| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2004/8/18 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:32986 Activity:very high |
8/17 Squishing kchang the second time is like going back to Iraq
the second time. Just as GWB has no proof of WMD but decided
to squish Sadam anyways because of credible intelligence
from the CIA, the CSUA administration decided to squish
kchang because of credible finger-of-death intelligence
from the EECS department. And just as GWB tries to finish
off the business that his daddy started, the current CSUA
administration is finishing off the business that their
petty vindictive peers started.
\_ Yes, blame the CIA for producing the intelligence that Bush
and Cheney wanted to hear... after they pressured the CIA
to reach those conclusions and sent reports back if they
weren't "supportive" enough.
\_ The bi-partisan 9/11 commission says all the CIA analysts they
talked to said "pressure" didn't cause them to change their
conclusions.
\_ Er, no. This subject was outside their jurisdiction. The
report on that is due AFTER the election.
IIRC, one of the commissioners talked about this in an
appendix, but it was not part of the full report.
\_ It was conclusion 102 in the 9/11 report, and is pretty
much how I said it. After the election, I believe the
Commission will be looking at how "the executive branch
handled the intelligence", although I suppose they might
discover evidence countering their earlier conclusion --
who knows what will happen after the election?
http://csua.org/u/8ng (Washington Post)
\_ Yeah.. no proof .. keep saying it and maybe 100% believe
you.
\_ When someone has a history of abuse, and has further proven himself
to be a total sociopath, he isn't going to get the benefit of the
doubt the way someone else would. That's not a vendetta, it's just
the way that society operates. Get it kchang?
\_ Well, since he's sorried and can't read this, I'd say no, he
won't 'get it'.
\_ while(1) {finger("soda");} makes him a 'total sociopath'? From
that point on you lost any credibility.
\_ Uh, no. His interactions with many people on soda, especially
women, are what marks him as a sociopath.
\_ Soda is full of sociopaths by your definition.
Danh: "I am going to unilyas the motd because I an angry
at my phlegm-filled lungs", etc. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, I suggest you find out more about kchang's
original squishing before making this comparison again.
Trust me.
\_ Trust what? Post details. -!ilyas
\_ it was a sad affair, I find myself
reluctant to post the URL or give big hints
\_ Yes, trust anonymous cowards. ilyas #2
\_ Then he should be squished for his interactions with other
members, not for this BS finger nonsense. If any of the
women want to start something or you'd like to start on
their behalf you're welcome to but until then there is
no justification for squishing him or for calling him
names. You're just making a cheap attempt to
dehumanize him to self justify your personal animosity.
\_ squishing kchang is like squishing Al Capone. They
couldn't get him from bad interactions (murder) so
they got him from the evil finger loop abuse (taxavation)
\_ What pisses me off is that the finger loop abuse was a bone
headed way to build a system that is quite useful and good
(KAIS MOTD) and is now gone. If people were upset about the
fingering, they should have 're-educated' him about the smart
way of doing things. Sorrying him in a personal vendetta is
lame, though I suppose not too rare. There are Sodans that
piss me off, but I just ignore them.
\_ kchang, and you, signed something which explicitly said
not to piss off the admins of other machines.
\_ just how upset did that make the admin?
\_ while kchang's was rather rude to some of the ladies, that
was like 5 years ago. he hasn't done anything that justified
squising since returning. I support having kchang back.
\_ What, you mean aside from violating explicitly stated CSUA
policy? Nothing at all! Nope nope nope. Nice blinders,
kid.
\_ Ah yes, the policy police is back. I propose we squish
EVERYONE who has EVER violated ANY explicitly stated
CSUA policy. Throw the policy at them! In fact, while
we are on the subject of policy, why is EECS net being
used by all the crusty alumni? Isn't that against some
EECS policy or other? Gosh, I better turn us all in.
