade to save his
> buddies. Tells them 'Watch out for my wife and kids'. Bingo, he's
> sacrificed himself for others (seemingly altruistic) but, at the same
> time, ensured that his wife/kids will most likely receive benefits from
> it (selfish from the standpoint of his genes). Families of heroes
> killed in battle often got this type of preferential treatment making
> any such heroic acts hard to defend on purely altruistic behavior.

More accurately, the soldier is mitigating the sacrifice he ultimately
makes to save the lives of his comrades. Limiting the negatives of an
action is an economic issue, not a moral/purity issue IMO (at least in
this case). In terms of pure altruism, one would think the soldier
believes in the cause he-or-she is fighting for, and would obviously
feel justified in sacrificing their life for that cause (therefore
implying selfish motives).


-Adam

Kirk Roy
December 12th 03, 07:07 PM
Adam Fahy > wrote:
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>> Adding, even prior that modern invention, there might have been benefits
>> to your genetic legacy. So a solider falls on a grenade to save his
>> buddies. Tells them 'Watch out for my wife and kids'. Bingo, he's
>> sacrificed himself for others (seemingly altruistic) but, at the same
>> time, ensured that his wife/kids will most likely receive benefits from
>> it (selfish from the standpoint of his genes). Families of heroes
>> killed in battle often got this type of preferential treatment making
>> any such heroic acts hard to defend on purely altruistic behavior.
>
> More accurately, the soldier is mitigating the sacrifice he ultimately
> makes to save the lives of his comrades. Limiting the negatives of an
> action is an economic issue, not a moral/purity issue IMO (at least in
> this case). In terms of pure altruism, one would think the soldier
> believes in the cause he-or-she is fighting for, and would obviously
> feel justified in sacrificing their life for that cause (therefore
> implying selfish motives).

As I understand it the "cause" most soldiers fight for has more to do with
their squad (not wanting to let their buddies down) than with any
national/moral/"big" issues. So, jumping on a grenade, while it may have
some subconscious other motive, is mostly about keeping your buddies from
getting hurt.

Kirk

gps
December 12th 03, 07:36 PM
Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
> >Being Devil's Advocate here, what defines 'modern'? It is a temporal
> >reference, or is it a function of moral values? In the context of the
> >latter, I may advocate that perhaps older societies were more 'modern'
> >and less corrupt.
>
> Well you could, but you'd be showing evidence of rose colored glasses
> syndrome (or maybe sepia tone colored glasses, this being the past and
> all).
>
> >The complexity arises when populations increase and
> >new 'codes' replace the former. However, the basic foundation of our
> >human nature still exists.
>
> People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
> order. ;-)

People... People who kill people... are the luckiest people in the
world...
ps

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 09:11 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:
>
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > Elzinator wrote:
> >
> > > > Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> > > > individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> > > > self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
> > >
> > > And that's where it gets complicated. In modern society, heroes (i.e.
> > > those who act seemingly altruistically) do get rewards, some of which
> > > are quite tangible. TV, book deals, movies of the week, fame, status
> > > can all come from such a public action. Making a claim of true altruism
> > > hard to defend.
> >
> > Adding, even prior that modern invention, there might have been benefits
> > to your genetic legacy. So a solider falls on a grenade to save his
> > buddies. Tells them 'Watch out for my wife and kids'. Bingo, he's
> > sacrificed himself for others (seemingly altruistic) but, at the same
> > time, ensured that his wife/kids will most likely receive benefits from
> > it (selfish from the standpoint of his genes). Families of heroes
> > killed in battle often got this type of preferential treatment making
> > any such heroic acts hard to defend on purely altruistic behavior.
>
> This kind of micro analysis is a little much.
>
> The person is dead.

But their genetics live on (in offspring assuming there are any) and
that's the fundamental criterion for evolutionary success: that you keep
YOUR genes in the pool. Which is why a parent might rightfully
sacrifice themselves for the good of their kin (either immediate
offspring or even relations). While they may be
sacrificing their own personal life, it is with the benefit of helping
to ensure the survival of their genes.

> If they fell on the grenade it would have far more to do with conditioning
> in boot camp or society in general than thinking of their heirs.

AT one level, I think you're right.
But realize taht most of what I'm talking about isn't going on at a
particularly conscious level.

A mother doesn't usually have to consciously think: Hey, I should take
care of my child by doing X, Y and Z. It comes 'naturally' (i.e. it is
a genetically programmed behavior).

The same might apply above. Or it might not and I'm making stuff up.
Hard to tell with me sometimes.

but your example does point out just how much various types of
conditioning (social, military, religious) contributes here. Someone
who would otherwise choose himself over others might choose to die (i.e.
the military example) if he's been sufficiently programmed/conditioned
to do so. Religious programming can teach folks taht they will receive
a gift in the afterlife if they act a certain way now (be celibate,
well, unless you're ****ing young boys; that sort of thing).

> Especially as prior to the recent wars most wars were fought by kids
> because they naturally think they are indestructable. Kids don't have wife
> and kids, for the most part.

A good point but here's a tangent.

Kids typically are not given a choice to go to war.
Given an actual choice, I doubt many would.

Hence forced conscription (another example of a societal law enacted to
force people to go against their natural predilictions which is to
protect themselves and **** everyone else when it gets rough).

Now, of course, in the absence of the draft or conscription, there are
financial benefits (esp. for the poor) to joining the military. A bribe essentially.

>
> But the ethos built into soldiers is sacrifice one to save many. So it
> still isn't completely altruistic.

