Leiter's off his fucking rocker. I love his blog, and the vast majority of it is well outside my ken. Anonymity on the Internets in the absense of some legally cognizable wrong (which implies certain already existing remedies), is a first principle. One of the reasons I like him so much, in spite of a certain tendency towards demeaning his "lessers," is that he seems committed to believing in the importance of just such things. (Ben, please clean.)
He ought to climb down and just say, "Hey, everyone fucks up from time to time."
I honestly don't understand what Leiter thinks is so significant about blogging, or being online in any capacity, anonymously. He came here once and got snippy about it.
I think folks should own their words, but Ogged and a few others sent me arguments that persuaded me that, even if I can find out who he is, I should keep the information to myself.
If whatever they did involving the Killian Memo and Dan Rather got Powerline blog of the year, surely getting Leiter to change his mind will make Unfogged blog of the decade.
John (or should I say...Zizka!?), I think someone sorta kinda did, but there was never any confirmation, and I think people realized that it wasn't very nice, and let it drop. And it wasn't done in the spirit of retaliation or accountability, people were just curious.
Note the difference in tone between this post ("I respectfully disagree..) and Leiter's own posts ("Mr. Non-Volokh can't read", "pathetically dumb Clayton Cramer", "juvenile anonymous misreader like Mr. Non-Volokh").
I'd kind of like to know who Fafnir is, but only because camels bearing apes, ivory, and peacocks should be sent to their address with all possible speed. That's an extremely strange and very funny person. (Actually, what I'd really like to know is if there are three people blogging together, or if it's one lunatic doing all three characters.)
Well, I did post moving pictures of Giblets here, but anyone who thinks that Fafnir, Giblets, or The Medium Lobster aren't using their own names is just being silly. And anyone who claims otherwise has evil in their heart, or my name isn't Kent Allard.
I double-checked before I wrote it in the first place, but I need to be emboldened by the assurances of anonymous people on the internet before I feel comfortable telling my boss to stuff his edit.
"The United States of America comprises fifty states."
It depends upon what "comprises" means, doesn't it? Certainly there are many other territories and non-state entities belonging to the U.S., from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the District of Columbia, to Guam, the American Marianas Islands, the Virgin Islands, Midway, Wake, and, of course, American Samoa, just to name a few. But you know this. Your choice certainly seems grammatically defensible, but I defer to you and others on its legal usage. Actually, I'm apt to defer to many on the grammatical usage, as well, but am more willing to venture any opinion at all on it.
I'm actually most unhappy with the repetition of "states" and would suggest a re-wording to avoid that. How you'd re-word depends on context. Why are you mentioning the number of states anyway?
Patent Law has a "comprising"/"consisting of" distinction. "Comprising" covers devices with more elements than are mentioned; "consisting of" doesn't. Thus a "vehicle comprising two wheels..." includes a tricycle, but a "vehicle consisting of two wheels..." doesn't. This distinction is pretty set in stone, because if you are sloppy about it, very bad things can happen. A prescriptionist's fantasy come true.
"How you'd re-word depends on context. Why are you mentioning the number of states anyway?"
These thoughts were also in my head, incidentally. Context so often, if not always, controls whether a usage is correct. Absent it, so much can be mystery.
On specifics, can people who vote for and elect a non-voting delegate in Congress live somewhere that the U.S. is not comprised of? Can you be a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of being born in a possession of the U.S. which the U.S. is nonetheless not composed of? Beats me, to be sure.
"See, that's exactly what I was asking for. Nitpicking."
I live to serve. Also, because, jaysus, it's not as if people don't accuse me of the heinous crime pretty much every day. Also, if Unfogged ever seeks another female blogger, I nominate LizardBreath as a possibility.
Actually, although I'd never heard of it before, Joe O's patent law distinction answers your nitpick, doesn't it? "The US comprises 50 states (and all sorts of other Guam-like places)". If all there were was the 50 states, I'd have to have said 'consists of'. If, that is, I were trying to patent the U.S.
(I am not actually specifying the number of states in the pleading I'm working on, just checking the proper usage of 'comprise'. And thanks for the nomination. Consider me sitting at my desk, preening.)
"And thanks for the nomination. Consider me sitting at my desk, preening."
Yet only hours later I note that I'd probably have been more apt suggesting you as a next possible poster, rather than nominating you in category. I've never said or thought I was free of sexism or other isms. I can only note that many male birds such as myself preen without justification, beyond, of course, our pretty feathers, which, incidentally, I mostly possess only verbally.
Other than my fine body. (No, Wolfson, not on my fine body. Shut up Speak to the hand..)
