alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (01/15/88)
In article <1606@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) writes: >In article <2832@killer.UUCP> alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: >}Well get this: the *engineer* of the train (and I believe the asst. >}engineer) are suing this legless protestor. They allege that the >}incident has caused them undue mental anguish! >Allen, I don't believe you. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not. The story was run on KRLD 1080 A.M., in Dallas. I had to call the newsroom to verify the story myself! Before making statements like that, why don't you bother to check it out. >Never believe *anything* posted from killer-- You know, Greg, it is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt :-) :-) :-) -- Allen Gwinn / email: {ihnp4!decvax!killer}!sulaco!allen \ USPS: P.O. Box 740444, Dallas, TX 75374-0444
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/15/88)
In article <2863@killer.UUCP> allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: }In article <1606@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) writes: }>In article <2832@killer.UUCP> alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: }>}Well get this: the *engineer* of the train (and I believe the asst. }>}engineer) are suing this legless protestor. They allege that the }>}incident has caused them undue mental anguish! } }>Allen, I don't believe you. } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ }I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not. The story was }run on KRLD 1080 A.M., in Dallas. I had to call the newsroom to verify the }story myself! Before making statements like that, why don't you bother }to check it out. } }>Never believe *anything* posted from killer-- } }You know, Greg, it is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your }mouth and remove all doubt :-) :-) :-) Allen, if you add talk.bizarre to your Newsgroups line, never having read talk.bizarre but thinking, "Gee, this *sounds* bizarre" than you get what you pay for. In talk.bizarre protocol, my posting was less a flame than a simple way of saying "hi, interesting news, welcome to t.b." But youhad to post this little snippet to every group under the sun, and now you're miffed because someone who only reads one of those groups followed it up in the style appropriate to that group. Serves you right. To tell you the truth, I don't care whether I believe you or not either. -- ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) (01/16/88)
In article <2863@killer.UUCP>, alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not. The story was > run on KRLD 1080 A.M., in Dallas. I had to call the newsroom to verify the > story myself! Before making statements like that, why don't you bother > to check it out. Allen, You are absolutely right. The article appeared this week (1-11 1-15) in The Contra Costa Times. Whether right wrong or indifferent, their side of the story is interesting. -- Steve Frye Relational Technology ptsfa!rtech!stevef 1080 Marina Village Parkway Alameda, Ca. 94501 "No matter where we are standing, the wind always blows right at us". MGW
nj@ndmath.UUCP (nj @ a loss) (01/17/88)
In article <2863@killer.UUCP>, alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > In article <1606@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) writes: > >Allen, I don't believe you. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not. > > >Never believe *anything* posted from killer-- > > You know, Greg, it is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your > mouth and remove all doubt :-) :-) :-) Allen, I can believe you believe Greg is a fool, but I can't believe you believe Greg doesn't believe you. I don't believe you. Can you believe that? nj master of suspension of disbelief
kyl@homxb.UUCP (Cindy Parker) (01/18/88)
In article <638@ndmath.UUCP>, nj@ndmath.UUCP (nj @ a loss) writes: > In article <2863@killer.UUCP>, alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > > In article <1606@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) writes: > > >Allen, I don't believe you. > > I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not. > > >Never believe *anything* posted from killer-- > > You know, Greg, it is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your > > mouth and remove all doubt :-) :-) :-) > Allen, I can believe you believe Greg is a fool, but I can't believe you > believe Greg doesn't believe you. > I don't believe you. Can you believe that? > nj Ya, you tell him nj. I believe and support your beliefs on Allen! And Allen, I don't belive that you couldn't care less about what greg believes. Cindy
alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (01/22/88)
