weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (10/18/88)
[I'm directing followups to news.misc. I don't know if it's the best
choice, but it'll do. This isn't a flame against anyone on USENET.]
Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}. I thought it
was a rather nice article, answering (perhaps) someone's questions about
what Stephen Hawking was saying about black holes and quantum mechanics
and God in some news article.
Recently, a friend on Usenet informed me that this very article was pub-
lished in THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY JOURNAL #2 (Feb-Apr 88), and he mailed
me a photocopy of this issue. I got it this afternoon, and I was totally
flabbergasted.
This journal is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a
group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another
about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in-
telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general
United States population."
AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work-
ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say). And there I am,
with a Macintosh picture of Einstein and a giant quotation to help the
reader along, sandwiched between Cincinnatus Society Pinhead #1 babbling
about IQ and intelligence and Cincinnatus Society Pinhead #2, babbling
about IQ and women, with *ABSOLUTELY* *NO* *INDICATION* that this article
and its author have *ABSOLUTELY* *NO* *CONNECTION* with their Pinhead
Society of Mutual Admiration, other than someone downloaded the article
to their BBS. (The number is (818) 985-4123, "courtesy of Mr Richard
A Weatherwax" in case someone wants to check these high-IQ morons out.)
So my questions are: what can or might I do? The very idea that I would
be associated with one of these societies, especially one whose members
"choose to communicate amicably", is so goddam fucking repulsive that I
cannot find any words to truly express my disgust. Nor do I have any
idea of what control I might hold over my articles once I've posted them.
For all I know, Pinheads #1,2's articles might also have been stolen; I
notice though that I was the only contributor without a street address.
It did mention "Berkeley CA": this is precisely what they could figure
out from my signature.
To give an example of how pinheaded this society is, let me quote a
few excerpts from the "Society News" column:
When we have a somewhat more conventional organization,
we can think about higher things, such as, for example,
the unification of the various High-IQ groups...
In any event, the Cincinnatus Society will have a key
leadership role in reforming the various Hi-IQ Societies'
Constitutions and in demonstrating a higher standard of
editing and appearance in their publications. To that
end, I've donated a letter-quality daisy wheel printer
to Mr Patrick Hill, Editor of Prometheus, ...
BARF! And guess what book was reviewed this issue (in the space of
two short paragraphs)? THE NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF WORLD MASTERPIECES.
Pretty goddam intellectual, aren't they? And they've got a list of
*vocabulary* words--56 this issue out of nearly a thousand that they
threaten to cover. Gol-lee. Obscure stuff like "farcical, laity,
sloe-eyed, vitiate, debauch, aggregate, digress, libretto, twit,
disconcert". We're talking pinhead-profound.
All quotations are Copyright (C) 1987 by the Cincinnatus Society, and
are reprinted without any permission. Up their collective arses.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THESE PINHEADS REALLY EXIST, AND REALLY PUBLISHED
MY ARTICLE WITH NO INDICATION THAT THEY JUST PICKED IT SOMEWHERE OUT
OF THE AETHER, AND I AM READY TO VOMIT.
ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) (10/20/88)
In article <1120.3.1248.1 The Cincinnatus Society of Pinheads> <10/18/88 00:52 weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)> Matthew P Wiener warns us about: THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? In any case, Matthew writes: > THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY JOURNAL > ... is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a > group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another > about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in- ^^^^^^^^ > telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general > United States population." Seems the stats are not completely in on this one yet, but the general con- sensus seems to be that a high I.Q. is not something that someone can *achieve* -- in the sense that they have worked at it -- but can only be said to *attain*, i.e., yes they have gotten there, but, rather than by dint of effort, they have done so by the random throw of the dice of heridity and genetics. In other words, it's a quality one is born with, like one's height or hair color. But I digress... Matthew further quotes this publication: > When we have a somewhat more conventional organization, > we can think about higher things, such as, for example, > the unification of the various High-IQ groups... > > In any event, the Cincinnatus Society will have a key > leadership role in reforming the various Hi-IQ Societies' > Constitutions ... Yikes! Sounds like these folks are interested in more than "communicating amicably": sounds like they are looking to TAKE OVER! And RULE! ~~~~Shudder~~~~! Shades of the Forbin Project! But! The quote continues: > ... and in demonstrating a higher standard of > editing and appearance in their publications. To that > end, I've donated a letter-quality daisy wheel printer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to Mr Patrick Hill, Editor of Prometheus, ... Whew! Sounds like they are still a long ways away from building Collossus! But if these people are harmless, it isn't by intention... > All quotations are Copyright (C) 1987 by the Cincinnatus Society, and > are reprinted without any permission. Up their collective arses. > > ..... > > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I have no intention of paying long-distance charges to amuse myself with the drivel on their BBS. I was thinking about asking where a member of the laity could get hold of this farcical publication -- I can always use a good laugh -- but the seriousness of their pretentiousness would probably vitiate their funniness... Perhaps I might spend some time concocting a scheme to disconcert this aggregation of twits, but I'd rather debauch myself with some sloe-eyed damsel. Or some sloe gin, for that matter... Oops! I left out "libretto"! David ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ === Mister Systems === | Imray Klaatu Na'Arawak: David L Paktor | Macro provaal barada, l'upden sol impiclit. | Ya vo taray axel Paktor@cup.Portal.com | b'gletio barengi degas... | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) (10/21/88)
In article <10206@cup.portal.com>, Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) writes: > Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't > Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of > elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? This is not a flame: Mr. Paktor has stated that his recollection is vague, and I respect that. I merely wish to defend the good name of Cincinnatus. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519? - ?439 BC) was a Roman citizen-soldier "famed for the simplicity and austerity of his ways" (trans. from Nouveau Petit Larousse, 1972). The Senate twice took the extraordinary step of making him dictator, risking the Republic to save Rome from dire military threats. Both times, he resigned the office after discharging his duty, returning to his farm (The American Peoples Encyclopedia, 1962). Legend has it that he was offered the kingship and, a true republican, declined it. George Washington is said to have taken inspiration from Cincinnatus in arguing that the United States should become a republic, not a kingdom. Perhaps Mr. Paktor is thinking of Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a ruthless general of the late Republic, killed in a mutiny of his own men in 84 BC. Had he lived a year longer, he would have been the father-in-law of Julius Caesar. Disclaimers: I am speaking only for myself, and take full responsibility for the views I have expressed. The translation from the French is mine, as is any of defect of it. -- Doug Harper Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu ARPA 301A Harris B. Dates Drive | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper UUCP Ithaca, NY 14850-3051 | (607) 277-2020 extension 276
mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) (10/22/88)
In article <10206@cup.portal.com> Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) writes: > >Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't > Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of > elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? > Cincinnattus was a model of Roman virtue and humility. In the republic, the excutive was split between two consuls. However, in time of war, a single executive with !temporary! extraordinary powers could be appointed, called the dictator (unlike current holders of the term, they were historically virtuous men). Cincinnatus was appointed dictator. After winning his war, the people were so pleased with his rule that they insisted he remain. Instead, the humble Cincinnatus asked only a small boon from the people, as much land to farm as he could plow around in a single day. Far from an elitist, I would say. Dan Mercer NCR Comten