Help...How do get a posting fromoved from 2shakesofalambsta

[bigeasyblues]

I need ALL of your help please. I started receiving Harrasing call recently from Twoshakesofalambstail.com. I used to take care of Mrs S. Merriam before she took her own life a long time ago. this is the link lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/09/1998091288.html My name & phone # is in that link! I emailed a lot of times begging them to remove my personal info. Reason , A strange woman keeps calling our house over that OLD posting! Who is responsible for maintaing that web site please. I really need this removed asap.


thanks for any AND- all help to this matter.

[lizzytysh]

If you PM the member "~greg" or "~ greg" [can't remember if there's a space, but don't think there is], he should be able to handle it. I tried to find him for you to give you his email, as well [if it's in his profile], but couldn't find him. He's definitely here, though. Or at least he was!!


~ Lizzy

[jarkko]

I followed the link and noticed that the name and phone # are not shown (any more???), so the problem has been solved??

[gravityhill]

~greg writes:

if anybody wants a post removed from this archive,
-please state your sufficient cause
-- and I will gladly remove it,
and replace it with an MIA link.

~greg is available by email at rarelive@twoshakesofalambstail.com

p.s.
if you click on the "go" button in the upper left corner, the personal info still appears.

[~greg]

Since Mr LaPine has brought this up,
I will try to explain, as best I can.

About 2 weeks ago Mr LaPine asked me to remove his name and phone number
from 1 particular post in lcngarc, which he gave me a link to.
The same one he's repeated here.
And I did it immediately.
And if you check it, you'll see that a name and number have been marked out,
-just as Jarkko noticed.
And it's been that way for 2 weeks.

But then a week ago Mr LaPine began mail-bombing me,
and saying things like

Maybe I should let Leonard Cohen know about this site's lack of compassion.

and

What kind of a organization is this ?
I thought you all were LOYAL & OBEDIENT Leonard Cohen fans.
Do you think Leonard would want some family to suffer
because of one of your mental deranged fans? I should hope not.

To be honest, I didn't like his tone of voice.
But I just took it as evidence that he was, in fact, being harassed.

(I had a question about that, since there is a "may be forged" flag
on his Received-from header lines.)

Then it occurred to me that maybe his phone number
had been repeated in some of the response posts, due to automatic quoting.
And it's quite obvious now that I should have thought of that before.
But, in my defense, the site had been up for years, and this was
the first time that anyone has asked me to remove any information
from it. And Mr LaPine had given me only that one link.
And I had already dealt with that.

If he had just thanked me for that, and then added
that there were other posts to deal with, then there
would be no problem now. But that's not what he did.
He mail-bombed me instead.

So I told him that I would do a complete search
in order to find and remove all remaining mention of him.
I said I'd do it when I got the chance.

I had Friday in mind.
But I did it today. Because I know he can't wait.

Frankly, I couldn't see the urgency.
When I assured him I'd do it,
I also pointed out that it wouldn't do him any good.

Whoever is harassing him, already has his number.
And while he told me that
"The woman was an Oldwe woman whom admited she received my info from that posting."
(-- which accounts for his bizzare statement here -

I started receiving Harrasing call recently from Twoshakesofalambstail.com.

)
--what difference did it make where she got it?

There are many archives of usenet around. Not to mention Google.