I think it depends here on how liberally you awnt to define altruism.
The scientific definition (as used in evolutionary biology) isn't the
same as the common parlance term. A couple of overviews:

Fairly technical:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

This one's much shorter but has links to details.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
December 12th 03, 09:28 PM
Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
> >
> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.

I'm not sure I agree with you.
Too many people verbally express the "I want to have a baby" thing.

It would appear to be a drive in and of itself (with orgasm and the rest
being a physically rewarding way to make us want to engage in behaviors
consistent with that).

Lyle

Adam Fahy
December 12th 03, 09:44 PM
Kirk Roy wrote:

> As I understand it the "cause" most soldiers fight for has more to do with
> their squad (not wanting to let their buddies down) than with any
> national/moral/"big" issues. So, jumping on a grenade, while it may have
> some subconscious other motive, is mostly about keeping your buddies from
> getting hurt.

Perhaps, but it is multifactoral. On a micro level, one may not want to
"let down" their buddies (although sacrificing your life by falling on a
grenade is kinda a weird situation to cast as "not wanting to let their
buddies down," as though they would be disappointed in you if you didn't
make that split decision), but there are of course greater issues at
play, like loving and wanting to defend one's country, or wanting to
play a role in defending/promoting ideas you believe in (such as
stopping genocide or promoting democracy in brutal totalitarian regimes,
etc).


-Adam

OmegaZero2003
December 12th 03, 11:52 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> >
> > "Elzinator" > wrote in message
>
> > > >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> > > >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
> >
> > Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much
less
> > debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it
helps
> > the overall specieis genome.
>
> Your reading materials are far out of date. See the work of Zahavi for
example.

1) New does not mean correct.
2) There is still debate
3) What I posted was from the site indicated; they were not my words.



>
> > Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her
young
> > at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior.
>
> No it wouldn't, she's protecting her kin (i.e. her genes) which is
> clearly a selfish (from the standpoint of seeing her genetic legacy live
> on) thing to do. Now, if she attacked a predator attacking a young one
> that was not geentically tied to her, that woudl be altruistic. Birds
> (and most other animals) do no such thing.
>
> As would crows in a
> > scattered family group calling out a warning to the others at the risk
of
> > being located by the predator at large.
>
> Zahavi has shown that animals do this to show off how badass they are.
> If they survive, they are likely to get rewards for that behavior. Not
altruistic.
>
> >
> > Although there are differences in opinion, it is generally believed that
> > animal altruism exists and survives as a behavior pattern because there
is
> > some reproductive advantage to the group.
>
> Again, read some newer materials.
>
> > Altruism has been working well for ants for over 100 million years.
Rising
> > to an astonishing level of specialization, there are species of ants in
> > which castes of individual members function as farmers, nannies,
warriors,
> > builders, even storage containers, walls, and bridges. Individuals
whose
> > specialized role requires them to leave the nest do so at grave risk on
> > behalf of the colony. Certain worker ants have an average a life span
of
> > only a week. In effect, huge numbers of worker ants trade their
individual
> > reproductive opportunities for the improved success of the entire colony
of
> > their sisters.
>
> now you get into complicated genetic issues. I believe that most ants
> in any given caste share the same genetics. They are interchangeable
> and if one dies, it makes no nevermind in terms of the survival of their
> genes. In some bug species (think bees who may die defending the hive)
> the critters that appear to act altruistically don't reproduce in the
> first place. So they have no genes to protect.
>
> >
> > Like other social insects, ants readily sacrifice their individual lives
in
> > ways that benefit the group. Bees die in the attempt to sting, wild
dogs
> > hunt to feed the puppies of their pack's lead female, lone baboons will
> > charge an attacking lion while the troop escapes to safety-in fact,
>
> See, you need to read more currently, this last one is totally and
> utterly wrong (the others most assuredly so as well). Baboons do no
> such thing. They will only defend a child that is almost certain to be
> theirs. In most all other cases, they will hide in a tree.
>
> Lyle

August Pamplona
December 12th 03, 11:56 PM
"Robert Dorf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
> >
> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.

You think that applies to the people Elzi's talking about? Are they
orgasmaltruists? They like to give, etc. until it hurts; but it hurts in
a very, very good way.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

OmegaZero2003
December 13th 03, 12:02 AM
"OmegaZero2003" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > "Elzinator" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
> > > > >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
> > >
> > > Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much
> less
> > > debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it
> helps
> > > the overall specieis genome.
> >
> > Your reading materials are far out of date. See the work of Zahavi for
> example.
>
> 1) New does not mean correct.
> 2) There is still debate
> 3) What I posted was from the site indicated; they were not my words.

PS - note that Zahavi's ideas are largely of the handicap principle - which
is *just* another way to explain altruistic behavior.
From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through