In article <11762@sri-unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.sri.com (Valerie Maslak) writes: >Well, here we go again... > >Here's how I look at it. No way would I have driven a train >down a track when I knew there were likely to be people sitting on >it. > >The Navy, and the engineers of the train, make me ill. > >Wilson was noble enough not to sue the Navy, as I understand it. >The fact that the engineers are doing this is despicable. ...but Valerie is not the only one! She was kind enough to say what the opponents to the train engineer's revenge have been driveling about for some time. The fact is, there was this poor guy named Brian Willson (sp?) who decided that there was this "higher law" that he subscribed to. This "higher law" called him to sit on some railroad tracks (and others to trespass with the intent to disrupt) to protest movement of nuclear (and other) arms he may have felt was possibly for distribution to the contras. Well, lets look at this... Brian was trespassing... he was sitting on a railroad track that he *knew* was to be used by a train, right! He knew this was a dangerous place to sit and *whether or not* the train was ordered to stop, go or whatever. THE TRAIN HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THOSE TRACKS... *legally*. Whether or not you feel that they had the right of way *morally* depends on whether you subscribe to the same "higher law" that Brian did or not. There is substantial evidence that there are people on both sides. Valerie says she wouldn't have driven down the tracks if she knew that there were going to be protestors there. But, Valerie, what business did the pro- testors have being there? As you will recall, there have been times in the past when Concord protestors have actually climbed on board the trains and attempted to remove/destroy (or something) items on board the train. Well, Valerie, I happened to have paid for some of that stuff with my tax money and don't agree with some idiot who wants to take the law into his own hands to destroy it without due process [what do you think about that :-)]. So if the order had been to not stop for anyone/anything, perhaps it was to protect goods and insure uninterrupted progress. As for running over Brian... I admit, as much as I feel what he did was stupid, I feel sorry for the guy. I think it was tragic that the accident occurred. If I had been the engineer, I'd feel horrible. By the same token, though, I am a strong subscriber to the theory that one should take the consequences for one's actions. Now maybe Brian will use this opportunity to sue everyone/everything in sight... or maybe he will use this tragedy as a learning tool to figure out if there are better ways to enforce this "higher law" he subscribes to. As for the politics involved... I am quite conservative politically (as if you couldn't have guessed). The easiest tendency for anyone with strong political beliefs is to close his/her mind to other's views. Try asking someone who's views you feel you don't agree with, sometime. "What do you think is wrong with this country/world?..." If that someone is extremely liberal, you will probably get "too many starving people", or "too much violence", or "too many bombs". Then ask yourself if you saw a starving person and you had some food in your hands, what would you do? How about if there were a way to rid the world of bombs or violence... would you object? I hope not :-) . I guess the thing that really separates the conservative from the liberal is the means and the priorities, rather than the end results. Brian probably felt that what he did was a means for accomplishing his end result (or at least getting on down the road [no pun intended :-)]). He probably truly felt that he could make a difference in a world where a difference was needed. If Brian had been on a committee that had ordered the destruction of those arms based on a 100% mutually verifyable signed treaty (with an honorable party), would he have been such a bad guy? So... his means showed evidence of short-sightedness, maybe even a little malice. He is, though, entitled to his own opinions. The question that needs to be asked (regardless of how you feel on the issue) is that just because you have an opinion, does this give you the right to express it any way you want? Valerie, if I don't like the color car you are driving, may I walk into your garage and destroy it? Barry, if I don't agree with your postings, may I remove your access from Usenet? Don't my rights stop where your rights start? Don't Brians? Please think about it... -- Allen Gwinn / email: {ihnp4!decvax!killer}!sulaco!allen \ USPS: P.O. Box 740444, Dallas, TX 75374-0444
gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (01/24/88)
In article <354@genghis.UUCP> sns@genghis.UUCP (Sam Southard) writes: >A martyr must have an ideal he was being sacrificed for. The other people you >mentioned were sacrificed for their views on justice. Wilson was sacrificed >for his ignorance of physics. Can someone explain to me why so many of the hate-Willson postings reek of this kind of profound ignorance and stupidity? Obviously this Sam Southard is a spamhead, but it is usually assumed something which passes for a brain is a requirement for a school like Cal Tech. I can only conclude that it somehow makes people like Sam feel better to believe, contrary to any logic or evidence, that Willson thought he could stop a train with his legs. But *why*? Does Willson make these people feel morally insecure, or what? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (01/25/88)
