Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.
There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children, both which are certainly on the
Internet. I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all, but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in. Now we bow down to the
idol of free speech and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,
and we are a lesser people because of it.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways. My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Jon.

On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

On Dec 30, 7:33*am, Giles wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. *Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. *And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. *Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. *That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. *How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. *But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. *Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. *Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. *But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? *As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. *Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. *Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. *On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? *Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

But of course giles, you would not deprive him of his right to wish
you a Merry Christmas...would you? [or was that part of a point you
were making? A bit groggy this morning]

I do in fact essentially agree that the mythological referenced Norman
Rockwell past, where women and children existed in a realm of
protection by their patriarchs, is just that. However, there is a
middle ground between erroneously believing things were so much better
then...and not making any efforts to monitor what your children do
experience (via internet or other). Essentially, I believe I fall
into the category of a libertarian as all I want is to be able to have
as much control over what my computer does as I can without affecting
the legal activities of giles, beancounter, or anyone else.

Paul

On Dec 30, 4:32*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:


Not sure how much you may know about computers etc, but you should be
aware that the RSS ( Really Simply Syndication ) feeds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS

will also work very well for many other newsfeeds, usenet groups,
websites, etc.

TL
MC

On Dec 30, 4:40*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 30, 4:32*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:

Not sure how much you may know about computers etc, but you should be
aware that the RSS ( Really Simply Syndication ) feeds;


Sorry, that should of course read "Really Simple Syndication".

May also be of interest;

http://www.whatisrss.com/

TL
MC

Of course, many feeds are available; such as these;

http://news.google.de/?ned=uk&hl=en

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/default.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/earth...ws/default.stm

There are very many such feeds in the meantime, also from news
networks, newspapers, etc etc. A very convenient way to view your
morning news, among other things.

http://www.reuters.com/tools/rss

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3223484.stm

TL
MC

On Dec 30, 9:32*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:33*am, Giles wrote:





On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. *Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. *And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. *Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. *That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. *How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. *But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. *Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. *Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. *But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? *As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. *Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. *Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. *On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? *Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

But of course giles, you would not deprive him of his right to wish
you a Merry Christmas...would you?

Not at all.

[or was that part of a point you
were making? *A bit groggy this morning]

I wasn't so much making a point as giving voice to some thoughts as
they occurred to me in reading Jon's offering.

I do in fact essentially agree that the mythological referenced Norman
Rockwell past, where women and children existed in a realm of
protection by their patriarchs, is just that.

Well, it's not entirely mythological. Paternalism was, and remains,
all too real. And it isn't necessarily always a bad thing.....or a
good thing. Even a cursory analysis, if conducted honestly and with a
modicum of intelligence (yeah, two very scarce commodities.....but it
really doesn't require all that much of either) reveals a great deal
of complexity. Merely acknowledging that complexity would be a great
leap forward for many people.....perhaps most people.....but why
bother with that when one already has all the answers one needs and
the pretense of consideration is so easy to maintain?

However, there is a
middle ground between erroneously believing things were so much better
then...and not making any efforts to monitor what your children do
experience (via internet or other).

I've never been in a position of having to monitor what anyone else
experiences, it looks to me like you're probably doing a pretty good
job of it, and their isn't much that you or I can do about the rest of
the world. So the problem appears to be purely an academic one, at
least within the current context, for you and me. But appearances, as
they say, are deceiving.

Essentially, I believe I *fall
into the category of a libertarian as all I want is to be able to have
as much control over what my computer does as I can without affecting
the legal activities of giles, beancounter, or anyone else.

I've always been wary of applying labels concerning political or
philosophical leanings to myself or others, largely because there is
virtually no reliable agreement to be expected from any two or more
people on what those labels mean. Am I, for example, a liberal or a
libertarian or a libertine?.....a conservative or a reactionary?.....a
fascist or an anarchist?.....a strict constructionist or a
relativist?.....a lumper or a splitter?.....a hard nose realist or a
spiritualist? All of those terms (and many more) have been applied to
me at one time or another.....and none of them entirely without
justification with regard to certain specific beliefs or actions.

I much prefer terms like idiot, imbecile, moron, dumbass, cretin,
etc. At least there is a fairly widespread consensus on approximately
what they mean, and often even a good deal of agreement on who they
should be applied to. And after all, consensus and agreement are good
things, ainna?

Meanwhile, from what I've read in this thread, it appears that there
is no good way to filter the contents of these pages via Google
Groups. However, that shouldn't be much of a problem as you have
already stated the solution above.

giles.

On Dec 30, 7:28*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:


All points very well taken. *I need not say more, except thanks.
Paul

You're welcome.

giles

well that's cause your are a dumb ass lib/dem Tom...who...
dosen't know squat about "grown up" topics...sheeze...







On Dec 29, 2:48*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in ...

i can keep the "grown up stuff " *down in the
body...instead of the headers......

If you posted anything remotely resembling 'grown-up',
I, for one, would be shocked.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

" How about it, beancounter? *You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for
the
sake of others' feelings? "

On Dec 29, 7:54 am, David LaCourse wrote:



On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open.
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -