Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[Rootology]

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...=User%3AMoulton

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity..._for_incivility

Block of Moulton for incivility

After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project. It is my belief that he was not here in a good faith effort to create learning materials, but rather was here to carry out his ongoing campaign against people who he thinks treated him unfairly at Wikipedia. After reviewing his case at Wikipedia, I think this is clearly not the case: he was properly blocked at Wikipedia, and should be blocked on sight from any Wikimedia project where he surfaces with a similar agenda.

I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted, and the project protected at least for now, pending a good community discussion of what something like this should look like.

There are always difficult growing pains for young commuities; I have seen it in many languages and many projects. I encourage Wikiversity to review the "ethics" project - which, it seems to me could be an interesting project if handled appropriately - with an eye towards developing principles for dealing with such projects in the future. One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals. I would also like to encourage you to consider clarifying the scope of Wikiversity to make it more clear that it is not a place for people to come and build attack pages in the guise of learning materials.

In any event, I hope that my action here will be viewed as helpful. I did not act quickly, but only after discussion with important people, and only after hearing that 3 bureaucrats support this action. It is not my intention to be the "God King" of Wikiversity, although I do request that this block only be overturned upon a very careful consideration of the possible implications for the future of the project.

The first major internal conflict and ban is always tough. My thoughts are with you, and I wish you well.--Jimbo Wales 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[Moulton]

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

I disagree, but perhaps we can agree to disagree...

A social contract is a set of promises made voluntarily. It has nothing to do with the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation. Covenents and Social Contracts were devised as a sane alternative to Hammurabi's Idiotic Idea.

With respect to the E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia.

Are you saying that the "full headers" of the e-mails in question contained only a reply-to/from address, already available on a WMF site, with no IP address or server routing information whatsoever?

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the temerity chutzpah to engage in authentic scholarship. So be it.

If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.

Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.

The Greek word martyr means witness. In cyberspace one doesn't have to die to bear witness. And even if they try to kill off one's avatar for having unmitigated gall to bear accurate witness, the act of annihilation is futile, since it's only an Internet avatar.

What I posted was a copy of outgoing mail from me to ArbCom. It didn't have any headers on it because copies of outgoing mail have no headers, full stop.

At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?

Do you realize that what was in my userspace was evidence used to convict FeloniousMonk (and also to indict the rest of IDCab). Rosalind Picard has less than zero interest in the fate of FeloniousMonk, a disposable avatar whose name she is entirely unaware of.

However, you might bother to ask Ottava Rima what he knows about Don Hopkins or the others who published false and defamatory BLPs on Wikipedia.

Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.

My goals have been published on my talk page for over a year.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review.

Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP. Now where have I heard that particular brand of egotism before? That's right, it's the same as the "IDCAB", when they've equated opposing their behavior with being "anti-science".

There has never been any scholarship on WP. It is against the rules to engage in scholarship on WP.

The blame for your experience at WV failing to reach Kohlberg level 5 lies primarily with you and your overblown ego, Moulton. A social contract would involve a little give-and-take, meaning that you occasionally listen to others when they tell you your behavior is inappropriate, and change accordingly. You insisted on doing things your way to the detriment of other editors, so you got tossed, and I didn't see anyone terribly surprised that it happened (only at the way it went down). Frankly, your love for bringing up Kohlberg's model might be a little more convincing if I saw a little evidence you understood any of it.

Kohlberg Level Four behavior is, by definition, inappropriate in a community that evolves and advances from Level Four to Level 5. Anankastic Machiavellianism is anathema to Kolhberg Level 5 and higher.

They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).

So if it was you and JWScmidt vs... the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?

"Think about right and wrong, and one immediately falls into error." —Taoist Proverb

"If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind." —Seng-Ts'an

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia.

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.

It's not that I do not accept the legitimacy of rules. It's that I understand rules to define a class of system known as a "game". In general such rule-driven systems may take on the character of a drama rather than a simple game (like chess). However, rule-driven systems are what they are (and are generally not what most people obliviously imagine them to be). Mathematicians have known for well over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.

The reason I propose to evolve from dysfunctional rule-driven systems to function-driven systems is because function-driven systems are functional. I prefer functional systems to dysfunctional ones. (So did Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Augustine, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Lagrange, Poincare, Einstein, Gandhi, King, von Neumann, Feynman, etc, etc. It's not exactly a new idea.)

I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia

The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of the any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.

Moulton, can you clarify if GBG is correct? That's what I'd always, thought, too.

GBG has formed a flight of fancy unsupported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, or coherent analysis. However I give him credit for submitting it to scholarly peer review by a subject matter expert on Moulton's mindset.