signalling benefits

Arnon Lotem* , Michael A. Fishman and Lewi Stone

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel




>
>
>
> >
> > > Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her
> young
> > > at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior.
> >
> > No it wouldn't, she's protecting her kin (i.e. her genes) which is
> > clearly a selfish (from the standpoint of seeing her genetic legacy live
> > on) thing to do. Now, if she attacked a predator attacking a young one
> > that was not geentically tied to her, that woudl be altruistic. Birds
> > (and most other animals) do no such thing.
> >
> > As would crows in a
> > > scattered family group calling out a warning to the others at the risk
> of
> > > being located by the predator at large.
> >
> > Zahavi has shown that animals do this to show off how badass they are.
> > If they survive, they are likely to get rewards for that behavior. Not
> altruistic.
> >
> > >
> > > Although there are differences in opinion, it is generally believed
that
> > > animal altruism exists and survives as a behavior pattern because
there
> is
> > > some reproductive advantage to the group.
> >
> > Again, read some newer materials.
> >
> > > Altruism has been working well for ants for over 100 million years.
> Rising
> > > to an astonishing level of specialization, there are species of ants
in
> > > which castes of individual members function as farmers, nannies,
> warriors,
> > > builders, even storage containers, walls, and bridges. Individuals
> whose
> > > specialized role requires them to leave the nest do so at grave risk
on
> > > behalf of the colony. Certain worker ants have an average a life span
> of
> > > only a week. In effect, huge numbers of worker ants trade their
> individual
> > > reproductive opportunities for the improved success of the entire
colony
> of
> > > their sisters.
> >
> > now you get into complicated genetic issues. I believe that most ants
> > in any given caste share the same genetics. They are interchangeable
> > and if one dies, it makes no nevermind in terms of the survival of their
> > genes. In some bug species (think bees who may die defending the hive)
> > the critters that appear to act altruistically don't reproduce in the
> > first place. So they have no genes to protect.
> >
> > >
> > > Like other social insects, ants readily sacrifice their individual
lives
> in
> > > ways that benefit the group. Bees die in the attempt to sting, wild
> dogs
> > > hunt to feed the puppies of their pack's lead female, lone baboons
will
> > > charge an attacking lion while the troop escapes to safety-in fact,
> >
> > See, you need to read more currently, this last one is totally and
> > utterly wrong (the others most assuredly so as well). Baboons do no
> > such thing. They will only defend a child that is almost certain to be
> > theirs. In most all other cases, they will hide in a tree.
> >
> > Lyle
>
>

DZ
December 13th 03, 12:05 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
>> Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>> debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>> the overall specieis genome.
>
> Your reading materials are far out of date. See the work of Zahavi for example.
>
>> Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her young
>> at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior.
>
> No it wouldn't, she's protecting her kin (i.e. her genes) which is
> clearly a selfish (from the standpoint of seeing her genetic legacy live
> on) thing to do. Now, if she attacked a predator attacking a young one
> that was not geentically tied to her, that woudl be altruistic. Birds
> (and most other animals) do no such thing.

There isn't really a contradiction here with what group selectionists
say - the bird shares half of the genes with her offspring, but she
also shares common genes with other birds in the population, just a
smaller proportion. The question is what minimum proportion of the
genome needs to be shared in order for altruistic behavior to
evolve. Or put another way, what extent of altruism could be sustained.

Perhaps some of that stuff may even have appeared incompatible due to
Zahavis' "outcast" position, at least originally. "I have often
wondered whether, if I were living in Oxford ... I would have
developed the handicap principle and its implications" (Anim Behav
2003 65:859-863).

DZ

OmegaZero2003
December 13th 03, 12:23 AM
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> > OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> >> Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much
less
> >> debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it
helps
> >> the overall specieis genome.
> >
> > Your reading materials are far out of date. See the work of Zahavi for
example.
> >
> >> Clearly, a mother bird diving at a dangerous predator to protect her
young
> >> at the nest would be considered altruistic behavior.
> >
> > No it wouldn't, she's protecting her kin (i.e. her genes) which is
> > clearly a selfish (from the standpoint of seeing her genetic legacy live
> > on) thing to do. Now, if she attacked a predator attacking a young one
> > that was not geentically tied to her, that woudl be altruistic. Birds
> > (and most other animals) do no such thing.
>
> There isn't really a contradiction here with what group selectionists

Exactly!

> say - the bird shares half of the genes with her offspring, but she
> also shares common genes with other birds in the population, just a
> smaller proportion. The question is what minimum proportion of the
> genome needs to be shared in order for altruistic behavior to
> evolve. Or put another way, what extent of altruism could be sustained.
>
> Perhaps some of that stuff may even have appeared incompatible due to
> Zahavis' "outcast" position, at least originally. "I have often
> wondered whether, if I were living in Oxford ... I would have
> developed the handicap principle and its implications" (Anim Behav
> 2003 65:859-863).
>
> DZ

DZ
December 13th 03, 01:01 AM
In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Zahavi has shown that animals do this to show off how badass they are.
> If they survive, they are likely to get rewards for that behavior. Not altruistic.

There is an interesting human species variation in that human
scientific endeavors are just expensive advertisements of
fitness. That is, the projected image is that it must be expensive for
an average person, but not the displayer of this behavior. S Kanazawa
studied biographies of lots of scientists and discovered that
unmarried scientists make their greatest contributions as often in
their late 50s as they do in their late 20s. On the other hand, the
mean time from the date of marriage to the greatest scientific
contribution is just 2.5 years. So the distribution of best scientific
contributions among married scientists tracks the most likely time of
marriage, i.e. younger than 35 years.

DZ

Robert Dorf
December 13th 03, 02:33 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:28:58 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
>> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
>> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
>> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
>> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>> >
>> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
>> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
>> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
>> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
>> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
>> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.
>
>I'm not sure I agree with you.

I rarely agree with me.

>Too many people verbally express the "I want to have a baby" thing.
>
>It would appear to be a drive in and of itself (with orgasm and the rest
>being a physically rewarding way to make us want to engage in behaviors
>consistent with that).

And many people verbally express a desire not to have a baby, yet
continue happily pursuing sex. Almost all of us seek sexual
gratification that has no chance of producing offspring (the basis for
the internet and much of the economy). More than half of us
eventually lose the ability to produce children, yet the majority will
continue to pursue sexual gratification regardless. Still, the baby
seekers are out there; I should have written "Many of us don't have
sex to make babies, but to make orgasms."