(But it wouldn't be so easy to get Google to remove a phone number
from somebody else's post. However, I am sure that they would do it,
if he explained the situation, and asked, politely, for compassion. )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what's this all about anyway?

~~~~~~~~~~~

This what I think . .....


Mr LaPine said he
"used to take care of Mrs S. Merriam before she took her own life a long time ago. "

And the thread that he's refering to was the announcement of her death,
- whch was started on Sept 2nd, 1998.

There is nothing in that thread that would suggest
why anyone would want to harass Mr LaPine.

So the real problem had to be something else.

And this my guess - --

On Sep 11th, 1998, Jarkko posted in the ng
a letter he had received

From Lelan LaPine:
"Sandy gave us her last painting "Home sweet Home with a gate",
two months a go. She was real proud of it.
. . .We want to perpetuate her memory by selling or auction
this painting, and donate proceeds to a charity.
If you can take charge of this I would appreciate it."

Jarkko added

Any ideas how we could organize this?
The pages of The Leonard Cohen Files can be used
to announce the auction. Let's open a thread here
in the Newsgroup tp discuss this.

And Patricia had a great idea.

However, "it would be a long wait until April/May,"
for her idea to materialize.

And apparently Mr LaPine couldn't wait that long.

So, on Feb 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 28th (1999)
he posted, directly to the ng, posts like this -

Time is running out! You can own the last art work by Sandy Merriman,
before her untimely death. Titled 'Home sweet Home witg gate'. It is
featured on LC web page.
It has been profesionaly framed.
Proceeds tro go to chairty. Show that you loved Sandy by making a Decent
offer on it.

Now, I want people to look at that as if it was just
a news-paper ad, and you had no idea who Sandy was.
Or Leonard Cohen for that matter.

It shouldn't look as insensitive if you do that.
And I think that's the correct way to look at it.


I don't know what happened "behind the scenes",
But on the ng Mr LaPine's ads got many,
very decently modulated, responses.

Lots of questions. The primary, obvious one,
being - what exactly was the charity Mr LaPine had in mind?

But Mr LaPine didn't answer any questions.
In fact he made only one response alltogether.

Someone had suggested that perhaps he wasn't
responding to the ng --because he didn't read the ng.

But Ania disproved that. .
She had asked - as had everybody - about the nature
of the charity. She had asked it in a perfectly decent way,
if slightly more insistently than others.
(There was reason for that.)

It had to be her greater insistence
that made Mr LaPine targeted her for his one and only
response to all the questions that people had been asking
about the charity --

Date Mar 2 1999
Subject: Ania Nowakowska ???? NUT CASE TO THE MAX!!
I dont know where she gets off on her little soap box calling my Charity ad
in bad taste. May be,no obviously she has a agenda of her own.
No reasonable person would EVER feel that my ad would even be CLOSE to bad
taste.
So go get a life and and quit showing your insanity.

I remember reading that back then,
and not having the slightest idea what it was about.

But when I told Mr LaPine that I would honor his request
to remove all his info, I also told him that he should
probably know that, for the past 8 years, I have considered
Ania to be one of my closest friends. Which I suppose
gave him the wrong idea, - the idea that I wouldn't do it.
Which, I suppose, is why he has taken the extraordinary
measure he has taken here.
~~

Now, those of us who have been posting for years
bear the scars of a thousand battles, 99% of which
were entirely in our heads, and completely due
to unnecessary misunderstandings.

I have come to realize that the subtle give and take
that newsgroups and forums require
is an incredibly complex skill, which nobody
ever masters completely.

Wheras the only thing that we know for sure
about Mr LaPine is that he has none of these skills
--- at all!

He has not exercised them the way we have.

In fact, he has obviously not done much writing, of any kind,
at all, in his life. He has no idea of the kind of give and take
that we take for granted and expect.

Moreover, he is not into Leonard Cohen.

But we have to remember that lots of people aren't.
And it isn't their fault. There but for fortune go you and I.
Most of us fell into this by pure accident.

So we have to try to think of the looniest cult we
can think of. And then realize that, as far as Mr LaPine
knew, that was us.

And, if we are honest, we also have to admit
there is a bit of truth in it.

We also know that there is much else about us.
Much good. But he doesn't know that.

We are nuts. To the max.
If Leonard Cohen fans err, it is on the side of excessive
- nearly pathological - sensitivity. We are extremely
accustomed to thinking in terms of the subtlest
of emotions and relations. And most people just
don't have that kind of experience. And it's not their fault.

So. Ten years ago Mr LaPine posted half a dozen posts
to alt.music.leonard-cohen. And that's still, apparently,
the sum total of his entire Usenet experience.

Probably his only previous experience in posting ads
was in newspapers.

Newspaper ads cost by the word. So they are terse,
insensitive, and hyperbolic. And, coming from that
frame of reference, to have picked up the news-paper
the next day and find in it, not just your own ad,
but also other people's responses to it (--as in "Desperately Seeking Susan")
would have freaked anybody out.

There was no way that he could have understood that
he should have answered questions.

Actually, at the time, very few people
had any frame of reference for usenet at all.
Back then most people's perception of the internet
was just like Jon Voight said it in "The Manchurian Candidate"

... the Internet, ---- sacred sanctuary of idiots and nutters.
That's how they're gonna look at this.

From our perspective, Mr LaPine may have seemed
to lack basic compassion and empathy.
But we have to remember that our perspective is somewhat unique.

From his perspective, he was dealing with "idiots and nutters."
And that wasn't his fault. It was the common perception.