I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.

[Somey]

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

You could have just said so in the first place... Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

As for the other thing, well... any social contract that doesn't provide a means of grievance-redress, usually in the form of legal restrictions and remedies, isn't really a social contract - it's just an exercise in Utopian folderol production, which on the internet would be absurdly easy for people to game and abuse if actually put into practice. And you'll never get there on any Wikimedia (or related) project - their system is already too easy to game and abuse, and the kind of unanimity-of-purpose required for something like that can't possibly exist in the kind of contentious environment they've created. You might be able to do it on some sort of "ideologically pure" invitation-only site, though... But if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just give up on the internet completely, except for private e-mail, and maybe MP3 downloads.

I suppose that's just my opinion...

[Moulton]

I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.

I hope you realize that I am trying here. I described what I had seen in what I hoped was fair and neutral terms without taking cheap shots. Could you please continue to disabuse me by:

• Telling me what then is the substance of your "social contracts, and;"
  
• Can you provide an example of somewhere you have joined a community that has extended a social contract that you found to just and mutual.

The substance of the social contracts is define here, along with an example. At the bottom of the example are links to the model site upon which the example is built. The model site (which is now a commercial enterprise) is founded upon the seminal work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger who (literally) wrote the book on Communities of Practice. That model site also has a model social contract. In the late 1990s that site hosted a public community, of which I was long a member. (As their business grew, the site discontinued the public community in favor of devoting all their staff to supporting their corporate client communities.)

Go read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?

You could have just said so in the first place...

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to independently verify anything they heard from the quarters of Wikipedia, since it is widely known (and even openly admitted) that Wikipedians are not a source of reliable information.

Anyway, if that was all it was, then indeed their stated rationale for banning you was bogus. (That's not to say you don't have an uncanny ability to make people want to produce bogus rationales for banning you, of course!)

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims? That's how the US got into an idiotic war in Iraq.

Somey, a culture that throws away science doesn't have future, full stop.

As for the other thing, well... any social contract that doesn't provide a means of grievance-redress, usually in the form of legal restrictions and remedies, isn't really a social contract - it's just an exercise in Utopian folderol production, which on the internet would be absurdly easy for people to game and abuse if actually put into practice. And you'll never get there on any Wikimedia (or related) project - their system is already too easy to game and abuse, and the kind of unanimity-of-purpose required for something like that can't possibly exist in the kind of contentious environment they've created. You might be able to do it on some sort of "ideologically pure" invitation-only site, though... But if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just give up on the internet completely, except for private e-mail, and maybe MP3 downloads.

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history. And guess what, Somey? It works beautifully. It's highly functional. It routinely resolves conflicts efficiently and without an intervening judging agent. The principles of TCP/IP are apparently ill-understood and unappreciated by the lay public, even though the public now relies on it for their daily bread.

A few years ago, Rosalind Picard wrote an allegory for the computer age, entitled Machines That Can Deny Their Maker. TCP/IP literally made the Internet work. And now we have cyberspace inhabitants who similarly deny the foundation principles of the highly functional protocols that make their astonishing denial possible.

I suppose that's just my opinion...

And now you have mine, as well.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Somey]

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions.

Sorry, I just assumed it had been oversighted.

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims?

Are you saying I "uncritically accepted" their claim that you'd posted an e-mail with "full headers"? (And it wasn't even to you, it was from you!) If that were true, why did I ask you about it, instead of them? And words like "astonishingly" are just hyperbole, Moulton - this isn't the sort of thing most people would take the trouble to look up even if it actually were as important as, say, a false pretext for military adventurism.

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history....

Evasion. You know what I mean by the term "the internet," and besides, all I was saying was that you're wasting your time trying to reform (or advance the social development of) that system. Either way, the nuts 'n' bolts inner workings of the network aren't what we're discussing.

[Moulton]

It hadn't occurred to me that people had formed a wholesale flight of fancy based on el zippo de nada, rather than inquiring into the substance of the issue. I would have thought that by now people here would have learned to be skeptical of haphazard claims and assertions.

Sorry, I just assumed it had been oversighted.

I have no idea why Mike Umbridge Umbricht oversighted my outgoing mail to members of ArbCom and to other principal respondents in the case. That makes no sense to me.

And therein lies the moral of the story. Do you see how easy it is for people to gin up bogus rationales, utterly unsupported by a shred of evidence, analysis, or reasoning? And do you see how astonishingly gullible people are when it comes to uncritically accepting such bogus claims?

