Category: People

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Griefer. It’s a new word. A griefer is a person like Jason Fortuny, who posed as a woman and put out an extremely suggestive sex wanted ad at Craigslist and then published all the results–including actual names, emails, photos, and other contact information of the men who responded. I’ve always thought the term for this type of person is ‘passive aggressive loser with a desperate need for attention rather than respect’, but I’m not up on the social software scene.

Dare Obasanjo asks:

Different services resort to different mechanisms to prevent griefers, however most of them are preventive. There is little that is or can be done once the malicious act has been committed by the ‘griefer’. Given that I work with the teams that produce services that can be harmed by griefers as part of my day job (e.g. Windows Live Spaces and Windows Live Expo) this worries me. What can sites like CraigsList do to prevent people like Jason Fortuny from turning people away from their service because they fear having a negative experience? My gut feel is that Craig Newmark would go a long way in reassuring users of the service if they stepped in and took [legal] action against “griefers”. Users feel a lot safer about using the service if they know that someone is looking out for their well-being if something bad happens. Consider it the social software equivalent of a “money back guarantee”.

What do you think?

What do I think? I think people should get a cat.

Barring this excellent advice, I think we have to expect people to use a reasonable level of common sense. Many of the people who responded to this ad were thinking with body parts other than their brains.

I also think that Craiglist should feature this story prominantly, without names of all parties, like the skull and cross bones on the poison bottle.

And then I think we should consign Jason Fortuny to the obscurity he richly deserves.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Griefer. It’s a new word. A griefer is a person like Jason Fortuny, who posed as a woman and put out an extremely suggestive sex wanted ad at Craigslist and then published all the results–including actual names, emails, photos, and other contact information of the men who responded. I’ve always thought the term for this type of person is ‘passive aggressive loser with a desperate need for attention rather than respect’, but I’m not up on the social software scene.

Dare Obasanjo asks:

Different services resort to different mechanisms to prevent griefers, however most of them are preventive. There is little that is or can be done once the malicious act has been committed by the ‘griefer’. Given that I work with the teams that produce services that can be harmed by griefers as part of my day job (e.g. Windows Live Spaces and Windows Live Expo) this worries me. What can sites like CraigsList do to prevent people like Jason Fortuny from turning people away from their service because they fear having a negative experience? My gut feel is that Craig Newmark would go a long way in reassuring users of the service if they stepped in and took [legal] action against “griefers”. Users feel a lot safer about using the service if they know that someone is looking out for their well-being if something bad happens. Consider it the social software equivalent of a “money back guarantee”.

What do you think?

What do I think? I think people should get a cat.

Barring this excellent advice, I think we have to expect people to use a reasonable level of common sense. Many of the people who responded to this ad were thinking with body parts other than their brains.

I also think that Craiglist should feature this story prominantly, without names of all parties, like the skull and cross bones on the poison bottle.

And then I think we should consign Jason Fortuny to the obscurity he richly deserves.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’m coming down with something and weblogging is actually becoming a least interesting thing to do, but I wanted to toss something out…something absolutely mind boggling.

Women can be critical of each other.

Yes, that’s right: women can be critical of each other. We can be critical, we can be snippy, we can get angry, we can quarrel, we can dislike each other, we can really dislike each other — we can feel the entire spectrum of emotion for each other from love to hate. It’s OK.

I’ve read twice today about how it’s harmful for women and our visibility when we’re critical of each other. That’s hogwash–it’s not saying anything that’s harming ourselves. The men are critical of each other all the time. Why then, can someone please explain to me, can’t women do the same?

We will never be visible if we shut each other down. If we assume that women can only speak of each other in warm, nurturing ways we are shutting each other down. We’re letting our own stereotypes strangle us.

Stop it! You’re beginning to really piss me off!

One last thing: I think the Combos commercials are terrific.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Thanks to 3 Quarks Daily (again), a pointer to a story covering the press reaction to the release of thousands of pages of Einstein’s personal correspondence. Tongue in cheek, the article is titled, Einstein in Lust. In it the author, Joshua Roebke, writes:

“Phys-sex Genius” wrote the headline wizards at the New York Post. Fox News, another Murdochian outlet, posted a story by on-air personality Neil Cavuto to its website, titled, “Albert Einstein: Genius, Stud Muffin.” “E = Einstein, the galactic womanizer,” quipped The Sunday Times, UK. “Albert Einstein, sex-fiend” wrote the popular blog Boing Boing. Even a member of the extended Seed family, the ScienceBlog Pure Pedantry, included a post with the title, “Scientific Pimp.”

Einstein’s relationships with various women has never been a secret. Why this information would cause such a fooflah at a time when Paris Hilton faux pax are the stuff of legends is beyond me. Is this is supposed to make Einstein more ‘human’? More interesting? Einstein’s always been human. He’s the most human, brilliant person I know of. As for interesting, lordie, something about his work comes to mind.

Another intriguing note in the article is that while the Western publications focused on Einstein’s Love Life, the East focused on his work. The author points to his earlier work, Big in Japan, which discusses how in countries such as South Korea, China, and Japan, research scientists are hotter than rock stars.

In 2001, the Japanese government drafted a state policy that focused on winning 30 Nobel Prizes in 50 years. If the results of a 2002 poll are any indication, it might work: Japanese boys aspire to be research professors more than to be baseball stars, a level of academic aspiration not seen in the West since the space race. Science celebrity has moved East, building a culture that treats Nobels like Oscars and new discoveries like home-run records

(Hopefully, the Japanese government is also encouraging Japanese girls in science, though I’m not optimistic in this regard.)

The West might want to get its priorities straight: lust is cheap, science lasts forever.