In article <8801241321.AA05248@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > Can someone explain to me why so many of the hate-Willson >postings reek of this kind of profound ignorance and stupidity? Perhaps it's because you're looking at it through a warped filter in which anyone who feels strongly enough about something to sacrifice his legs to is a martyr. >Obviously this Sam Southard is a spamhead, but it is usually >assumed something which passes for a brain is a requirement for a >school like Cal Tech. I don't think his school has anything to do with what he posted. ``I thought that a faded blue jean jacket with a peace symbol and pot leaves were a requirement for a school like Berkeley.'' Your conclusion may be obvious to someone with a mentality and outlook like your own. However, we don't all feel that way. Surely you can realize this. >I can only conclude that it somehow makes >people like Sam feel better to believe, contrary to any logic or >evidence, that Willson thought he could stop a train with his >legs. No. It's an attempt to dish back some of your *own* stupidity and lack of accurateness in drawing out analogies. >But *why*? Does Willson make these people feel morally >insecure, or what? No - not for me. I don't even know why Willson stuck his legs in front of the train. All I can assume is that he did it for some cause he believed in strong enough to lose his legs for. However, I got extremely irate when he decided to sue the people running the train. He knew what the consequences were and yet, was so much of a wimp that he didn't want to pay the price. What a dope. If he thought that sacrificing his legs would help the cause he believed in (something I would have to disagree with), what's his bitch? Perhaps he's like most revolutionaries whose main cause is to raise controversy. Even if it is on the wrong track (ouch! No pun intended). We are losing track of what principles he donated his legs for. It seems to me that he believes more in being a celebrity than in what he was fighting for. It's sad to see a revolutionary become a victim of fame. -MikeP
gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (01/25/88)
In article <8692@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: >In article <8801241321.AA05248@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >> Can someone explain to me why so many of the hate-Willson >>postings reek of this kind of profound ignorance and stupidity? >Perhaps it's because you're looking at it through a warped filter >in which anyone who feels strongly enough about something to >sacrifice his legs to is a martyr. Make a special effort and try to grasp the point, OK? The peculiar idiocy to which I referred had nothing to do with who was or was not a martyr. It had to do with repeated bonehead contentions such as the notion that Willson was unaware that trains are bigger than he is, and might be difficult to stop by muscle alone. >>Obviously this Sam Southard is a spamhead, but it is usually >>assumed something which passes for a brain is a requirement for a >>school like Cal Tech. >I don't think his school has anything to do with what he posted. You're wrong, I suspect. One kind of spamhead is the kind who thinks he is smart because he can push buttons on a calculator and took a little calculus in high school, where he almost understood it. Hence, I suspect, the "ignorance of the laws of physics" nonsense. >Your conclusion may be obvious to someone with a mentality and >outlook like your own. Which conclusion? >>I can only conclude that it somehow makes >>people like Sam feel better to believe, contrary to any logic or >>evidence, that Willson thought he could stop a train with his >>legs. >No. It's an attempt to dish back some of your *own* stupidity and >lack of accurateness in drawing out analogies. What analogies? >>But *why*? Does Willson make these people feel morally >>insecure, or what? >No - not for me. I don't even know why Willson stuck his legs in front >of the train. "Stuck his legs in front of the train". Is this what you mean by lack of accuracy in analogies, or is it only analogous to a stupid analogy? In other words, duh? >All I can assume is that he did it for some cause he >believed in strong enough to lose his legs for. Your belief, I take it, is that far from being ignorant of the laws of physics, Willson wanted to cut his legs off. Any evidence to support this moronic opinion? >However, I got extremely >irate when he decided to sue the people running the train. This whole business started over the people running the train suing Willson, if you'll recall. >It seems to >me that he believes more in being a celebrity than in what he was >fighting for. It's sad to see a revolutionary become a victim of >fame. Where did this come from? Do you make this stuff up, or do people tell you this, or what? What is your evidence for this, in other words? ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible" Erik E. Fair
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/26/88)
In article <3017@killer.UUCP> allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: >Well, >Valerie, I happened to have paid for some of that stuff with my tax money >and don't agree with some idiot who wants to take the law into his own hands >to destroy it without due process [what do you think about that :-)]. This is an important point. Those who oppose the money being spent on this issue should be permitted to file as objectors and get a refund of that portion of their tax dollars that would be used for it. The same would apply to social security, etc. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (01/26/88)