This Tuesday on Fox, it's the series you've always wanted to see:
The Baby Seekers. In color.

Robert Dorf
December 13th 03, 02:34 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:56:28 -0600, "August Pamplona"
> wrote:

>"Robert Dorf" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
>> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
>> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
>> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
>> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>> >
>> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
>> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
>> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
>> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
>> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
>> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.
>
> You think that applies to the people Elzi's talking about? Are they
>orgasmaltruists? They like to give, etc. until it hurts; but it hurts in
>a very, very good way.

Puts a whole new spin on doing good works...

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 05:55 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:27:52 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>
>>>>I trust no one.
>>>
>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>>
>>I feed the canary first.
>
>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to carve with any knife
>larger than a scalpel.

Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
They are almost like brown canaries.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 05:56 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:33:40 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:28:58 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>
>>Robert Dorf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
>>> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
>>> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
>>> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
>>> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>>> >
>>> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
>>> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
>>> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
>>> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
>>> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
>>> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.
>>
>>I'm not sure I agree with you.
>
>I rarely agree with me.
>
>>Too many people verbally express the "I want to have a baby" thing.
>>
>>It would appear to be a drive in and of itself (with orgasm and the rest
>>being a physically rewarding way to make us want to engage in behaviors
>>consistent with that).
>
>And many people verbally express a desire not to have a baby, yet
>continue happily pursuing sex. Almost all of us seek sexual
>gratification that has no chance of producing offspring (the basis for
>the internet and much of the economy). More than half of us
>eventually lose the ability to produce children, yet the majority will
>continue to pursue sexual gratification regardless. Still, the baby
>seekers are out there; I should have written "Many of us don't have
>sex to make babies, but to make orgasms."

Babies are highly overrated. I like the latter personally.



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 06:03 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:56:28 -0600, "August Pamplona"
> wrote:

>"Robert Dorf" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:40 -0500, Elzinator >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I would tend to agree with you, but I have met a few individuals who
>> >are altruistic in the true sense (to the point where I am amazed and
>> >don't understand it). Although, one could ask if the altruistic
>> >individual doesn't receive some type of self-reward or
>> >self-gratification that without he/she could not survive.
>> >
>> It's not a question of seeking the emotional reward obtained through a
>> behavior in order to survive; it's a question of seeking the reward in
>> order to get rewarded. We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex
>> to make orgasms (and for pair bonding, etc.). The babies may be what
>> our genes want, but they are not, from the point of view of an
>> individual, the reason that we engage in the behavior.
>
> You think that applies to the people Elzi's talking about? Are they
>orgasmaltruists? They like to give, etc. until it hurts; but it hurts in
>a very, very good way.

Self-sacrifice.
Some people find gratification in self-sacrifice. Martyr syndrome? But
there is a point where being a martyr is painful to the giver and the
taker, thus the result does not benefit either.

There is a line where the gratification becomes misery. Then again
some people like being miserable.

However, I have met a few people who are selfless and they derive
their meaning in life from being altruistic to others at their own
expense. It's admirable, but maybe I'm too selfish to understand this.

At least I'm honest.

And tired.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 06:05 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:

>
>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...

>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>
>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>the overall specieis genome.

Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
the males. It gives us sustenance.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 06:10 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:26:10 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:45:19 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:09:18 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:52 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:07 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:09:43 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>>>People will always be people, so keep your weapons in good working
>>>>>order. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>I have my knife right here on the table. I'm not exactly staying in
>>>>the best side of town right now. I carry my knife on me and it doesn't
>>>>stray too far from me inside, either. I look forward to finding more
>>>>permanent, and safer, quarters ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>I trust no one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you in a firearm-friendly state? You might consider starting the process.
>>>There's a waiting period, but if you order online and type "NINJA" into
>>>the Presale Password box, you can get it waived!
>>
>>Dude, I'm in Texas.
>
>Oh.
>In that case, I'll write slowly and use small words.

Nah, you have to yell. It's a big state.

>>Does the bear **** in the woods? :)
>
>Which bear? Some compost instead.

They're hibernating (which I would like to be doing right now) and
absorb their wastes.

>>Ninja's use knives. My swords are packed.
>
>How about sharpened chopsticks?

I have a plastic fork....

>>I thought about acquiring a firearm the other day, a small one with
>>alot of power, but they kick alot.
>
>Physics is hard.

That's 'fysics', the other 'f' word.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Proton Soup
December 13th 03, 07:40 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>
>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>the overall specieis genome.
>
>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>the males. It gives us sustenance.

Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
to suck them dry.

Proton Soup

Lucas Buck
December 13th 03, 08:25 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:55:09 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:27:52 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I trust no one.
>>>>
>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>>>
>>>I feed the canary first.
>>
>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to carve with any knife
>>larger than a scalpel.
>
>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?

<Blazing Saddles>

No. Mongo straight.

</Blazing Saddles>

Lucas Buck
December 13th 03, 08:26 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>
>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>the overall specieis genome.
>
>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>the males. It gives us sustenance.

Geez, most womyn settle for the house, the kids, alimony, child support...

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 02:06 PM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:25:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:55:09 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:27:52 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I trust no one.
>>>>>
>>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>>>>
>>>>I feed the canary first.
>>>
>>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to carve with any knife
>>>larger than a scalpel.
>>
>>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
>
><Blazing Saddles>
>
>No. Mongo straight.
>
></Blazing Saddles>

Touche

I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.

Seriously, though, they are very small birds and we'd have to shoot
about 6-8 of them to feed us both.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 13th 03, 02:09 PM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:40:57 -0600, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>>
>>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>>the overall specieis genome.
>>
>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>
>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>to suck them dry.

Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
population of males would quickly decline.



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 13th 03, 03:25 PM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:09:09 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:40:57 -0600, Proton Soup >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>>>
>>>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>>>the overall specieis genome.
>>>
>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>
>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>to suck them dry.
>
>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>population of males would quickly decline.
>
Nonsense. You'd never make it through more than the tiniest
percentage.

the tree by the river
December 13th 03, 04:20 PM
In article >,
Elzinator <no [email protected]> wrote:
>Proton Soup > wrote:
>>Elzinator > wrote:
>>>
>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>
>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>to suck them dry.
>
>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>population of males would quickly decline.

That's a scary thought; I had no idea your social calendar was *that*
busy.

--
soc.singles FAQ [ Nyx Net, free ISP ] Misc.Fitness.Weights page
www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html [ http://www.nyx.net ] www.trygve.com/mfw.html
today's special feature, AIBODATE, romance that's better than the real thing!
http://www.trygve.com/aibodate.html

OmegaZero2003
December 13th 03, 05:40 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:25:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:55:09 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:27:52 GMT, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I trust no one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
> >>>>
> >>>>I feed the canary first.
> >>>
> >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to
carve with any knife
> >>>larger than a scalpel.
> >>
> >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
> >
> ><Blazing Saddles>
> >
> >No. Mongo straight.
> >
> ></Blazing Saddles>
>
> Touche
>
> I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
>
> Seriously, though, they are very small birds

They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that increase
size...



> and we'd have to shoot
> about 6-8 of them to feed us both.
>
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

David Cohen
December 13th 03, 08:49 PM
"OmegaZero2003" > wrote
> "Elzinator" > wrote
> > Lucas Buck > wrote:
> > > Elzinator > wrote:
> > >> Lucas Buck > wrote:
> > >>> Elzinator > wrote:
> > >>>> Robert Dorf > wrote:
> > >>>>>>I trust no one.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I feed the canary first.
> > >>>
> > >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be
difficult to
> carve with any knife
> > >>>larger than a scalpel.
> > >>
> > >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
> > >
> > ><Blazing Saddles>
> > >
> > >No. Mongo straight.
> > >
> > ></Blazing Saddles>
> >
> > Touche
> >
> > I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
> >
> > Seriously, though, they are very small birds
>
> They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that
increase
> size...

Spam? Those ads are spam? They won't work?

:(

David

Lucas Buck
December 13th 03, 09:08 PM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:09:09 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:40:57 -0600, Proton Soup >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>>>
>>>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>>>the overall specieis genome.
>>>
>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>
>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>to suck them dry.
>
>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>population of males would quickly decline.

Too bad we men don't see that kind of honesty in match.com profiles...

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 03:11 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:40:24 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:

>
>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:25:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:55:09 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:27:52 GMT, Lucas Buck
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:25 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:10:30 -0500, Robert Dorf
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>I trust no one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I feed the canary first.
>> >>>
>> >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be difficult to
>carve with any knife
>> >>>larger than a scalpel.
>> >>
>> >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
>> >
>> ><Blazing Saddles>
>> >
>> >No. Mongo straight.
>> >
>> ></Blazing Saddles>
>>
>> Touche
>>
>> I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
>>
>> Seriously, though, they are very small birds
>
>They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that increase
>size...

Jesus, I get a ton of those a day. The one that made me nearly spew my
coffee was for a plaster that increases penis size.

Even if I had a penis, I don't think pills or plaster would make it
bigger (although I have a certificate for an honorary penis). Perhaps
maintain hardness longer, but not 'bigger'.

I suggest someone write a script for a new cartoon called "Penis Man".




It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 03:31 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"OmegaZero2003" > wrote
>> "Elzinator" > wrote
>> > Lucas Buck > wrote:
>> > > Elzinator > wrote:
>> > >> Lucas Buck > wrote:
>> > >>> Elzinator > wrote:
>> > >>>> Robert Dorf > wrote:
>> > >>>>>>I trust no one.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>I feed the canary first.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be
>difficult to
>> carve with any knife
>> > >>>larger than a scalpel.
>> > >>
>> > >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
>> > >
>> > ><Blazing Saddles>
>> > >
>> > >No. Mongo straight.
>> > >
>> > ></Blazing Saddles>
>> >
>> > Touche
>> >
>> > I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
>> >
>> > Seriously, though, they are very small birds
>>
>> They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that
>increase
>> size...
>
>Spam? Those ads are spam? They won't work?

I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman. I have a renewed
respect for ER people.

It also made me ponder several things.

1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How this
mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures and
compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ, only
a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.

2. The amazing regulation of chemicals and signals that control our
biological systems and mediate our senses, sending signals throughout
the complex circuitry of nerves throughout or body. How the slight
touch of feather on our finger can elicit a sensory recognition in our
brain and down our arm and back up again, the smell of a rose impart a
pleasing sense of relaxation, the gentle touch of a finger upon our
thigh spark a cascade of sensuous responses that makes our heart beat
faster, our mouths drier and draw in our breath, with an ultimate
explosion in our genitals.

3. The realization that when the brain dies, the very essence of a
person, an individual, a spark of light (or dark) in the great flow of
time and life is no longer.Left is only a hull of slowly deteriorating
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, a robot shutting itself down. A
spark is gone in the great light that is time.