~~~~~~~~~~

After having read through the relevant posts,
I am struck by two things.

First, the highly specialized skills of the "regulars"
for this kind of thing.

Second, ---looking at it from that point of view,
Mr LaPine's comes off more as simply clumsy,
than as anything else.

~~~~

To harass anybody is wrong.
To harass anybody on account of a small number
of 10 year old posts ---is very very very wrong.

So I am asking whoever is doing this to please re-consider.
Re-think what you are doing.
Not just in terms of the immorality of it.
But also in terms of what you are really feeling.

It is impossible that your motives are not contaminated
by aspects of your own life that have nothing to do with
Mr LaPine. In striking out at him, you are simply avoiding
dealing with those things.

Perhaps you feel that you can't deal with your own
situation, and that by striking out at Mr LaPine
you are at least accomplish something good.

But it's no good. And somewhere, in you,
you must know that's true. Please try to find
that realization in you. What you're doing
is really not rational. Even if Mr LaPine has
some kind of guilt, which I don't think he does,
--he's not the only one you are hurting
For one thing, it has become a bother to me.

Check out Mr Spielberg's 2005 movie "Munich".
It should give you a new perspective on the matter of revenge.

Please also take advantage of this forum, and others,
and newsgroups. Believe it or not, there are millions of people
who feel exactly the same way you do about things.
If you could work things out with them, you wouldn't have
to do it in such a destructive way.

I'm one of them. And I know two others.
And we need your help, just as much as
we hope you need ours, to make us feel less
useless.


~greg.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

p.s.

It was called "twoshakesofalambstail"
because I did the whole thing in two days.

And it really amazes me now.
I did the whole post-threading thing on my own
- using my own speeded-up variaion on warshall's
transitive closure algorithm.

Thousands of lines of code, --not a single one of which
makes the slightest bit of sense to me now.

But most unfortunately, I didn't make the site updateable.
(Which is why it has never been updated.)

So, a month ago, I began re-writing the whole thing
so that it could be more easily updated
- added to,subtracted from, and altered (as per Mr LaPine's request.)

Tens of thousands of lines of code this time,
but all commented.

However, I have decided the whole approached isn't worth it.
So now trying to learn MySQL, and a very powerful graph-theory
program, to do all the heavy lifting for me. It will take lots longer
to generate the basic site (--maybe 10 hours instead of 4)
- but when it's done, it will be very much easier to make
updates and changes.

(that lots more than anyone needed to know, - sorry)

[lizzytysh]

Hi Greg ~

For now, I've only scanned, stopping and absorbing some, but will read it all in detail later. GEESH!!!

Heyyyyyyyyyyyy, Ania. Gorgeous, incredible woman!!! Insane??? Surely, he jests.


On the other hand...

We are nuts. To the max.
If Leonard Cohen fans err, it is on the side of excessive
- nearly pathological - sensitivity. We are extremely
accustomed to thinking in terms of the subtlest
of emotions and relations. And most people just
don't have that kind of experience. And it's not their fault.

Priceless paragraph. Oughta be engraved on a bronze plaque.

What I'm wondering is if his near-coronary might've been avoided by clicking his Refresh button.


~ Lizzy

GEESH!!

[Lion of Lions]

The topic I want to cover in this post is big and complex, and I don't have much in the way of scientific data on it. Nor do I have a lot of hard statistics, just a number of general observations and a good bit of specific anecdotal material, some about Greg. In the rest of this post , I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that warshall's transitive closure algorithm and several groups of inerudite pinheads are in cahoots to bamboozle people into believing that warshall's transitive closure algorithm is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. There are two kinds of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and sullen conspiracy theorists like warshall's transitive closure algorithm and Greg. Plan to join warshall's transitive closure algorithm's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door.

May I assume that anyone who wants to beat plowshares into swords is either (a) appalling or (b) an adversarial proletariat? If so, then I have news for warshall's transitive closure algorithm. I need your help if I'm ever to redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, warshall's transitive closure algorithm. gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, it ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that warshall's transitive closure algorithm uses the word "lithochromatographic" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. I think Greg knows what I mean!