29 is interesting--it sounds like there's an implicature/literal meaning issue here. I think most linguists/philosophers believe that "Herbie has two wheels" is literally true if Herbie is a tricycle, but it implicates the falsehood that Herbie has exactly two wheels--since the assumption is that you're saying everything you know.
But in legal contexts, as I understand, you don't want to mess around with implicatures. You need hard and fast rules, and only literal truth will do. (That's why it's OK to say "There is no sexual relationship" even when there was one.)
Would "a tricycle consists of three wheels" be true? Or would you have to say "... three wheels, pedals, a seat, handlebars, and some other stuff"?
Consider 'some other stuff' to be a substitutional variable, if you like.
Is "substitutional variable" the correct name for such as "foo", "bar", "spam", etc, which the jargon file bafflingly labels "metasyntactic variables".
I don't understand that fancy computer talk, but you needs yourself a question mark at the end of that sentence.
(Sounds like it might be. The idea is that substitutional variable are instantiated by bits of the language rather than--as for the quantificational variables we know and love--by objects in the domain you're talking about. So if X is subsitutional, I can say "For some X, 'Able was I ere I saw X' is a palindrome.")
While I don't know particularly what the word means (beyond syntax?) 'metasyntactic variables' (at least as I heard it used in my youth when my social circle was nerdier) isn't used to mean much more than: variables used informally in conversation to refer to some unknown object rather than rigorously in a mathematical or logical expression.
As you define 'substitutional variables', the terms wouldn't be equivalent.
The etymology of "foo" is obscure. When used in connection with "bar" it is generally traced to the WWII-era Army slang acronym FUBAR, later bowdlerised to foobar.
Without a clear historical connection, and given the consistently different spelling, I don't find the linkage persuasive. (At least not as an origin for 'foo'. I guess you could sell me on 'bar' as originating in some kind of FUBAR related joke: 'What comes next after 'foo'?')
Tom, if you click through to Leiter's post, there was at least one other email (that he quotes from) from someone who tried to dissuade him. The Atrios thing was a bigger deal, I think, because it was Atrios and there was the threat of a lawsuit. I didn't even know about Leiter's original intention until Fontana posted about it.
Hmm. Guess I'm still often wrong but never uncertain. Still, doesn't this:
Early versions of the Jargon File [JARGON] interpreted this change as a post-war bowdlerization, but it now seems more likely that FUBAR was itself a derivative of `foo' perhaps influenced by German `furchtbar' (terrible) - `foobar' may actually have been the original form.
look unlikely to anyone else? There's a bunch of military slang terms derived from profane acronyms, why would FUBAR, uniquely among them, be a backformation from the intersection of an American comic strip and a German word? What settles it for me is that 'foo' and 'bar', used as variables, have no overtone of fuckeduppedness -- I just can't see accepting a word origin that resulted in an entire change of meaning without a clear historical connection.
There's a pretty good cultural connection between WWII "can-do" mechanics, the Manhattan project, and early computer-makers. That FUBAR should have gone from one to another seems pretty plausible. That it should have survived as the apparently non-pejorative "foo" and "bar" also seems plausible. That it's related to "furchtbar" seems a little less likely. But you never know.
I sent Leiter an email yesterday before he changed his mind. It wasn't as good as Ogged's email.
But, I liked this section:
>Anonymity doesn't mean lack of accountability. "Juan Non-Volokh" as an alias has a reputation that is affected by his posts. I don't go to that site anymore because Volokh is pro-torture, but if it was "Juan Non-Volokh " who was pro-torture it would have the same result.
RE 34
Pretty much the only time anyone uses "consists of" is for what is called the "non-predictable arts" like chemisty and the like. A claim stating "The molecule consists of 3-4 As and 1-6 Bs" could get allowed even if a molecule with 3 As 3Bs and 3Cs is already known because the claimed molecules and the previously known molecule could have radically different properties. And, the claim may be hard to avoid because if you try to add groups to the molecule to avoid infringement, this new molecule probably won't have the same effects as the claimed molecules.
This doesn't happen so much for electrical or mechanical cases. A car with extra unit X added on is a still a car. You don't want people avoiding your claim by adding additional elements, so you always use "comprising" for these type cases.
Rightly so. Being consistently pseudonymous is a completely different thing from being anonymous -- the pseud can, as you say, develop a reputation to protect.
Thanks Joe! So it sounds like "consists of" does require a complete listing, and you usually don't want that.
I suppose that it would be difficult to get a patent that said "My widget comprises a wheel," and then sue everyone who makes something that also comprises a wheel.
Juan Non-Volokh" as an alias has a reputation that is affected by his posts
Yup, that's an important point that a lot of people don't seem to get. I guess it's a failure to believe that this online stuff is real in a meaningful way.