Are you saying I "uncritically accepted" their claim that you'd posted an e-mail with "full headers"? (And it wasn't even to you, it was from you!) If that were true, why did I ask you about it, instead of them? And words like "astonishingly" are just hyperbole, Moulton - this isn't the sort of thing most people would take the trouble to look up even if it actually were as important as, say, a false pretext for military adventurism.

I presume you asked me rather than them because I am a more reliable source of accurate information than them. But as to their reasons, I have no theory of mind to explain why they act as they do. (However, JWSchmidt likens it to the McCarthy era "red scare".)

Somey, the Internet is a collection of host computers that abide by a sophisticated protocol known as TCP/IP. It's an ingenious protocol, unprecedented in the annals of human history....

Evasion. You know what I mean by the term "the internet," and besides, all I was saying was that you're wasting your time trying to reform (or advance the social development of) that system. Either way, the nuts 'n' bolts inner workings of the network aren't what we're discussing

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

[Somey]

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

Well, that may be one of your biggest problems right there - thinking that "the internet" is a "well-defined term."

It isn't!

[Moulton]

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

No. Centaur of attention on WV is not one of the Harry Potter Furries Furies who is a respondent at ArbCom. Centaur of attention (aka Blogger 'Skip') is evidently a subordinate employee at Macys San Francisco Operations Center who has been on WP for about a year and a half as Odd nature. He/she signs his/her letters to the editors of the Hard News Cafe as "Jaime F" and is fiercely loyal to another content manager there named Paul Mitchell.

(I don't know who K. V. is, but erring on the side of caution here - though, if I'm picky, there's no connection to a username)...

Is that supposed to be User:Centaur of attention?

There is a KC (Killer Chihuahua).

That's another Furry/Fury in the Potterverse, ably portrayed by an amateur thespian named Tracy Walker, a horticultural maven in Florida.

I have no idea why Mike oversighted my outgoing mail to members of ArbCom and to other principal respondents in the case. That makes no sense to me.

Until you realize it, your talk page will probably stay protected.

Neil and Viridae offered a coherent theory.

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

It's not the scale but the the character that makes the analogy correct. It's like mountains and molehills. The analogy is one of similarity of shape. That means one can use the analogy to reason about the case, scaling everything (including the emotions) accordingly.

Mike Umbridge Umbricht

And that's another thing.

The cheap shots really aren't helping win people over to your side (though that one at least is not NEARLY as bad as the comparisons to kristallnacht and 9/11)

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

The Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is offering classes at wikiversity on techniques to block curses, hexes and jinxes cast by Moultons and other Dark Creatures.

-mikeu

We could totally nerd out for Halloween and do a Harry Potter theme.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

Please don't assume I know what you mean. The Internet is a well-defined term to those of us who were already using the Internet long before Al Gore invented it.

Well, that may be one of your biggest problems right there - thinking that "the internet" is a "well-defined term."

It isn't!

The culture that has settled into cyberspace should not be confused with the underlying technology. Think of the underlying technology as the soil of a garden. What grows on that soil is a matter of what is being cultivated. The soil is indifferent to the foliage that takes root. The foliage, however, competes for a place in the sun. What's important is the kind of strange fruit the foliage yields. Soil itself is not toxic, but some plants in the garden can nonetheless bear quite toxic fruit, just as the financial markets on Wall Street can yield toxic securities.

[Ottava]

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.

By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).

We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

[Ottava]

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

And your point is? See, heres the thing. I responded to Moulton. You responded to yourself. You might as well have just posted in the Tar Pit for your inanity.

Are you bored? Lonely? Just felt that you needed to post so that people know that you are still around? What is your point? Oh, thats right, you never claimed to have one. My mistake.

I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with Moderns Systems Science.

Except not. You use terms from other fields without respecting those fields' definitions. You are a linguistic Viking in the rape, pillage, and plunder sense.

[GlassBeadGame]

I was going to comment that you are just as bad about this kind of thing s as Moulton. On reflection, however, I don't think that is true. Moulton is far worse than you at skewing discourse, using language in an unhelpful manner and making discussion difficult. But the factor that gives the impression of equivalence is that Moulton has much more to say of substance, so he is worth the additional bother....sometimes.

And your point is? See, heres the thing. I responded to Moulton. You responded to yourself. You might as well have just posted in the Tar Pit for your inanity.

Are you bored? Lonely? Just felt that you needed to post so that people know that you are still around? What is your point? Oh, thats right, you never claimed to have one. My mistake.

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

[Ottava]

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

Funny, because I actually contribute to the Wikimedia system and you... oh, thats right, you make really piss poor posts and claim to moderate, when you really do nothing.

Wow.

