Subj: Traveller-digest V1999 #1291
Date: 11/1/99 3:50:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Reply-to: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Traveller-digest Monday, November 1 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 1291
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.
The following topics are covered in this digest:
Re: Re Imperial Known Space
Re: [OT] One Day In Peace 2
Re: A Day of Peace
Re: A Day of Peace
Re: A Day of Peace
Re: A Day of Peace
UFO contact illegal?
Re: Niven Books
Re: UFO contact illegal?
Re: UFO contact illegal?
Re: Idea for honouring J. Andrew Keith
Re: Website revamped and Deckplans up
Re: Taxation (off topic then back on topic)
Re: [OT] One Day In Peace
Re: A Day of Peace
Re: A Day of Peace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:40:25 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson
Subject: Re: Re Imperial Known Space
Hmmmm....I wonder what _else_ is in the Library data files that didn't
make it into Imperial Encyclopedia...
_more_ oop CT stuff I gotta find. Marc's reprints are going to be
very welcome...when were those coming out?
Hmmm...there was a grayscale map I saw a loooonngg time ago, posted on the
old home of the Traveller Chronicle...was _that_ the map you're talking
about?
there are copies of that at:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bjohnson/images/Sectmap.jpg
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bjohnson/images/Sectmap2.jpg
I was under the impression that this stuff was non-canon...just cool.
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Chris Seamans wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Johnson
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re Imperial Known Space
>
>
> >Which of the Library data books was this in? Also, where did you get the
> >wall size version??
>
>
> The smaller one is in both of my Library Data volumes. The wall-sized one
> was a promo item, I think, and Marc gave out a number of them some time ago
> to interested parties.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:56:21 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: [OT] One Day In Peace 2
>I have never heard of the five minutes rule; however, I do know that getting
>in someone's face and screaming is legally considered assault-- I was told
>this when my lawyer advised me to take a restraining order out against
>someone and I said, "but they've never hit me" and he said "They don't have
>to!"
In Canada, a picket line must be moving, and it may not obstruct people for
more than five minutes. The usual laws regarding assault still apply (to
both picketers and line-crossers).
>I do not actually think that picketers should be allowed to obstruct people
>physically because it comes too close to behavior that borders on assault
>and I prefer there to be less of a gray area.
Depends on how you define "obstruct", doesn't it? If you say "move" and I
am s---l---o---w---l---y moving, am I obstructing you? What if I'm moving,
but the chap behind me is following so close that you can't slip between us
(and so on)? If you push through, are _you_ assaulting _us_? (After all,
we're just walking around the block.) That's why Canadian law defines a
legal limit (for the whole line, not per protester): anything longer than
five minutes _is_ obstructing, and grounds for having the line shut down.
I think it's a reasonable compromise, because I can't think of very many
cases where someone whould absolutely need to cross a line in less than
five minutes, and these can be handled by simple negotiation. ("Look, I'm a
doctor and there's someone with a heart attack in there" qualifies; "Look,
I'm a lawyer and I have to make a phone call" doesn't.) There are lines
where this doesn't work, and there are legal methods for shutting those
lines down.
>I may not think that they are Nazis but as Cynthia said, there are lots of
>ways to convey a message to such a degree that no one will ever want to hear
>it.
Yup. But I find it ironic that exercising my legal and democratic right
should somehow make me a Nazi. According to this woman, we went to war so
that people would follow their leaders! (I wonder who she thinks won,
anyway.)
>ObTrav: I wonder about different protesting styles in the cultures of the
>Third Imperium. How do the Vilani protest ANYTHING? Do the Vargr and the
>Aslan even have demonstrations? Do the K'Kree throw paint on old ladies in
>furs?
Vilani? No idea, but if they do all the permits are in order. A question
for the TravCulture list, I think.
Vargr? Yes, definately. Part of a leader's charisma is how big a crowd
follows you.
Aslan? Probably not. Individual Aslan will act as their honour dictates,
including challenges to _personal_ duels. (One reason we have mass
demonstrations is that the ordinary person feels a need to group together
against the massed force of the opposition. If your average British Green
protester could challenge the chairman of Monsanto, it wouldn't take long
before Monsanto listened to local opinion.)
