virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #266

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:23:36 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:18:40 -0500
>From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
>Subject: Re: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause

>>>>I'm still struggling with server problems. I'm trying
>>>>to catch up in reverse direction...
>>>What does your prostitute and your boss say? Just commit suicide and let
>>>them make decisions in your name and you will have the answers they keep
>>>coming up with.
>>I'm sorry, I didn't understand your response. Could you elaborate, please?

>I interpreted "trying to catch up in reverse direction" as also implying
>"trying to catch up *with the group concensus concerning list owners and
>women*" and "in reverse direction" as applicable to the thought process
>which leads one to over-react to comments toward women and list owners--that
>is a backward sort of reasoning which overlooks the content of the post and
>instead focuses on any idea which seems to question the established
>authority or feminine sexual availability.

That's very interesting. Actually, I meant I was in the process of reading
the posts off the CoV archive in reverse order in order to get some idea
of what I missed. I don't think I had your interpretation in mind when
I made that statement an on reflection I still don't, but I can see how
it might not have been clear.

>My comment "What does your prostitute and your boss say?" suggests how one
>might arrive at this over-reaction--implying that one must never think for
>oneself but that one should check with those in power before making a
>decision...putting FIRST the needs of the boss and the prostitute. My other
>comment about "committing suicide" was a reference (and a loose one, I'm
>sorry) to the idea that someone who sells out to socially approved
>thinking--only what those in power allow--might as well commit suicide as
>they have no internal self with which to think.

I agree that one needs to be self-determined. Could you tell me what in
the previous message led you to believe that I did not?

>I think I took great liberties with your comment about "server" problems
>(could "server" imply a subconscious desire to serve the boss or be served
>by the prostitute?). But the comment seemed appropriate to the perspective
>of the thread if not to your own conscious use of the term "server problems".

Do you mean to say you are intentionally misinterpreting me as a sort of
object lesson? Does that raise any ethical dillemas? I was refering to the
Silicon Graphics Indigo "ascat" that my e-mail gets sent to, and which crashed
last week, when I said "server".


Reed Konsler