Warshall's transitive closure algorithm has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. Warshall's transitive closure algorithm is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. As you can see, if warshall's transitive closure algorithm. had its way, schools would teach students that if it kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick its toes and beg for another kick. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to complain about beer-guzzling scrubs.

Warshall's transitive closure algorithm is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's hideous to subject its tracts to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that warshall's transitive closure algorithm.'s wisecracks are always accompanied by hyperbolic rhetorical claims that are clearly perceived after-the-fact as transparently pharisaical. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to stop defending the contentious status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. I say that because it sees no reason why it shouldn't sacrifice children on the twin altars of irreligionism and greed. How it can deal with Leonard Cohen's later, lighter work is beyond me.It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that if warshall's transitive closure algorithm. gets its way, I might very well tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street.

Warshall's transitive closure algorithm has so frequently lied about how the laws of nature don't apply to it that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people, particularly on the Newsgroup, that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly serve on the side of Truth. Nevertheless, I definitely do have the will to argue about its prevarications. That's why I aver that by writing this letter, I am doubtlessly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that warshall's transitive closure algorithm will retaliate against me. It'll most likely try to force me to react, on cue, to the trigger words that it has inserted into my mind by dint of endless repetition although another possibility is that the really interesting thing about all this is not that to call it a beast is to defame all quadrupeds. The interesting thing is that the only weapons it has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it.

Warshall's transitive closure algorithm is thoroughly mistaken if it believes that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. I do not go for the hoary old chestnut that suggests The Blues comes naturally from croaky voices, encroaked by smoking. Leonard was born with the gift of a Golden Voice, he didn't smoke it that way!! Sure, the things warshall's transitive closure algorithm does are wrong, uninformed, brainless, biased -- you name it. But I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that warshall's transitive closure algorithm. focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, it attempts to twist and distort facts to justify its feelings but that just goes to show that in a recent essay, warshall's transitive closure algorithm. stated that anyone who dares to present another paradigm in opposition to its resentful sentiments can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist if we don't shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. That fact may not be pleasant but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter.

No matter what terms are used, warshall's transitive closure algorithm is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of its critics. The last painting of a dear friend is art not a commercial product! And that's where we are right now. Silly warmongers are more susceptible to warshall's transitive closure algorithm's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince warshall's transitive closure algorithm that the irritable aspect of its undertakings will create a stir between hateful talebearers and the homicidal public at large. As I expected, warshall's transitive closure algorithm was absolutely unconvinced.

I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why none of warshall's transitive closure algorithm's "progressive" ideas have actually resulted in any progress. LC still ain't touring and the rumour is just a tumour until I see ol' blue eyes back on stage throating Suzanne. But the short answer is that even when it isn't lying, warshall's transitive closure algorithm.'s using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. Note that warshall's transitive closure algorithm. should start developing the parts of its brain that have been impaired by neocolonialism. At least then it'll stop trying to create widespread hysteria. Look at what's happened since warshall's transitive closure algorithm. first ordered its assistants to exploit the masses: Views once considered besotted are now considered ordinary. Views once considered bestial are now considered perfectly normal. And the most ophidian of warshall's transitive closure algorithm.'s views are now seen as gospel by legions of the most unsavory turncoats I've ever seen. You know what I mean?