I agree about the reputational impact of pseudonymity in the blogosphere. (I actually sort of have a professional interest in this reputational impact kind of thing.) But I also think Leiter has a point that in some cases we may want to hold people accountable for their words and actions, and that accountability may be extended to outside the blogosphere. If Eugene Volokh blogged as "Skeletor," and he were nominated for a judgeship, I think anyone who knew his identity would have an obligation to say, "This nominee has expressed lots of pro-torture (or whatever you want to call it) on his blog, 'Skeletor'." I also fear that it wouldn't keep him from getting the job, but that's another story.
I'm just agreeing with Labs on seeing the appeal of his original motivations, I think. I certainly think that in this case the right thing is to respect his pseudonymity. I'd say that's especially true for untenured academics, but in fact we have a lot more job security than most people, so never mind.
Playing devil's advocate, here's what I imagine as Leiter's response to that: Juan Non-Volokh engaged in a tendentious misreading of my post in order to score political points. Knowing that he is willing to do that, I want to hold it against him not just as a pseudonym, but as a potential colleague. Being pseudonymous allows him to misread with impunity, while if his name was known he would have to be more cautious about correctly reading what I wrote. /Devil's Advocate
I am not, right now, asserting the truth of any claims made above, other than the claim that I was playing Devil's Advocate.
Um, I suspect pseudonym accountability is more difficult than ogged is suggesting in #62, if only because of the ease with which a pseud is shrugged off. Gawd knows I shucked the Child Free personality as soon as I realized it didn't win me friends and influence people. Also, I'd think the John Lott think had bearing on this discussion.
There's another issue, which doesn't seem to be operative here, but is important: we can't know how much overlap there is between Skeletor's opinions and Eugene Volokh's. It's possible and would be a legitimate defense to say that Skeletor was just trying on ideas, and that it's unfair to tar Volokh with them (for example). It seems to me that the person's real-life identity is only relevant when claims of fact are made that depend on some knowledge only available to that real-life person e.g., "I was in the room when Dick Cheney said he eats babies." When claims like that are made pseudonymously, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of them, and reasonable for the people being spoken about to demand to know the identity of their accuser.
Well, there are also claims being made on the basis of reputation. Volokh is smart and well-known, and we know he's recruited people who are well-credentialed. Non-Volokh gains a certain amount of credibility because, in the face of his pseudonymity, Volokh's imprimateur tells us his opinions are those of a serious person.
(I didn't read the Leiter/Non-Volokh exchange, so nothing is implied about whether Non-Volokh's reading was egregious.)
If one wants to "try on an idea," is it enough to express it pseudonymously? Without additional signals, isn't the standard assumption that even a pseudonym is speaking sincerely?
65--I think one of the issues is that there's a big cost to shucking off a pseudonym--if you start blogging under a totally new name, no one will be reading you until you come up with some good stuff. So you'll lose whatever you built up.
This is assuming that you don't make any factual misrepresentations. There's a tendency to assume that people are somewhat telling the truth; if you lie or misrepresent facts, it's desirable that that reputation follow you around. That's a kind of negative credit that can be shucked off. (Of course people still pay attention to Drudge and Bush--my theory only says that people should ignore you if you speak Teh False, not that they will.)
66: Yes and no. If you want to adopt the persona of Johannes Climacus in order to think things through, or to explore the consequences of some ideas, fine. If you're basically writing a bunch of op-eds like most polibloggers are, you don't get to say "I didn't write that, that was my Mr. Hyde persona."
There's some discussion of online vs real life personas in Lessig's Code. Tim: the fact that JNV gains much of his credibility from his association with Volokh is a reason that he can't just up and abandon his pseud.
In response to the Devil's point that I want to hold it against him not just as a pseudonym, but as a potential colleague... I would say two things:
(1) welcome to the blogosphere; and
(2) the Rolling Stones addressed this - NO, not in Sympathy for the Devil's Advocate, in You Can't Always Get What You Want.
Just because Leiter has taken umbrage does not mean he should engage in (or the rest of us should tacitly approve) behavior that upsets a delicately balanced apple cart. Plenty of folks blog anonymously for reasons that they consider to be sufficient, and the rest of us respect that, normally regardless of political affiliation (I had hoped).
And folks are concluding that he is dissuaded on the basis of his comment (5) here? Is it unreasonable to wonder whether he will say something definitive on his own blog?
And thanks for the Henry Farrell pointer. Technorati is not not finding much these days.