Did you ever notice that I really don't care about someone as worthless as you? Do you really have anything to contribute? Really? Do you? Even your piss poor attempts at flames are pathetic and add nothing.

Who are you? Someone who got banned and whined a bit until the Poetlister idiots boosted you to moderate this site?

Does anyone even care who you are? You are just some nameless person who can't even make anything worth while here, let alone anywhere else.

So do bug off. You shown no understanding of the Moulton affair, and your commentary has very little to contribute besides "Look at me! OMG! I'm 13! I need attention". Seriously, child, why don't you go bugger off and harass other people?

What part of Agnosimnesia didn't you understand?

Its comments like that and your general attitude which will bury you deeper so that you aren't brought back on Wikiversity, Moulton. We have been very patient and spelled out clearly how you could have even got back onto Wikipedia, and you refused.

[GlassBeadGame]

My point is that Moulton, difficult as he is, has something to say, at least sometimes. I don't see that in you, ever. If you want a private conversation use a phone or something other than a forum. Did you notice the number of your own posts that end up in the tar pit?

Funny, because I actually contribute to the Wikimedia system and you... oh, thats right, you make really piss poor posts and claim to moderate, when you really do nothing.

Wow.

Did you ever notice that I really don't care about someone as worthless as you? Do you really have anything to contribute? Really? Do you? Even your piss poor attempts at flames are pathetic and add nothing.

Who are you? Someone who got banned and whined a bit until the Poetlister idiots boosted you to moderate this site?

Does anyone even care who you are? You are just some nameless person who can't even make anything worth while here, let alone anywhere else.

So do bug off. You shown no understanding of the Moulton affair, and your commentary has very little to contribute besides "Look at me! OMG! I'm 13! I need attention". Seriously, child, why don't you go bugger off and harass other people?

What part of Agnosimnesia didn't you understand?

Its comments like that and your general attitude which will bury you deeper so that you aren't brought back on Wikiversity, Moulton. We have been very patient and spelled out clearly how you could have even got back onto Wikipedia, and you refused.

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

[Ottava]

This is another Ottava shill attempt to move a lost argument out of public view by trying to throw it into the tar pit. Please leave this public for awhile.

I don't move posts into the tar pit. Its pathetic internet wannabes like you who mouth off and fail to contribute who move things to the tar pit. You attacked me, and you are too pathetic to be able to have an accurate retort.

You are pathetic. Go ahead, leave it up, try to make people think that you are some how amazing because you proclaimed such. No one here is your friend. No one here is friends with another. Why? Because you don't know how to treat people properly, let alone understand how systems work.

You are an anonymous idiot, and you think you are clever because you can make some assanine comment? I'm sure everyone is laughing it up, because we all know how amazing you are.

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be).

Or, perhaps people thinking that the internet is a magical fairy tale land with unicorns and the rest are just dreamers.

The internet is part of reality. All things are part of reality. Just because you wish it wasn't true as you hide behind a false name and attack others, doesn't mean that people haven't been doing exactly that for thousands of years.

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

It's been 15 centuries since Augustine first suspected there was a flaw in the system that Hammurabi first committed to stone some 3750 years ago this month.

Augustine didn't care about Hammurabi. Moulton, stop merging philosophers and thinkers with random political figures while ignoring what they actually believed in. The name dropping doesn't serve you, and is just another reason why you were unable to work with others.

[Milton Roe]

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways. Really bad breath and jaw pain is just the beginning. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Sure, perhaps our ancestors had many of our same emotions. But a lot less time to process them. And the kind and quality of knowledge can't be compared, since even I've had more time to read and think than all of my human ancestors, save (perhaps) a couple. Life for most humans was historically nasty, brutish and short. Most humans themselves were nasty, brutish and short. And if they managed to survive to puberty (odds bad) even sex for them was likely nasty, brutish, and short. I dunno about your life, Ottava, but mine's a considerable improvement over this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Nothing is actually new? There are some substances you need to try, mountains you need to climb, coral reefs you need to dive. And learn how to fly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Suggestion for you: the idea that there is a giant "modernist fallacy" is the darling of a bunch of clueless wine-sucking academics who've spent their whole lives pushing "classics" at a bunch of bored college sophomores, with this idea being the major justification for their sorry jobs. Sophomores who feel instinctively that the human condition actually has changed in a lot of important ways since the Greeks and Elizabethans, much less the neolithics--- and who are actually correct if they happen to live in the rich developed world, and have managed to duck the major wars and economic crises. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) But since the dang class is part of their gen-ed requirements, they can't get out of it and have to do a lot of pretending. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

"Why yes, professor, now I see that the "Savage" who quotes Shakespeare is actually morally superior to the shallow creatures in Brave New World... No wonder he is existentially driven to commit suicide. That would be just the thing to do..."