K'kree? Paint? Stomp them into the ground. (Parenthetically, the first
time I see an animal rights type throw paint on the leather jacket of a
biker, because they oppose killing animals for clothing, I'll conceed that
they are serious about their beliefs.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:12:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:10:58 -0500
> From: Juliean Galak
>
> Many believe that humans have an intrinsic need for an outlet for
> violent emotions. By releasing such emotions through violent but
> non-destructive ways may it may be possible reduce the actual
> destructive violence. One interesting theory is that exposure to
> representations of violence (art, music, movies, etc.) may be a
> sufficient outlet for these emotions. Following this theory, in order
> to limit violence, this "Day of Peace" should encourage people to watch
> the most violent possible movies instead of actually hurting other
> people.
A case in point: I work in a very high-pressure software company (is that
redundant?), in which members of different groups often have grossly
different and frequently conflicting priorities, just due to how quickly
things change and management's inability to keep things coordinated. As a
result, despite everyone doing their best, tensions and resentments can
run very high.
So, several evenings a week, we all play Quake for a couple of hours.
Firing a salvo of rockets at fleeing members of the Marketing team has
calmed my nerves and soothed my anger many, many times. It's hard to say
from obviously anecdotal evidence, but I think our Quaking has helped
significantly in making our company work better, and the people in it
happier with themselves and each other.
It's hard for me to reconcile this with the view that violent video games
(and movies, and so forth) cause real violence. I think it's more the
opposite. After all, movies have never been bloodier, and ultra-violent
and realistic immersive games are new this decade, but violent crime in
America continues a precipitous multiyear decline. And as others have
mentioned, in Japan, where the content is even more horrific, the society
is less violent.
My take on the whole affair is that we are suffering from yet another side
effect of the all-seeing media eye. These days, when a few whacked-out
kids shoot up their schools, all the world knows about every detail,
instantly, exhaustively, for weeks. There's no escaping the story, and
the impression "kids are shooting up our schools" gets into the collective
psyche despite the fact that 99.99999% of our kids are in fact *not*
shooting up our schools. A hundred years ago, there were mass murders in
rural America that make for stomach-churning reading, but few people knew
about them, and *nobody* outside the legal system knew as much about them
as we all would if they happened today.
> This is not meant to be a flame. I am simply trying to point out that such
> actions as eliminating violent movies may actually cause destructive
> violence. After all, the goal isn't to eliminate all violent
> thoughts/deeds/emotions, it's to eliminate the destructive ones....
>
> For an amusing treatment of this theory, see Alan Dean Foster's "Quotzl".
Or for a cheesier but also interesting take, the original Trek episode
featuring "the Red Hour" (shame on me, can't remember the title...god, I'm
slipping already).
- --
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| "They do not preach that their God will rouse them
a little before the nuts work loose." - Kipling
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:17:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
This is way OT at this point, so this will be my final send to the list.
Replies are most welcome off-list.
I do not care to have my reaction characterized as "knee-jerk" when I have
thought these issues through long before this piece of internet spam made
its way into my box, Charles.
One can think things through thoroughly and still have knee-jerk
reactions. I have thoroughly thought through many issues but still react
to them in a reflexive way. I'm not accusing you of this, I wasn't
picking on anyone in particular, but it seemed to me that one person said
"Hey wouldn't a day without violence be a good idea?" and many responded
"You'll have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand!" or "I'll say
what I want when I want you tyrant!" Non-sequitur, IMO.
Violence is a part of the human nature. I believe that by censoring it
you drive it into the underground where it can only come out even worse.
I'm not willing to do that even for one day. I'm tired of the notion that
we can improve ourselves by cutting off bits. Violence is necessary, it
A couple of people have expressed this old catharsis idea. The literature
on violence shows that "letting it out" can both reduce and cause
violence. Also, "keeping it in" can have the same effect. In short,
there is no clear relation one way or the other. Saying we need an outlet
is just a cop-out. Violence is most certainly _not_ necessary. Many
cultures have survived for long periods with minimal violence. The fact
that these cultures tend to get plowed under by others only says that the
universe is a tough place. But once you let your values drop and declare
that violence is okay because "it's natural" you open the door to just
about any behaviour. Racism, rape and just about any evil act you can
think of can be justified as "natural" (whatever that means, since
all things are part of nature).
is what impels us to defend our loved ones and family and selves when
required. I am not anti-violence. I am against the misuse of violence,
but I will never become the sort of person that is so against violence
that they'd allow their spouse to be raped, for example, rather than
fight. Violent movies, for the most part, celebrate heroism-- the person
who endures violence in order to defend or help others.
The fact that you consider rape wrong means that you are in fact
anti-violence. Otherwise, what rule is their to condemn this act?