Well, I never suggested, in advocate's guise or otherwise, that the norm against outing an anonymous blogger should be dropped/overturned/ what have you. I was only noting that there are costs to the norm, because if one grants that it was a mis-reading and either intentional or reckless, it is the case that a willingness to misread is something that should be penalized in the law teaching market. But assuming that Leiter was dissuaded from his retaliatory exposure of Non-Volokh, that strikes me as a net good.
On a different topic, Slartibartfast was right, you were wrong, and the impugning of his patriotism by other commenters in that thread was disgusting.
Wow, that thread at Tom's place has the best sentence ever: "Watching people defend the indefensible is always an interesting hobby but sometimes hobbies have more serious consequences."
Guess what that guy is talking about?
Tom, on this subject, I don't see anyone tacitly endorsing Leiter's threat. Several of us have said that he should not disclose JNOV's identity, no one has said he has, and he himself has said he will not (it might be nice if he posted at his blog that he definitely won't rather than maybe won't, but I have no reason to think he'll go back on what he says in comment 5). As for the horsing around, that's just what goes on in these comment threads.
I cannot believe some of the posts here. Slart, Geek, etc., you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. (creepydude, I'm not bothering to ask you, because you've already made your position clear.) There is no nuance to be had here. Whose side are you on -- our side or their side?
That sounded patronizing, and I didn't mean it that way. I was just happy to see the split on this issue not falling neatly with all the conservatives on one side and all the liberals on the other.
At least Brian Leiter has the fortitude to post that Cramer is "pathetically dumb" and that Non-Volokh is "obsessed," and "can't read," is "juvenile," and is... drumroll, please... "a serial spewer of insults," under his own name.
Anyone who would post such blatantly hypocritical nonsense under his own name is pretty fearless.
Incidentally, on the "foo" thing, back in the 1940's, sf fans made up and often referring to various joke "religions," including those of, as they were originally named, "Ghu-Ghu" and "Foo-Foo," the former of whom later became commonly known only as "Ghu," and the latter of whom was slightly less commonly referred to as "Foo." Whether there's a connection with the latter to the common noun, I can't say.
nice neologism.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 11:44 AM
Love the post title.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 11:50 AM
Leiter's off his fucking rocker. I love his blog, and the vast majority of it is well outside my ken. Anonymity on the Internets in the absense of some legally cognizable wrong (which implies certain already existing remedies), is a first principle. One of the reasons I like him so much, in spite of a certain tendency towards demeaning his "lessers," is that he seems committed to believing in the importance of just such things. (Ben, please clean.)
He ought to climb down and just say, "Hey, everyone fucks up from time to time."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 11:55 AM
I honestly don't understand what Leiter thinks is so significant about blogging, or being online in any capacity, anonymously. He came here once and got snippy about it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 11:59 AM
I think folks should own their words, but Ogged and a few others sent me arguments that persuaded me that, even if I can find out who he is, I should keep the information to myself.
Posted by Brian Leiter | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 12:35 PM
Yea ogged! Yea others! FL - you should update.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 12:53 PM
Updated.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 1:05 PM
R0x0rs cock-joking commenters triumphant!!1!
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 1:13 PM
If whatever they did involving the Killian Memo and Dan Rather got Powerline blog of the year, surely getting Leiter to change his mind will make Unfogged blog of the decade.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 1:19 PM
Juan Non-Volokh is one of my least favorite Conspirators, but yah! Hurray for Unfogged and Leiter's second thoughts.
Posted by Ralph Luker | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 1:57 PM
Didn't someone out Fafnir awhile back? It seems to have created very little stir.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 2:30 PM
John (or should I say...Zizka!?), I think someone sorta kinda did, but there was never any confirmation, and I think people realized that it wasn't very nice, and let it drop. And it wasn't done in the spirit of retaliation or accountability, people were just curious.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 5:11 PM
Note the difference in tone between this post ("I respectfully disagree..) and Leiter's own posts ("Mr. Non-Volokh can't read", "pathetically dumb Clayton Cramer", "juvenile anonymous misreader like Mr. Non-Volokh").
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:22 PM
I'd kind of like to know who Fafnir is, but only because camels bearing apes, ivory, and peacocks should be sent to their address with all possible speed. That's an extremely strange and very funny person. (Actually, what I'd really like to know is if there are three people blogging together, or if it's one lunatic doing all three characters.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:26 PM
Well, I did post moving pictures of Giblets here, but anyone who thinks that Fafnir, Giblets, or The Medium Lobster aren't using their own names is just being silly. And anyone who claims otherwise has evil in their heart, or my name isn't Kent Allard.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:26 PM
Nitpickers please:
The United States of America comprises fifty states.
Is that right? I need to be sure whether I should be resisting edits to a pleading I'm working on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:39 PM
That's correct, though I'm probably not the nitpicker you had in mind.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:41 PM
A more credible source.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:42 PM
You'll do.