-- ilyas
\_ your point has already been made in the much more
succinct and less ranty post below:
\_ You know, you are right. We should make the motd
more efficient by just having equivalence classes
talk, not individual users. We can have
angry-liberal (represented by aaron),
scat-connoisseur (represented by danh),
religious-republican (emarkp?),
sysadmin-asshole (tom),
raving-libertarian (me),
and so on. It will be a glorious conversation
between archetypes! Why bother making the
motd world-writable anyways? In fact, why say
anything at all? It has all already been said.
-- ilyas
\_ All of you losers using the motd for non-University
business are in danger of a squishing!!1!
\_ Wow!!1! Way to miss the forest for the trees! There's
this novel idea called 'spirit of the law'!!1! Maybe
you should learn how to use a web browser, kid!!!1!
\_ If you truly wish to use the "spirit of the law"
argument, one can plausibly say that fingering more
than once per second (the packets routed through
EECS machines) should not fall under network abuse,
as it should constitute a tiny portion of network
traffic across those routers.
Without any further information, one can infer that
the EECS admin sent a message to soda root, letting
them know that something "might" be going on with
finger packets. One can then infer that root
abused the "spirit of the law" and squished kchang
because he "piss[ed] off" another admin.
\_ So what you're saying is that until more details
leak out, we're both full of shit. *shrug*
Okay.
\_ first of all, I doubt karen, jvarga,
ajaffe, nksingh, and any of the current
politburo members care about the motd.
Secondly, why can't you just email one
of these guys to get an official statement
on the squishage?
\_ 1) I have other sources of information
than the motd, 2) You can do that just
as easily, 3) it's motd -- it's not
worth the effort, 4) you're an easy
target. |
| 11/27 |
|
| csua.org/u/8ng -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64640-2004Jul20.html Politics Transcript Instant Analysis: 9/11 Commission Report Robert G Kaiser Washington Post Associate Editor Thursday, July 22, 2004; Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G Kaiser was online Thursday, July 22, at Noon ET to discuss the report and its findings. com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; Like my colleague Steve Coll, who is just finishing a chat, I am called upon this morning to perform a miracle: lead a discussion of a 600-page document that none of us has read. I at least have had time to skim hurriedly through the executive summary, and read the Commission's very common-sensical recommendations. But we should all take some time in the days ahead to read the actual report, I think. I am going to take on both the 9/11 Commission report, and the political implications of it, about which there are already some good questions. Robert G Kaiser : I just saw a little of the press conference of Gov. Hamilton (both formers, of course) introducing their report. It's something we now simply do not see in Washington, where all-out partisan warfare is the norm. This Commission overcame that reality, or so it seems to me. The fact that it has produced a unanimous report is impressive. Sure it also means that the temptations of either Democratic or Republican members to take potshots at the Clinton or Bush administrations were restrained. Would any of us really feel better if the commission said something like 9/11 was 534 percent Bush's fault, and 466 percent Clinton's? So to answer, I'd say this commission appears to me to have been remarkably free of partisan rancor and posturing, and to have done its work in a practical, pragmatic way -- the way Americans used to think we do everything. Instead, per Sunday's Post, the Commission negotiated with White House lawyers as to what to release. What, exactly, was the process, and how much do you suppose was censored/redacted? Robert G Kaiser : I don't know how much, but the editing had to do with classification and confidential presidential documents, as I understand it. I'm confident this is one question that will be answered in the days ahead. If significant deletions were made, I expect that news to get out, one way or another. Is their information here that actually might affect the outcome in November? Robert G Kaiser : This is a good question, which, having not yet read the report, I will not try to answer specifically. But I offer this general thought: In my view the greatest peril for President Bush in this election season is the risk that the country could come to the conclusion that his administration has just been incompetent. There would be no escaping from such a judgment, were it to take hold. If this report contributes to that impression, it will be bad for Bush. But such a broad conclusion won't be reached by people on the basis of one report, in my experience. Water cooler conversations, back yard gossip, reactions to the conventions and, most importantly probably, the debates this fall will lead Americans to their