4. Most of all, for every beginning, there is an end.

Then I helped section three brains and learned their parts and
structures. I wasn't ravenously hungry like my Dad used to be after an
autopsy, but I sure as hell needed a strong coffee.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 03:33 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:25:17 -0500, Robert Dorf
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:09:09 -0500, Elzinator >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:40:57 -0600, Proton Soup >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:05:56 -0500, Elzinator >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:00:19 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>> >Because you can. Debate it all you will but animals (hell, most
>>>>>> >creatures) care about themselves first, their kin second
>>>>>
>>>>>Not true in many species. Although the debate is there, there is much less
>>>>>debate about animal altruism being genetically determined and that it helps
>>>>>the overall specieis genome.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>>
>>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>>to suck them dry.
>>
>>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>>population of males would quickly decline.
>>
>Nonsense. You'd never make it through more than the tiniest
>percentage.

Not if I asexually reproduce.
Then the population would dwindle very fast.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 03:36 AM
On 13 Dec 2003 09:20:09 -0700, (the tree by the river)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Elzinator <no [email protected]> wrote:
>>Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>Elzinator > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>>
>>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>>to suck them dry.
>>
>>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>>population of males would quickly decline.
>
>That's a scary thought; I had no idea your social calendar was *that*
>busy.

Quite the contrary; I have NO social life at the moment.

However, the medical center is chock full of good looking male doctors
and med students. Many look very tasty ;)



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Robert Dorf
December 14th 03, 03:41 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:36:35 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:

>On 13 Dec 2003 09:20:09 -0700, (the tree by the river)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Elzinator <no [email protected]> wrote:
>>>Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>>Elzinator > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Frankly, I like the way of spiders and praying mantises: **** then eat
>>>>>the males. It gives us sustenance.
>>>>
>>>>Human females do the same to their mates, but it takes several decades
>>>>to suck them dry.
>>>
>>>Not me, I'd rather get it over with right after the sex and avoid all
>>>the headaches involved in between. The only problem is that the
>>>population of males would quickly decline.
>>
>>That's a scary thought; I had no idea your social calendar was *that*
>>busy.
>
>Quite the contrary; I have NO social life at the moment.
>
>However, the medical center is chock full of good looking male doctors
>and med students. Many look very tasty ;)
>
Well at least your protein needs will be taken care of.

David Cohen
December 14th 03, 03:43 AM
"Elzinator" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >"OmegaZero2003" > wrote
> >> "Elzinator" > wrote
> >> > Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >> > > Elzinator > wrote:
> >> > >> Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >> > >>> Elzinator > wrote:
> >> > >>>> Robert Dorf > wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>I trust no one.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>I feed the canary first.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be
> >difficult to
> >> carve with any knife
> >> > >>>larger than a scalpel.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
> >> > >
> >> > ><Blazing Saddles>
> >> > >
> >> > >No. Mongo straight.
> >> > >
> >> > ></Blazing Saddles>
> >> >
> >> > Touche
> >> >
> >> > I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
> >> >
> >> > Seriously, though, they are very small birds
> >>
> >> They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that
> >increase
> >> size...
> >
> >Spam? Those ads are spam? They won't work?
>
> I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
> intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman. I have a
renewed
> respect for ER people.

Dead brain tissue often reminds people of me.

> It also made me ponder several things.
>
> 1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
> organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How
this
> mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures
and
> compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
> and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ,
only
> a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
> things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.

I find it amazing, too. One of the most challenging things I do is
keep the bodies of brain dead people alive, so that their organs can
be harvested. And despite using pumps, and ventilators, and fluids,
and drugs, and high tech monitors, I can only imitate that control
that the brain exerts for a very short period of time, before
everything goes all to hell.

> 2. The amazing regulation of chemicals and signals that control our
> biological systems and mediate our senses, sending signals
throughout
> the complex circuitry of nerves throughout or body. How the slight
> touch of feather on our finger can elicit a sensory recognition in
our
> brain and down our arm and back up again, the smell of a rose impart
a
> pleasing sense of relaxation, the gentle touch of a finger upon our
> thigh spark a cascade of sensuous responses that makes our heart
beat
> faster, our mouths drier and draw in our breath, with an ultimate
> explosion in our genitals.
>
> 3. The realization that when the brain dies, the very essence of a
> person, an individual, a spark of light (or dark) in the great flow
of
> time and life is no longer.Left is only a hull of slowly
deteriorating
> proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, a robot shutting itself down. A
> spark is gone in the great light that is time.
>
> 4. Most of all, for every beginning, there is an end.
>
> Then I helped section three brains and learned their parts and
> structures. I wasn't ravenously hungry like my Dad used to be after
an
> autopsy, but I sure as hell needed a strong coffee.

Don't you find that sectioned brain looks like lunch meat?

David

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 03:56 AM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:26:59 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Robert Dorf wrote:
>
>> Depends on how you define "true altruism." People act for emotional
>> rather than material advantage or survival (individual or group)
>> rewards every day.
>
>I think I'm going to tangent/make an ass of myself with this post.
>
>Altruism: selfless action.
>
>I've never really cared about altruism. Is it possible to act
>selflessly, in a manner that ends-up benefiting others (this includes
>w/o emotional rewards you indicate above)? Of course it is. The
>question in my mind is, is altruistic behavior somehow deserving of the
>nobility it seems to be granted? Selfless action == careless action,
>IMO.

I'm glad to see someone else voice this. I share the same perception.
Hence my lack of empathy for altruism. I simply don't understand it.
(it's not logical).


>Morality is about decision making--and often about sacrifices--not
>unintended consequences. The idea that good deeds are somehow tainted
>if there is any motivation behind their performance is just so much
>Puritanical BS. Dispassion is not noble. It's neutral.