I double-checked before I wrote it in the first place, but I need to be emboldened by the assurances of anonymous people on the internet before I feel comfortable telling my boss to stuff his edit.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:44 PM
If you were a bit older, you'd be asking for medical advice, and we could have an even bigger laugh.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:45 PM
Nah, I save the medical advice for my sister. She never takes it, though.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 7:49 PM
"The United States of America comprises fifty states."
It depends upon what "comprises" means, doesn't it? Certainly there are many other territories and non-state entities belonging to the U.S., from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the District of Columbia, to Guam, the American Marianas Islands, the Virgin Islands, Midway, Wake, and, of course, American Samoa, just to name a few. But you know this. Your choice certainly seems grammatically defensible, but I defer to you and others on its legal usage. Actually, I'm apt to defer to many on the grammatical usage, as well, but am more willing to venture any opinion at all on it.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 9:28 PM
See, that's exactly what I was asking for. Nitpicking.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 9:50 PM
Told you I wasn't your guy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 9:52 PM
Does one say "comprises" or "is comprised of"?
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 10:09 PM
I'm actually most unhappy with the repetition of "states" and would suggest a re-wording to avoid that. How you'd re-word depends on context. Why are you mentioning the number of states anyway?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 10:10 PM
Abby: I believe one says comprises / is composed of.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 10:11 PM
Words of encouragement from some surprisingly stern Canadians:
Here.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 10:16 PM
Patent Law has a "comprising"/"consisting of" distinction. "Comprising" covers devices with more elements than are mentioned; "consisting of" doesn't. Thus a "vehicle comprising two wheels..." includes a tricycle, but a "vehicle consisting of two wheels..." doesn't. This distinction is pretty set in stone, because if you are sloppy about it, very bad things can happen. A prescriptionist's fantasy come true.
from slolernr's link:
>Comprise is usually used incorrectly
Until the new dictionaries come out.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 06-22-05 11:13 PM
"How you'd re-word depends on context. Why are you mentioning the number of states anyway?"
These thoughts were also in my head, incidentally. Context so often, if not always, controls whether a usage is correct. Absent it, so much can be mystery.
On specifics, can people who vote for and elect a non-voting delegate in Congress live somewhere that the U.S. is not comprised of? Can you be a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of being born in a possession of the U.S. which the U.S. is nonetheless not composed of? Beats me, to be sure.
"See, that's exactly what I was asking for. Nitpicking."
I live to serve. Also, because, jaysus, it's not as if people don't accuse me of the heinous crime pretty much every day. Also, if Unfogged ever seeks another female blogger, I nominate LizardBreath as a possibility.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:04 AM
Actually, although I'd never heard of it before, Joe O's patent law distinction answers your nitpick, doesn't it? "The US comprises 50 states (and all sorts of other Guam-like places)". If all there were was the 50 states, I'd have to have said 'consists of'. If, that is, I were trying to patent the U.S.
(I am not actually specifying the number of states in the pleading I'm working on, just checking the proper usage of 'comprise'. And thanks for the nomination. Consider me sitting at my desk, preening.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 5:44 AM
"And thanks for the nomination. Consider me sitting at my desk, preening."
Yet only hours later I note that I'd probably have been more apt suggesting you as a next possible poster, rather than nominating you in category. I've never said or thought I was free of sexism or other isms. I can only note that many male birds such as myself preen without justification, beyond, of course, our pretty feathers, which, incidentally, I mostly possess only verbally.
Other than my fine body. (No, Wolfson, not on my fine body. Shut up Speak to the hand..)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:03 AM
"Actually, although I'd never heard of it before, Joe O's patent law distinction answers your nitpick, doesn't it?"
And, as I said, I defer. Courteously. (Yet without song.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:04 AM
I agree with 27, fwiw.
29 is interesting--it sounds like there's an implicature/literal meaning issue here. I think most linguists/philosophers believe that "Herbie has two wheels" is literally true if Herbie is a tricycle, but it implicates the falsehood that Herbie has exactly two wheels--since the assumption is that you're saying everything you know.
But in legal contexts, as I understand, you don't want to mess around with implicatures. You need hard and fast rules, and only literal truth will do. (That's why it's OK to say "There is no sexual relationship" even when there was one.)
Would "a tricycle consists of three wheels" be true? Or would you have to say "... three wheels, pedals, a seat, handlebars, and some other stuff"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:06 AM
I hope you can say "some other stuff" in patents. Yeah, this device, it's got an LED and, you know, some other stuff.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:07 AM
Consider 'some other stuff' to be a substitutional variable, if you like.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:28 AM
The royalties the guy who got the patent on 'some other stuff' pulled in? You don't even want to think about it.
And re 32: not only was no offense taken, it took me a couple of re-readings to figure out what the possible grounds for offense might have been.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 9:59 AM
Consider 'some other stuff' to be a substitutional variable, if you like.
Is "substitutional variable" the correct name for such as "foo", "bar", "spam", etc, which the jargon file bafflingly labels "metasyntactic variables".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:01 AM
I don't understand that fancy computer talk, but you needs yourself a question mark at the end of that sentence.
(Sounds like it might be. The idea is that substitutional variable are instantiated by bits of the language rather than--as for the quantificational variables we know and love--by objects in the domain you're talking about. So if X is subsitutional, I can say "For some X, 'Able was I ere I saw X' is a palindrome.")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:08 AM
I do, I do.
"Foo" et al. are used as in "so you have some function foo and it takes two arguments, bar and baz, and frobnicates them...".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:12 AM
That doesn't actually make anything any clearer.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:17 AM
While I don't know particularly what the word means (beyond syntax?) 'metasyntactic variables' (at least as I heard it used in my youth when my social circle was nerdier) isn't used to mean much more than: variables used informally in conversation to refer to some unknown object rather than rigorously in a mathematical or logical expression.
As you define 'substitutional variables', the terms wouldn't be equivalent.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:24 AM
'foo' is kind of the computer programming equivalent of 'yadayadayada', no? As in a hand-wavy way to gloss over details, to get to the important part?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:35 AM
But "foo" implies "bar," too, doesn't it? (which is military jargon, maybe?) So connotatively, it's more than just a version of "X."
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:39 AM
"fubar" is military jargon. "foo" can be used independently of bar (I often name temp files foo.$EXTENSION).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:40 AM
"Foo" and "bar" are, I'm pretty sure, unconnected with the military FUBAR.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:41 AM
The etymology of "foo" is obscure. When used in connection with "bar" it is generally traced to the WWII-era Army slang acronym FUBAR, later bowdlerised to foobar.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:42 AM
And much more.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:43 AM
Much as I hate to change the subject, does anyone know whether anyone *other* than Ogged has tried to dissuade Prof. Leiter?
There was a bit more hue and cry when this happened to Atrios a few years back.
Posted by Tom Maguire | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:44 AM
Without a clear historical connection, and given the consistently different spelling, I don't find the linkage persuasive. (At least not as an origin for 'foo'. I guess you could sell me on 'bar' as originating in some kind of FUBAR related joke: 'What comes next after 'foo'?')
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:47 AM
Tom, if you click through to Leiter's post, there was at least one other email (that he quotes from) from someone who tried to dissuade him. The Atrios thing was a bigger deal, I think, because it was Atrios and there was the threat of a lawsuit. I didn't even know about Leiter's original intention until Fontana posted about it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:47 AM
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, Tom, but it occurs to me that:
1. Leiter referenced "others," so I assume that others did try to convince him.
2. Leiter was convinced, so there really wasn't much need for "hue and cry."
3. Luskin got hammered, in part, because he was first up. Welcome to the real world.
4. Whatever else one might say about him, Leiter is not Luskin. That might account for the remainder in the difference in responses.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:50 AM
Tom M--Henry Farrell made that same comparison, in what I think counts as an attempt to dissuade. Anyway, Leiter has been dissuaded.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:50 AM
Well, the jargon file claims FUBAR was bowdlerized into FOOBAR (but what would that have stood for?).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:51 AM
Hmm. Guess I'm still often wrong but never uncertain. Still, doesn't this:
Early versions of the Jargon File [JARGON] interpreted this change as a post-war bowdlerization, but it now seems more likely that FUBAR was itself a derivative of `foo' perhaps influenced by German `furchtbar' (terrible) - `foobar' may actually have been the original form.
look unlikely to anyone else? There's a bunch of military slang terms derived from profane acronyms, why would FUBAR, uniquely among them, be a backformation from the intersection of an American comic strip and a German word? What settles it for me is that 'foo' and 'bar', used as variables, have no overtone of fuckeduppedness -- I just can't see accepting a word origin that resulted in an entire change of meaning without a clear historical connection.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:56 AM
But that's not a nonsense saying, that's a racially derogatory pun.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 10:58 AM
Yeah, I agree it's unlikely, especially given the other connections cited (e.g. the foo counters at MIT's railroad club).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:01 AM
There's a pretty good cultural connection between WWII "can-do" mechanics, the Manhattan project, and early computer-makers. That FUBAR should have gone from one to another seems pretty plausible. That it should have survived as the apparently non-pejorative "foo" and "bar" also seems plausible. That it's related to "furchtbar" seems a little less likely. But you never know.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:02 AM
I sent Leiter an email yesterday before he changed his mind. It wasn't as good as Ogged's email.