final voting conclusions. Ohio: Since we know President Bush does not like to read should we expect him to read the entire report? Robert G Kaiser : I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Not only Bush, but countless members of Congress have the reputation of asking their aides to do their reading for them. This has driven me nuts for years -- Bush is hardly the first president I've covered who sometimes avoids nuts-and-bolts hard work to absorb complicated material. Some politicians even defend the practice as "good leadership" -- delegate the details. Ask your Congressmen and Senators when you see them if they have actually read the report. It also details previously unknown links between the two, including the revelation that as many as 10 of the Sept. QUESTION: Is it not more than coincidental that the Iranian connection was leaked a few days ago, just as the case of an Iraqi collaborative relationship with AQ was falling apart? That is, a new distraction related to the "axis of evil" has been put before the public? In the same general time frame, news broke that the North Koreans have steadily proceeded with their nuclear weapons programs. New Links Between Iran, Al Qaeda Cited (Post, July 22) Robert G Kaiser : Geez, do you really think the Bush administration would now undertake a second "preemptive war" after all the trouble caused for it by the first? And all the loss of life, and money, and standing in the world? Nor do I see any evidence of the conspiracy you are hinting at. Some news stories this morning quote unnamed Democrats as raising this possibility. Isn't that entirely apt to note in connection with the Administration's stated "appreciation" of receipt of the report today? Robert G Kaiser : I'm sure it will be mentioned, but what do you want news organizations to do? Isn't the real news today what the commission says, not what the administration did many months ago to block its creation, then to limit its mandate and such? Only after pressure from 9/11 families did the administration cave. How can the person who was President during the worst terrorist attack in out history not want to find out why it happened? I attribute it to a kind of unspoken shame, felt by all government officials when they realized what had happened: A nasty enemy had launched a successful and cruel attack against the United States and gotten away with it ON OUR WATCH. I've long felt that Bush, Congress, the CIA and FBI and others have all shared this shame, and never found a way to really speak about it, for fear the country would turn on them and say, in effect, yeah, where the heck were YOU? In my own view, negligence at the top reflected negligence, self-indulgence and indifference at the bottom. By which I mean, American society in the '80s and '90s became fat, rich, lazy and indifferent to the world in ways we can now see did us no good. Which meant no one really wanted to disrupt the party to face up to what Bin Laden et al represented, and were trying to do. Indeed, we didn't even let ourselves imagine (with a few poignant exceptions) what he might pull off. Do you see any hope that they will be able to continue to influence the way things are done in Washington? I think you're right, the families have been extraordinarily effective. They made the Commission happen, their pressure helped the Commission get unprecedented access to secret and confidential documents, etc etc. Not sure how they can extend that now, but I don't expect them to disappear either. It calls for a new national director of intelligence, confirmed by the Senate but situated in the White House, who will be the real boss of the CIA, DIA, NSA etc. At first blush, it looks like a sensible proposal to me. Robert G Kaiser : This is a good example of why we have a rule against talking about articles that are upcoming in the paper--a rule I broke in that recent discussion. The piece I had in mind has, as so often happens, taken quite a different shape as it got written and edited. It won't satisfy the description I have it in that discussion, which you accurately summarize here. Lucian Perkins, a great Post photographer with whom I traveled across Siberia in the summer of 2001, will join me in Boston next week and in New York next month to help produce a Convention Diary. We'll have daily chats during the conventions, during which there will be plenty of opportunity for political questions and discussion. Linthicum, Md: Thanks for taking questions this afternoon. I've been very annoyed at the notion the hijackers were clever, the plot was ingenious, and highly coordinated. I watched the Hardball special last night which chronicled 12 missed opportunities that could have thwarted the terrorist attacks. It seems to me that the Hijackers were lucky and not terribly clever as some used their real names and even registered in local phone books. It also seems to me that the commission's attempt to label the Hijackers as being smarter than they really were only works to soften the blow of criticism due ma... |