In article <8801251537.AA01904@wheatena> wheatena!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >In article <8692@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (I) wrote: >>However, I got extremely >>irate when he decided to sue the people running the train. > > This whole business started over the people running the train >suing Willson, if you'll recall. Hold on! I was under the impression that Willson sued the engineers, first. Now, if I'm mistaken (quite possibly) then I apologize. It is pretty bogus that the engineers are suing Willson. Now, if they are doing it as a counter-suit to Willson's suit, then I don't find anything wrong in their trying to defend their case. A counter- suit is an often used device for this. Let me reiterate: If out of the clear blue, the engineers are suing Willson, they're wrong, in my opinion. >>It seems to >>me that he believes more in being a celebrity than in what he was >>fighting for. It's sad to see a revolutionary become a victim of >>fame. > > Where did this come from? Do you make this stuff up, or do >people tell you this, or what? What is your evidence for this, in >other words? I've come to this conclusion on the assumption that Willson first tried to sue the engineers. I've heard that was the case a couple months ago. If I am wrong, then I guess I have no basis for this conclusion. If I am indeed wrong, please, tell me. >ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 -MikeP
stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) (01/27/88)
It's kind interesting. Mr. Wilson is now in Washington protesting. He has decided to go on a hunger strike. His choice. Who will he sue this time if he doesn't get his way and ends up very ill - or dead? Whose fault will it be this time? When do we start assuming responsibilities for our own actions and quit trying to always blame someone else? This discussion has gone on, and on, and on. Everyone trying to place the blame on soemone else. Blame the Navy, blame Wilson, blame the engineers. Let's get with it. They are ALL at fault. Each and every one of them - jointly and severally - could have prevented the tragedy. Regardless of the noble reasons for the protest, regardless of who was called and who was not, regardless of who was right and who was wrong (very subjective), the incident could have been prevented. Anyone involved could have caused the accident to be avoided. We have seen dozens of articles condemning the engineer for not stopping. We have seen dozens of articles condemning the Navy for ordering the train to move. We have seen dozens of articles condemning Wilson for not getting off the track. AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS RIGHT. If any one of those things had been done differently, Brian W. would still have his legs. Let's let everyone involved assume responsibility for her/his own actions. They are all adult. They are able to do that. Of course, not blaming someone else just doesn't get the publicity. -- Steve Frye Relational Technology ptsfa!rtech!stevef 1080 Marina Village Parkway Alameda, Ca. 94501 "No matter where we are standing, the wind always blows right at us". MGW
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (01/27/88)
In article <8801251537.AA01904@wheatena> wheatena!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >... contentions such as the notion that Willson was unaware that >trains are bigger than he is, and might be difficult to stop by >muscle alone. I think the notion implied was that Wilson was unaware that several thousand tons of train moving at 16 mph couldn't stop in time to miss him, not that he thought he could stop it with muscle power. I expect he knows better, now. Question: Why didn't his fellow demonstrators, who did have the sense to clear the track, forcibly drag him out of the way? -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe
alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (01/28/88)
In article <1641@rtech.UUCP> stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) writes: > >It's kind interesting. Mr. Wilson is now in Washington protesting. He has >decided to go on a hunger strike. His choice. Who will he sue this time if >he doesn't get his way and ends up very ill - or dead? ^^^^ *That* would certainly put an end to *all* the lawsuits on *everybody's* side! Sorry... just an observation, couldn't resist :-) :-) :-) -- Allen Gwinn / email: {ihnp4!decvax!killer}!sulaco!allen \ USPS: P.O. Box 740444, Dallas, TX 75374-0444
mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu (Kevin J. Mayville) (01/28/88)