But, I liked this section:
>Anonymity doesn't mean lack of accountability. "Juan Non-Volokh" as an alias has a reputation that is affected by his posts. I don't go to that site anymore because Volokh is pro-torture, but if it was "Juan Non-Volokh " who was pro-torture it would have the same result.
RE 34
Pretty much the only time anyone uses "consists of" is for what is called the "non-predictable arts" like chemisty and the like. A claim stating "The molecule consists of 3-4 As and 1-6 Bs" could get allowed even if a molecule with 3 As 3Bs and 3Cs is already known because the claimed molecules and the previously known molecule could have radically different properties. And, the claim may be hard to avoid because if you try to add groups to the molecule to avoid infringement, this new molecule probably won't have the same effects as the claimed molecules.
This doesn't happen so much for electrical or mechanical cases. A car with extra unit X added on is a still a car. You don't want people avoiding your claim by adding additional elements, so you always use "comprising" for these type cases.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:37 AM
But, I liked this section
Rightly so. Being consistently pseudonymous is a completely different thing from being anonymous -- the pseud can, as you say, develop a reputation to protect.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:42 AM
Thanks Joe! So it sounds like "consists of" does require a complete listing, and you usually don't want that.
I suppose that it would be difficult to get a patent that said "My widget comprises a wheel," and then sue everyone who makes something that also comprises a wheel.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:43 AM
Juan Non-Volokh" as an alias has a reputation that is affected by his posts
Yup, that's an important point that a lot of people don't seem to get. I guess it's a failure to believe that this online stuff is real in a meaningful way.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:44 AM
I agree about the reputational impact of pseudonymity in the blogosphere. (I actually sort of have a professional interest in this reputational impact kind of thing.) But I also think Leiter has a point that in some cases we may want to hold people accountable for their words and actions, and that accountability may be extended to outside the blogosphere. If Eugene Volokh blogged as "Skeletor," and he were nominated for a judgeship, I think anyone who knew his identity would have an obligation to say, "This nominee has expressed lots of pro-torture (or whatever you want to call it) on his blog, 'Skeletor'." I also fear that it wouldn't keep him from getting the job, but that's another story.
I'm just agreeing with Labs on seeing the appeal of his original motivations, I think. I certainly think that in this case the right thing is to respect his pseudonymity. I'd say that's especially true for untenured academics, but in fact we have a lot more job security than most people, so never mind.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:52 AM
Playing devil's advocate, here's what I imagine as Leiter's response to that: Juan Non-Volokh engaged in a tendentious misreading of my post in order to score political points. Knowing that he is willing to do that, I want to hold it against him not just as a pseudonym, but as a potential colleague. Being pseudonymous allows him to misread with impunity, while if his name was known he would have to be more cautious about correctly reading what I wrote. /Devil's Advocate
I am not, right now, asserting the truth of any claims made above, other than the claim that I was playing Devil's Advocate.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:55 AM
Um, I suspect pseudonym accountability is more difficult than ogged is suggesting in #62, if only because of the ease with which a pseud is shrugged off. Gawd knows I shucked the Child Free personality as soon as I realized it didn't win me friends and influence people. Also, I'd think the John Lott think had bearing on this discussion.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 11:59 AM
There's another issue, which doesn't seem to be operative here, but is important: we can't know how much overlap there is between Skeletor's opinions and Eugene Volokh's. It's possible and would be a legitimate defense to say that Skeletor was just trying on ideas, and that it's unfair to tar Volokh with them (for example). It seems to me that the person's real-life identity is only relevant when claims of fact are made that depend on some knowledge only available to that real-life person e.g., "I was in the room when Dick Cheney said he eats babies." When claims like that are made pseudonymously, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of them, and reasonable for the people being spoken about to demand to know the identity of their accuser.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:00 PM
Well, there are also claims being made on the basis of reputation. Volokh is smart and well-known, and we know he's recruited people who are well-credentialed. Non-Volokh gains a certain amount of credibility because, in the face of his pseudonymity, Volokh's imprimateur tells us his opinions are those of a serious person.
(I didn't read the Leiter/Non-Volokh exchange, so nothing is implied about whether Non-Volokh's reading was egregious.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:05 PM
If one wants to "try on an idea," is it enough to express it pseudonymously? Without additional signals, isn't the standard assumption that even a pseudonym is speaking sincerely?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:08 PM
65--I think one of the issues is that there's a big cost to shucking off a pseudonym--if you start blogging under a totally new name, no one will be reading you until you come up with some good stuff. So you'll lose whatever you built up.