However, morals were constructed to facilitate protection of the group
and ensure survival of our species. Let's face it, as individuals our
chances of survival in a primitive environment are not good. Like many
other species (e.g. horses, sheep, etc), they increase in a group.
Morals are a human construct to protect ourselves from each other.
They are the balance of our base animalistic instincts and nurture of
our species. Albeit some morals are not as flexible as they should be.

While I don't prescribe to many traditional morals, I understand their
evolution and their need. What I can't tolerate is hypocrisy.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 04:40 AM
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:43:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>> 1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
>> organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How
>this
>> mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures
>and
>> compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
>> and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ,
>only
>> a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
>> things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.
>
>I find it amazing, too. One of the most challenging things I do is
>keep the bodies of brain dead people alive, so that their organs can
>be harvested. And despite using pumps, and ventilators, and fluids,
>and drugs, and high tech monitors, I can only imitate that control
>that the brain exerts for a very short period of time, before
>everything goes all to hell.

Oddly, what I thought about during the entire procedure was how this
organ comprises our 'self'. Watching the MD cut the brain from the
stem was like pulling a plug. Sure the brain was already 'dead', but
the physicality of it was the finality. Now I understand Dennis'
passion for learning about cognition and consciousness. It seems so
alien from the physical structure.

I recall reading about the French physician who was fascinated by the
ability of the brain to remain functional for a short period of time
after the head was cut from the body. He would gather up heads from
the guillotine blade and watch to see if and how long the eyes
blinked.

>> Then I helped section three brains and learned their parts and
>> structures. I wasn't ravenously hungry like my Dad used to be after
>an
>> autopsy, but I sure as hell needed a strong coffee.
>
>Don't you find that sectioned brain looks like lunch meat?

Yes, they do. Like cauiflowered luncheon meat. The fetal brain (from a
still birth; we had to estimate the age of the fetus based on the
development of the convolutions) was seriously like unset jello. It
couldn't be sectioned.

I was sooooo tempted during the whole session to mutter
"Braaaaaainssss". But I'm not sure how many residents would have
caught the reference. And they would have thought I flipped.

I need a new button for my lab coat:
Elzinator, Zombie Killer



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Keith Hobman
December 14th 03, 06:28 AM
In article >, no [email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"OmegaZero2003" > wrote
> >> "Elzinator" > wrote
> >> > Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >> > > Elzinator > wrote:
> >> > >> Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >> > >>> Elzinator > wrote:
> >> > >>>> Robert Dorf > wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>I trust no one.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>That must make holiday dinners very stressful.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>I feed the canary first.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>A canary can't serve very many guests, and they must be
> >difficult to
> >> carve with any knife
> >> > >>>larger than a scalpel.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Have you ever gone bird hunting and eaten woodcock?
> >> > >
> >> > ><Blazing Saddles>
> >> > >
> >> > >No. Mongo straight.
> >> > >
> >> > ></Blazing Saddles>
> >> >
> >> > Touche
> >> >
> >> > I left that one wide open. Too tired last night to think.
> >> >
> >> > Seriously, though, they are very small birds
> >>
> >> They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that
> >increase
> >> size...
> >
> >Spam? Those ads are spam? They won't work?
>
> I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
> intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman. I have a renewed
> respect for ER people.
>
> It also made me ponder several things.
>
> 1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
> organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How this
> mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures and
> compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
> and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ, only
> a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
> things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.
>
> 2. The amazing regulation of chemicals and signals that control our
> biological systems and mediate our senses, sending signals throughout
> the complex circuitry of nerves throughout or body. How the slight
> touch of feather on our finger can elicit a sensory recognition in our
> brain and down our arm and back up again, the smell of a rose impart a
> pleasing sense of relaxation, the gentle touch of a finger upon our
> thigh spark a cascade of sensuous responses that makes our heart beat
> faster, our mouths drier and draw in our breath, with an ultimate
> explosion in our genitals.
>
> 3. The realization that when the brain dies, the very essence of a
> person, an individual, a spark of light (or dark) in the great flow of
> time and life is no longer.Left is only a hull of slowly deteriorating
> proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, a robot shutting itself down. A
> spark is gone in the great light that is time.
>
> 4. Most of all, for every beginning, there is an end.
>
> Then I helped section three brains and learned their parts and
> structures. I wasn't ravenously hungry like my Dad used to be after an
> autopsy, but I sure as hell needed a strong coffee.

Have you been dipping into your wine reserve again Elzi? Waxing eloquent
and all that here!

Lucas Buck
December 14th 03, 07:50 AM
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>
>I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
>intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.

Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 02:52 PM
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:28:59 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, no [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Seriously, though, they are very small birds
>> >>
>> >> They must not be getting the SPAM leading to thos pills that
>> >increase
>> >> size...
>> >
>> >Spam? Those ads are spam? They won't work?
>>
>> I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
>> intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman. I have a renewed
>> respect for ER people.
>>
>> It also made me ponder several things.
>>
>> 1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
>> organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How this
>> mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures and
>> compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
>> and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ, only
>> a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
>> things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.
>>
>> 2. The amazing regulation of chemicals and signals that control our
>> biological systems and mediate our senses, sending signals throughout
>> the complex circuitry of nerves throughout or body. How the slight
>> touch of feather on our finger can elicit a sensory recognition in our
>> brain and down our arm and back up again, the smell of a rose impart a
>> pleasing sense of relaxation, the gentle touch of a finger upon our
>> thigh spark a cascade of sensuous responses that makes our heart beat
>> faster, our mouths drier and draw in our breath, with an ultimate
>> explosion in our genitals.
>>
>> 3. The realization that when the brain dies, the very essence of a
>> person, an individual, a spark of light (or dark) in the great flow of
>> time and life is no longer.Left is only a hull of slowly deteriorating
>> proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, a robot shutting itself down. A
>> spark is gone in the great light that is time.
>>
>> 4. Most of all, for every beginning, there is an end.
>>
>> Then I helped section three brains and learned their parts and
>> structures. I wasn't ravenously hungry like my Dad used to be after an
>> autopsy, but I sure as hell needed a strong coffee.
>
>Have you been dipping into your wine reserve again Elzi? Waxing eloquent
>and all that here!