In article <8801241321.AA05248@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >In article <354@genghis.UUCP> sns@genghis.UUCP (Sam Southard) writes: > >>A martyr must have an ideal he was being sacrificed for. The other people you >>mentioned were sacrificed for their views on justice. Wilson was sacrificed >>for his ignorance of physics. > > Can someone explain to me why so many of the hate-Willson >postings reek of this kind of profound ignorance and stupidity? Perhaps because the posters think that what Willson did was profoundly ignorant and stupid?? >Obviously this Sam Southard is a spamhead, but it is usually >assumed something which passes for a brain is a requirement for a >school like Cal Tech. Well, Sam is only occasionally a spamhead. However, brains are only nominally required to get in here, and common sense is almost forbidden. I can only conclude that it somehow makes >people like Sam feel better to believe, contrary to any logic or >evidence, that Willson thought he could stop a train with his >legs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what he tried to do?? He put his legs on the track in order to stop a train, didn't he?? Granted, this is a rather twisted view of the event, but I'm willing to stretch in order to poke fun at mindless drivel like this.... But *why*? Does Willson make these people feel morally >insecure, or what? I personally do not know many details of what happened, but I think that Brian Willson should immediately be pronounced an honorary vice-president of DENSA, for pulling one of the most idiotic stunts I've ever heard of. If he did not announce considerably in advance that he was planning on lying down on the track with some friends, then he's crazy. Granted, he and the others would have been arrested as soon as they got near the tracks, and the train would have gone through, but Willson and his cause would have gotten lots of free publicity. I am appalled by the fact that he could have a possibility even of receiving compensation from anyone else. The only person I could imagine him getting an award from would be the engineer of the train, and only then if it could be shown that he didn't try to stop the train before hitting Brian. >ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 > Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet > And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet. Kevin mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu Heavy, adj: Seduced by the chocolate side of the Force.
davel@pixar.UUCP (David Longerbeam) (01/29/88)
In article <1641@rtech.UUCP>, stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) writes: > > It's kind interesting. Mr. Wilson is now in Washington protesting. He has > decided to go on a hunger strike. His choice. Who will he sue this time if > he doesn't get his way and ends up very ill - or dead? > > Steve Frye Relational Technology Excuse me, but I have not heard ANY news of any law suit brought by Brian Willson against the naval base or the train operators, nor of any such suit brought on in his behalf. In fact, the only thing I have heard that Mr. Willson has said about the train operators is that he has forgiven them. Am I missing something?! Assuming I am not, then what's all this speculative talk about Brian Willson suing anyone? My understanding of Mr. Willson's actions and intent is that he is not trying to make enemies or get into blaming or dehumanizing those with whom he disagrees. On the contrary, he seems to be following the tenets of non-violent resistance espoused by Mahatma Gandhi -- namely, that one must not act out of hatred, nor dehumanize the opposition, and that one may choose to call attention to the seriousness and danger of wrongs in the world by risking one's own life in protest. Yes, the decision to risk one's own life is ONE'S OWN!!! Now, can we cut this petty and childish blaming?! -- David Longerbeam || Any opinions expressed are Pixar || those of the author and not San Rafael, CA || necessarily of Pixar. ucbvax!pixar!davel
pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/30/88)
In the referenced message, mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Kevin J. Mayville) wrote: }If he did not announce considerably in advance that he was planning on }lying down on the track with some friends, then he's crazy. But he did announce it in advance. As you would know if you had read even one newspaper article on the subject. Hey, I've got an idea: since you don't know what you are talking about, why don't you shut up? --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa ...well!pokey "If I had known the microphone was on, I would not have taken the Lord's name in vain." -- George Bush
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (01/30/88)
In article <5099@well.UUCP>, pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes: > In the referenced message, mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Kevin J. Mayville) wrote: > }If he did not announce considerably in advance that he was planning on > }lying down on the track with some friends, then he's crazy. > > But he did announce it in advance. As you would know if you had read > even one newspaper article on the subject. Hey, I've got an idea: since > you don't know what you are talking about, why don't you shut up? > --- > Jef OK. This is perhaps an extreme example of having missed a basic element of the story, Jef, but need you have said anything beyond what you said in your first sentence which set things straight? Are we to limit this discussion to those who can claim support from trendy bibliographies of 1000's of pages? To those who have friends, relatives, or pets who were crushed by streetcars in the streets of Managua? These "experts" still make their share of factual mistakes, but it's unfair to tell them to shut up. Issue a correction. If you tell them to shut up, just don't ever make a factual error yourself. amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu PS: Also note the conditional phrasing of the offending text.