This is assuming that you don't make any factual misrepresentations. There's a tendency to assume that people are somewhat telling the truth; if you lie or misrepresent facts, it's desirable that that reputation follow you around. That's a kind of negative credit that can be shucked off. (Of course people still pay attention to Drudge and Bush--my theory only says that people should ignore you if you speak Teh False, not that they will.)
66: Yes and no. If you want to adopt the persona of Johannes Climacus in order to think things through, or to explore the consequences of some ideas, fine. If you're basically writing a bunch of op-eds like most polibloggers are, you don't get to say "I didn't write that, that was my Mr. Hyde persona."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:09 PM
There's some discussion of online vs real life personas in Lessig's Code. Tim: the fact that JNV gains much of his credibility from his association with Volokh is a reason that he can't just up and abandon his pseud.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:10 PM
In response to the Devil's point that I want to hold it against him not just as a pseudonym, but as a potential colleague... I would say two things:
(1) welcome to the blogosphere; and
(2) the Rolling Stones addressed this - NO, not in Sympathy for the Devil's Advocate, in You Can't Always Get What You Want.
Just because Leiter has taken umbrage does not mean he should engage in (or the rest of us should tacitly approve) behavior that upsets a delicately balanced apple cart. Plenty of folks blog anonymously for reasons that they consider to be sufficient, and the rest of us respect that, normally regardless of political affiliation (I had hoped).
And folks are concluding that he is dissuaded on the basis of his comment (5) here? Is it unreasonable to wonder whether he will say something definitive on his own blog?
And thanks for the Henry Farrell pointer. Technorati is not not finding much these days.
Posted by Tom Maguire | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:32 PM
Well, I never suggested, in advocate's guise or otherwise, that the norm against outing an anonymous blogger should be dropped/overturned/ what have you. I was only noting that there are costs to the norm, because if one grants that it was a mis-reading and either intentional or reckless, it is the case that a willingness to misread is something that should be penalized in the law teaching market. But assuming that Leiter was dissuaded from his retaliatory exposure of Non-Volokh, that strikes me as a net good.
On a different topic, Slartibartfast was right, you were wrong, and the impugning of his patriotism by other commenters in that thread was disgusting.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 12:49 PM
Wow, that thread at Tom's place has the best sentence ever: "Watching people defend the indefensible is always an interesting hobby but sometimes hobbies have more serious consequences."
Guess what that guy is talking about?
Tom, on this subject, I don't see anyone tacitly endorsing Leiter's threat. Several of us have said that he should not disclose JNOV's identity, no one has said he has, and he himself has said he will not (it might be nice if he posted at his blog that he definitely won't rather than maybe won't, but I have no reason to think he'll go back on what he says in comment 5). As for the horsing around, that's just what goes on in these comment threads.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 1:02 PM
Yee-haw.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 1:06 PM
Slart's posts there do speak well for the conservatives at Obsidian Wings, don't they?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 1:11 PM
That sounded patronizing, and I didn't mean it that way. I was just happy to see the split on this issue not falling neatly with all the conservatives on one side and all the liberals on the other.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 1:17 PM
This is my favorite so far:
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-23-05 1:23 PM
At least Brian Leiter has the fortitude to post that Cramer is "pathetically dumb" and that Non-Volokh is "obsessed," and "can't read," is "juvenile," and is... drumroll, please... "a serial spewer of insults," under his own name.
Anyone who would post such blatantly hypocritical nonsense under his own name is pretty fearless.
Posted by Peter Boucher | Link to this comment | 06-24-05 2:04 PM
Incidentally, on the "foo" thing, back in the 1940's, sf fans made up and often referring to various joke "religions," including those of, as they were originally named, "Ghu-Ghu" and "Foo-Foo," the former of whom later became commonly known only as "Ghu," and the latter of whom was slightly less commonly referred to as "Foo." Whether there's a connection with the latter to the common noun, I can't say.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-25-05 6:40 AM
By the way, Unfogged was being talked about in comments over here. Not quite as interesting as the last time that happened.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-25-05 6:13 PM
Hm, Ralph calls Unfogged and Crooked Timber "lefty academic blogs by fairly serious people." That seems to me multiply mistaken.
For instance, "people"? Try cyborgs.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-26-05 11:13 AM
It would be a shame if, when getting himself fitted for biomechanical feet, ogged didn't demand podiatric superpowers beyond mere odorlessness.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-26-05 11:36 AM
E.g.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-26-05 11:39 AM
I bet his feet can't give Christophe haircuts, either.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-26-05 12:16 PM