Nope.
Must be the influence of being back 'home.' :)


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Elzinator
December 14th 03, 02:53 PM
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:50:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>>
>>I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
>>intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.
>
>Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???

"Braaaaainnnssss!!!!!!!!!!"




It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

Marty Feldman
December 14th 03, 04:55 PM
Lucas Buck > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
> >
> >I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
> >intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.
>
> Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???


we must take satisfaction that the brain was removed. the rest is details.

OmegaZero2003
December 14th 03, 07:21 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:43:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >> 1. The amazing and wonderful deeds and horrific devastation these
> >> organs can impart upon each other and everything around them. How
> >this
> >> mass of bologna-colored jello can build such beautiful structures
> >and
> >> compose passionate music, then murder thousands of their own species
> >> and exterminate hundreds of animal and plant species. This organ,
> >only
> >> a small percentage of overall body size is responsible for so many
> >> things. In the matrix, it is the architect and the painter.
> >
> >I find it amazing, too. One of the most challenging things I do is
> >keep the bodies of brain dead people alive, so that their organs can
> >be harvested. And despite using pumps, and ventilators, and fluids,
> >and drugs, and high tech monitors, I can only imitate that control
> >that the brain exerts for a very short period of time, before
> >everything goes all to hell.
>
> Oddly, what I thought about during the entire procedure was how this
> organ comprises our 'self'. Watching the MD cut the brain from the
> stem was like pulling a plug. Sure the brain was already 'dead', but
> the physicality of it was the finality. Now I understand Dennis'
> passion for learning about cognition and consciousness. It seems so
> alien from the physical structure.

Really? In some philosophical way perhaps. But practically...

.... emergent properties (like consciousness) love complexity. The quest for
AI, although taking many sidetrips since the 1950s, is certainly, now, based
on several general mechanisms and structures we have discovered in brain.

Of course, that is the cognition/intelligence aspect.

The self aspect, consciousness/self-consciousness is certainly profound;
yet, when one looks at brain/mind as a society of agents, wherein the
topmost agent is what you are currently aware of (a sensory
input/recept/percept), to an internally generated thought etc.), and thence
what you identify with (you are your current thought) the simplicity of what
evolution has wrought is breaking through.

One of the most interesting debates in the cognitive neurosciences is
whether the NCC: (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) will solve the
issues brought to the table by Chalmers (the Cartesian Theater, Blindsight
and the Binding Problem).

Much progress with Michael Alkire work isolating the ILN in the thalmus as
the site that forwards sensory inputs to the rest of brain and as such is
the primary site incapacitated in anesthesia. I.e., one of the ways to
figure out what C is, is to figure out what it means to turn it off. That
is why the work of Hameroff and Penrose is so fascinating.

..

Lucas Buck
December 14th 03, 11:35 PM
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:53:45 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:50:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
>>>intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.
>>
>>Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???
>
>"Braaaaainnnssss!!!!!!!!!!"

So... we have a homeless drifter who cuts peoples skulls open.

Serial killer? Lecter II?

Elzinator
December 16th 03, 03:11 AM
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:35:40 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:53:45 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:50:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
>>>>intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.
>>>
>>>Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???
>>
>>"Braaaaainnnssss!!!!!!!!!!"
>
>So... we have a homeless drifter who cuts peoples skulls open.

I don't cut them open, I just helped scoop the intact brain out.

BTW, the actual cutting the skull open (with an electric saw, wedge
and hammer) was what affected me the most. As I related to someone
else, it's a good thing the face is peeled back. Eye contact would
bother me.

>Serial killer? Lecter II?

"Psycho Killer, qu' est-ce que c'est?
Uh-uh-uh-uhhhh-uh.......
Run Run Run Run Run Run awaaaaaaaaay

(Don't touch me, I'm a real live wire)"

(love Talking Heads, my favorite late-night-in-the-lab music :)

It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

OmegaZero2003
December 16th 03, 05:13 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:35:40 GMT, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:53:45 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:50:28 GMT, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:31:33 -0500, Elzinator >
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:49:22 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I thought of you the other day, David, as I assisted removing an
> >>>>intact brain from the skull of a dead elderly woman.
> >>>
> >>>Was she dead BEFORE you cut her skull open???
> >>
> >>"Braaaaainnnssss!!!!!!!!!!"

Hey look - it says right here: "Eat at Luigis" (Dirty Harry)


> >
> >So... we have a homeless drifter who cuts peoples skulls open.
>
> I don't cut them open, I just helped scoop the intact brain out.
>
> BTW, the actual cutting the skull open (with an electric saw, wedge
> and hammer) was what affected me the most. As I related to someone
> else, it's a good thing the face is peeled back. Eye contact would
> bother me.
>
> >Serial killer? Lecter II?
>
> "Psycho Killer, qu' est-ce que c'est?
> Uh-uh-uh-uhhhh-uh.......
> Run Run Run Run Run Run awaaaaaaaaay
>
> (Don't touch me, I'm a real live wire)"
>
> (love Talking Heads, my favorite late-night-in-the-lab music :)
>
> It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.