Because it is a "misuse of violence"? What constitutes a "proper use of
violence"? Maybe lynching the guy you think committed the rape? This
sort of justification has led to all sorts of innocent death. All
violence is a misuse of action. Defending yourself is sometimes the best
course of action available, but that doesnt' make hurting your attacker a
"good thing".
If they did, it can't be blamed entirely on the audience. The piece itself
was written in the same "anonymous appeal" style that is all too popular
these days on the internet. It was written in a fashion that (almost
cleverly) hides its aims behind deliberately non-insulting "peace and
love"rhetoric.
Well, I'm not sure about this particular post, but the idea seems to be to
celebrate peace to me. The way you celebrate family is to get them
together, the way you celebrate charity is to give gifts, the way to
celebrate peace is to practice it. Watching violent shows on such a day
would be the equivalent of watching "Killing Zoe" on Xmas or watching "The
Krays" on Thanksgiving...
To make things even more confusing, there is no yard stick by which to
measure what is meant by "violent content", which is interesting since
what
does and what does not constitute "violent content" is still hotly
debated.
Well, clearly the yard-stick would be your own. I mean that each person
could choose what they considered violent content. A football game would
not qualify in my house, but might in others.
This has plenty to do with the First Amendment, since it advocates
"voluntary" censorship. Why would participation in this act have any
What's "voluntary cencorship"? The capacity for _me_ to decide what _I_
will watch is what freedom of speech is all about isn't it? Others have a
right to suggest what I should say, but I needn't obey them. The "Day of
Peace" concept seems to me a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
The problem is that "anti-violence" in today's American vocabulary means
(if
you identify with the left) "anti-gun", or (if you identify with the
right)
"anti-free speech".
This piece leaves us with the burning questions of what constitutes
"violent-content" and exactly what end this piece hopes to attain by the
actions it advocates.
So you're saying it's impossible to simply be anti-violence? Again, I'm
not sure about your theories regarding ulterior motives here, but taken at
face value, the idea of a day to celebrate peace seems like a good one to
me. Sorry you don't feel the same way.
Charles C.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:44:21 -0500
From: "Jory Earl"
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
>One can think things through thoroughly and still have knee-jerk
>reactions. I have thoroughly thought through many issues but still react
>to them in a reflexive way
All humans act in this manner, its genetic/instinctive; however not all
humans react in this manner all the time. The science of General Semantics
addresses this issue.
___________________________________________________________
J-Man
ICQ# 2843475
New Hampshire - U.S.A.
Email : j-man@iname.com
Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/
___________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:38:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Charles Collin wrote:
>
> is what impels us to defend our loved ones and family and selves when
> required. I am not anti-violence. I am against the misuse of violence,
> but I will never become the sort of person that is so against violence
> that they'd allow their spouse to be raped, for example, rather than
> fight. Violent movies, for the most part, celebrate heroism-- the person
> who endures violence in order to defend or help others.
>
>
> The fact that you consider rape wrong means that you are in fact
> anti-violence. Otherwise, what rule is their to condemn this act?
The fact that it is a violent act which is not being committed in order to
defend oneself or someone else. I believe that those are the right uses
of violent behavior. I think that people who decide not to defend
themselves or their loved ones are complicit in what happens to them,
because they could have done something to stop it, but chose not to.
> Because it is a "misuse of violence"? What constitutes a "proper use of
> violence"? Maybe lynching the guy you think committed the rape? This
> sort of justification has led to all sorts of innocent death. All
> violence is a misuse of action. Defending yourself is sometimes the best
> course of action available, but that doesnt' make hurting your attacker a
> "good thing".
>
I very much disagree. I don't think that we should be teaching people
that you can rape, kill, loot, misuse innocent people and nothing will
happen to you. When you refuse to defend yourself and those who depend on
you, you are letting the world know that your own life and the lives of
those you love are not worth the discomfort to your conscience and stomach
that doing something about it would cost you.
If someone comes into my house bent on harming me or my loved ones, I can
and WILL defend myself and those I love or go down fighting. That way,
whatever happens, I'll know that I did my best to take care of myself and
the people I love. And if my attacker gets hurt, maybe it will make him
think twice. If my attacker gets killed, perhaps in his next life he'll
be more cautious. Call it removal from the game for unnecessary
roughness.
Violence is a part of human nature. I believe that human nature is
basically good. Violence, like all other parts of human nature, has its
place. Rape and other acts of unwarranted violence are wrong; not because
they do or do not occur in the animal kingdom (you brought that up, not
me) but because we are intelligent enough to be the master of our nature
and to use all of its parts appropriately rather than suppressing them or
letting them run hog wild.