Nope, not buying it. Yeah, we still die at the end of it. But meanwhile, for an increasing number of us, that Bucket List is a completely different one. Have you jumped out of an airplane with a parachute, yet? Aldous Huxley tried LSD, but think he missed skydiving. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Ottava]

I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways.

If you are a Republican - Just look at the Democrats.
If you are a Democrat - Just look at the Republicans.
If you hate either - Ron Paul sucks you loser, get off the internet.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Moulton]

The fact is, there is no viable real-world analogy for the internet, and anyone who thinks there is is deluding himself (or herself, as the case may be).

Or, perhaps people thinking that the internet is a magical fairy tale land with unicorns and the rest are just dreamers.

I notice that recently, Wikiversity was visited by a Centaur (of attention), a Salmon (of doubt), and a Chihuhua (of vorpality). That sure sounds to me like FurryMuck or some other kind of fairy tale world inhabited by animal avatars.

The internet is part of reality. All things are part of reality. Just because you wish it wasn't true as you hide behind a false name and attack others, doesn't mean that people haven't been doing exactly that for thousands of years.

I don't see Somey as attacking others, or even wishing the Internet to be anything other than what it is.

One of the oldest fallacies is the modernist fallacy. In short, its the modern world thinking that they are special and unique compared to the rest of history. History repeats, humans stay the same, and nothing is actually new.

The oldest fallacy is the one committed by Adam and Eve, when they committed the fallacy of dividing things into two binary categories variously named Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Lawful and Unlawful. Replacing a continuum with two binary categories is a lamentable mathematical error.

It's been 15 centuries since Augustine first suspected there was a flaw in the system that Hammurabi first committed to stone some 3750 years ago this month.

Augustine didn't care about Hammurabi. Moulton, stop merging philosophers and thinkers with random political figures while ignoring what they actually believed in. The name dropping doesn't serve you, and is just another reason why you were unable to work with others.

The error that Augustine cared about was the same error tht Hammurabi reified when he cast his particular collection of laws in stone.

By the way, Hammurabi's first law is one that Jimbo should review:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

Protocols are not just for silicon-based information processing entities. Protein-based information processors can use them, too. An entity doesn't have to be silicon-based to be functional.

... is not one of the Harry Potter Furries Furies who is a respondent at ArbCom.

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

"Furry" is a reference to FurryMuck, a popular online virtual community of the 1990s where everyone adopted an animal avatar (something like Cats).

Has Moulton, who you castigate and nanny about behaving himself on your worthless WMF project, done posting anything as offensive, disrespectful and disruptive as your last two posts directed at me? Of course not. He has only called real people by real names and not conformed to your minor rules. Thank you for the object lesson on hypocrisy.

If you actually read the posts, then yes, he has made some really nasty attacks against people, on and off Wikiversity.

And I have far nastier things to say to you. You started the attacks, and I am not one to let such an opportunity go.

Opportunity for what? Opportunity to engage in the Game of Narcissistic Wounding?

Wonderful; more cheap shots (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) . The only users I can think of whose names are Harry Potter references are a not-very-active-anymore administrator called "Lord Voldemort", and of course Grawp. And it's not clear how the term "furry" is relevant to either.

Introducing the world furry would probably be an evolution along Moulton's claim that there are Po Mo theater productions. A furry would be pretending to be a certain individual. I think Moulton wishes such a thing to be a case, as he has many alternate personas, such as Barsoom and Clarice that he loves to bring out.

Not 'Clarice', but Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel.

The Internet is rife with Post-Modern Pre-Apocalyptic Theaters of the Absurd. It's not a new genre. Comic Opera dates back a few centuries, at least.

[Sxeptomaniac]

TCP/IP is a highly functional (and peaceable) protocol, unlike the highly dysfunctional rules of engagement that Homo Schleppians have been using since the dawn of civilization.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you confusing computers with people? Last I checked, the consensus is that computers and people are still two very different things, and communication protocols for computers are not the same as human language and communication, nor are they ever likely to be, outside of special applications.

Protocols are not just for silicon-based information processing entities. Protein-based information processors can use them, too. An entity doesn't have to be silicon-based to be functional.

OK. You didn't actually dispute anything I said. Yes, humans and computers both have protocols, but an internet protocol is very different from a human one. They serve very different purposes, and to suggest that TCP/IP is somehow applicable to human communication tells me you don't understand people, computers, or both at a fundamental level.