I personally like human beings. We are capable of horrific atrocity, but
show me an animal who can create so much beauty...
Kiri
******************************************************************************
Kiri Aradia Morgan 93! Thou Art God
tiamat@tsoft.com
"If time passes, everything turns into beauty
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away
Everything starts wearing fresh colors
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic
Desire is embraced in a dream..." -- X-JAPAN
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:48:21 -0600
From: Loren Wiseman
Subject: UFO contact illegal?
Gentle beings:
I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web
searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This
was recently sent to Steve Jackson:
>This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of
>idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that
>database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article
>didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if
>there is
>something to this?
>
>>
>>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.
>>
>>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html
Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.
Loren Wiseman
Art Director / Traveller Line Editor
Traveller Guru-in-Residence
SJ Games
LKW@IO.COM
(512) 447-7866 VOX
(512) 447-1144 FAX
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:41:20 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Niven Books
In mail you write:
> At 03:00 PM 11/1/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hi all. A little late on this, but I thought I'd note that Niven's latest
>>book, "Destiny's Road", takes place in the same universe as "The Integral
>>Trees", "The Smoke Ring" and "A World Out of Time". DR is a pretty good
>>book, too! Not his best, but with Niven that still puts it way ahead of
>>most of the crap out there.
>
> Actually, we don't know if Destiny's Road (or it's two bretheren stories
> Legacy of Heorot and Beowulf's Children) are set in the State. For one
> thing, the colonists in LoH used cold sleep to get to Tau Ceti, with some
> severe side effects, something that what's his name in AWooT didn't have to
> deal with.
Actually, from statements in "Rammer", corpsicles are *not* revivable
with the tech available to "The State". They merely extracted his
memory RNA from the "mush" left by the freeze/thaw damage and dumped it
into a brainwiped criminal. He's *not* in his original body.
But I seriously doubt that "The State" existed when the ships in
"Legacy of Heorot", "Beowulf's Children" and "Destiny's Road" were
launched. It may have sprung up *later* (which might explain the
communications breakdown), but given the way "The State" planned, I
don't see them abandoning those colonies. I think this is yet another
Niven universe. It's not like he didn't *already* have several!
- --
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:25:16 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson
Subject: Re: UFO contact illegal?
This was listed on slashdot this weekend, and exposed as urban legend
almost immediately.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/30/1256237&mode=nested
A big hint comes in the citation listed...it is in 'The Star', whihc is
basically the colorized version of 'The Weekly World News'. They have also
warned us about the Aliens advising the President, often with photographs!
This is, however, only when he isn't heeding Elvis' advice.
fnord
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Loren Wiseman wrote:
> Gentle beings:
>
> I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web
> searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This
> was recently sent to Steve Jackson:
>
> >This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of
> >idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that
> >database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article
> >didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if
> >there is
> >something to this?
> >
> >>
> >>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.
> >>
> >>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html
>
> Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Loren Wiseman
> Art Director / Traveller Line Editor
> Traveller Guru-in-Residence
> SJ Games
> LKW@IO.COM
> (512) 447-7866 VOX
> (512) 447-1144 FAX
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:25:16 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson
Subject: Re: UFO contact illegal?
This was listed on slashdot this weekend, and exposed as urban legend
almost immediately.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/30/1256237&mode=nested
A big hint comes in the citation listed...it is in 'The Star', whihc is
basically the colorized version of 'The Weekly World News'. They have also
warned us about the Aliens advising the President, often with photographs!
This is, however, only when he isn't heeding Elvis' advice.
fnord
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Loren Wiseman wrote:
> Gentle beings:
>
> I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web
> searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This
> was recently sent to Steve Jackson:
>
> >This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of
> >idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that
> >database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article
> >didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if
> >there is
> >something to this?
> >
> >>
> >>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.
> >>
> >>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html
>
> Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Loren Wiseman
> Art Director / Traveller Line Editor
> Traveller Guru-in-Residence
> SJ Games
> LKW@IO.COM
> (512) 447-7866 VOX
> (512) 447-1144 FAX
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:36:15 +1000
From: david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au
Subject: Re: Idea for honouring J. Andrew Keith
Dear Folks -
Andrew said:
>Up till now
>the name of the Terran ship that made first contact with Vilani has been
>given as the Starleaper I. As far as I can tell this name only appears in DGP
>material, which puts it very firmly into the forbidden canon...
There was a later Challenge scenario that dealt with the PCs meeting a female
crewmember from that first contact ship. Supposedly she had gone through a
spatial misjump.
For anyone at home with their references, was the first contact ship given a
name in the Challenge article?
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw davidjw@pcug.org.au
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQ'D DISCLAIMER - material & opinions contained within are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the
position of Centrelink or any other Commonwealth Government agency.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:09:00 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: Website revamped and Deckplans up
>>Sorry, you've just lost me. I can only _run_ Netscape 2.0 (3.0 >crashes).
>>
>>I don't see what's wrong with simple text and graphics, but it's your
>>website, not mine.
>
>Rob, why not move to IE 5.0? I finally had to dump Netscape because with
>every succeeding incarnation the code got sloppier and more crash-prone.
Not enough memory.
Call me a dinosaur, but I resolutely refuse to buy a new computer just to
surf the web. My LC III does quite nicely for everything I need, so I see
no need to upgrade. Andy's web site may be the cat's pajames, but I refuse
to believe it's worth several thousand dollars for a new computer system
(plus upgrading all my software to run on the new computer system).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:13:48 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: Taxation (off topic then back on topic)
>Ob Trav: It appears that schools and universities are generally
>free in the OTU as well. Otherwise, PC's would have the strong
>possibility of having outstanding loans after graduating. Frankly,
>I think, a lot of us play the medical system as being pretty much
>free as well. When's the last time you asked a PC for an insurance
>card or denied them medical care until they paid, or showed that
>they could pay for the care?
I've let them die in the street on one planet, then assessed the estate for
cleaning fees (to get the blood out of the concrete). A _really_ nasty
trick is a planet where _everything_ is user-pay, right down to asking
directions (and that should have been a clue that medical care wouldn't be
provided on credit...).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:21:37 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: [OT] One Day In Peace
>Yes, it's obvious that our attempts to destroy Canadian society and turn
>it into a shadow of the United States have met with repeated failure.
>Our scientists continue to study methods of dealing with the Menace of
>the North.
Comrade Hudson, our infiltration of the evil capitalist propaganda machine
is vorking. Zoon it vill be time for our zecret pre-emptive counterattack...
And zey zuspect not'ing....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:35:25 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
>Many believe that humans have an intrinsic need for an outlet for violent
>emotions. By releasing such emotions through violent but non-destructive
>ways may it may be possible reduce the actual destructive violence. One
>interesting theory is that exposure to representations of violence (art,
>music, movies, etc.) may be a sufficient outlet for these
>emotions. Following this theory, in order to limit violence, this "Day of
>Peace" should encourage people to watch the most violent possible movies
>instead of actually hurting other people.
If this were true, there would be fewer fights after a sporting event, not
more.
What seems to happen, according to Watson (in "Dark Nature"), is that the
folks who's team/boxer/whatever won go home happy, and the losers go home
and pick fights. (Note: this is a statistical thing, like hot weather, and
applies to groups not individuals). Vicariously winning seems to remove the
need to win in a conflict, vicariously losing leaves all the original
aggression entact.
I strongly urge people to read "Dark Nature". I found it an excellent book
on the biological components of evil. Think of it as a cross between
science and philosophy. Even if you don't agree with Watson (and I do),
you'll get a lot of neat ideas for Traveller cultures out of it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:46:19 -0500
From: Juliean Galak
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace
At 05:35 PM 11/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>What seems to happen, according to Watson (in "Dark Nature"), is that the
>folks who's team/boxer/whatever won go home happy, and the losers go home
>and pick fights. (Note: this is a statistical thing, like hot weather, and
>applies to groups not individuals). Vicariously winning seems to remove the
>need to win in a conflict, vicariously losing leaves all the original
>aggression entact.
>
>I strongly urge people to read "Dark Nature". I found it an excellent book
>on the biological components of evil. Think of it as a cross between
>science and philosophy. Even if you don't agree with Watson (and I do),
>you'll get a lot of neat ideas for Traveller cultures out of it.
I can believe this. However, this seems to be a further argument for
violent movies, at least for the kind in which the hero wins....
-- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)
- --
jg42@cornell.edu "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/plan.htm
WWW Page: http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/
------------------------------
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1291
***********************************
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:
unsubscribe traveller-digest
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.2]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.15) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:50:52 -0500
Received: from lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:50:34 -0400
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id SAA91549;
Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:49:20 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:50 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id SAA91497
for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:49 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199911012348.SAA91497@lists.imagiconline.com>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1291
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com