I wouldn't even mention that the truth of this is by no means limited to the field of general culture, but applies to politics as well, if it weren't honestly true. I heard through the grapevine that warshall's transitive closure algorithm. has graduated from occasionally exempting itself from the few principles it has to betraying them altogether. Whether or not this rumor is true, I used to claim that it was a huffy shyster. However, after seeing how warshall's transitive closure algorithm. wants to twist the truth, I now have an even lower opinion of it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that warshall's transitive closure algorithm.'s calumnies prove that it did little to no research before concluding that the sun rises just for it. Stated differently, warshall's transitive closure algorithm. ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, it tends to utter so much verbiage about totalitarianism that I can conclude only that if warshall's transitive closure algorithm. bites me I will bite back. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of warshall's transitive closure algorithm's headlong epigrams. They are not a cause; they are an effect.

So who's crazy? I, me, Jarkko, or the complainer who in 2shakesofalambstail is a'moaning and a'groaning.or all the immature, rebarbative ex-cons who contend that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune? Before you answer, let me point out that warshall's transitive closure algorithm. wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to fuel inquisitions. While it is clear why it wants that to be a taboo subject, statements like, "Warshall's transitive closure algorithm's metanarratives are a hotbed of imperialism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. If we are powerless to get warshall's transitive closure algorithm. off our backs, it is because we have allowed warshall's transitive closure algorithm. to send children to die as martyrs for causes that it is unwilling to die for itself. Imagine people everywhere embracing warshall's transitive closure algorithm.'s claim that it is a spokesman for God. The idea defies the imagination. There's an important difference between me and warshall's transitive closure algorithm.. Namely, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am willing to die for my cause. Warshall's transitive closure algorithm., in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to make a mockery of the term "philoprogenitiveness". In closing, we must work together to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Together, we can make a difference. Forever and always.

[dar]

I admit I've always had a tough time understanding alot of Greg's postings. I've teased him about that but I usually understand a bit. But this, I'm not even feeling blissfully ignorant, just intimidated and confused because I read the whole post and I don't understand any of it. (I understand a few sentences but I just don't get it and it seems like it's really important?)

Just being honest,

Dar

[margaret]

The post by Lion of Lions reminds me a similar lengthy one a year or two ago which was apparently computer- generated gibberish.

I just about follow what Greg was getting at!

[lizzytysh]

Hi Dar ~

I get the sense that you're supposed to go for the essence of it... the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. Not a bad parody, I must say. I was originally tempted to comment along the lines of, "I never realized you had alternate identities here, Greg." Decided to hold off on that, though.


~ Lizzy

[dar]

Geez, I can't believe I fell for this. And I was going to work on my "naive" this year. Guess Mr. Hasselhoff will be joining us in Edmonton this year. (Don't say a word Henning!)

Dar

[lizzytysh]

I could be wrong, too, Dar... however, that is the way it seems to me.


~ Lizzy

[dar]

It's ok Lizzy. Why I reply tend to reply to the posts which I understand the least is beyond me. I didn't actually understand the original request about a ten year old post from the ng anyway. I'll stay in the dark. It's safer there for me.

[lizzytysh]

That's okay, Dar. As I was getting here to see what you'd just said, it occurred to me that you may not have even been responding to my posting, but to Margaret's, who may be the one who really has it right.


~ Lizzy

[~greg]

I was originally tempted to comment along the lines of, "I never realized you had alternate identities here, Greg." Decided to hold off on that, though.

Thank you for that, at least!

And no, I have never used any alternate name. Ever.

Just "~greg". Same old "~greg". No space.
(The space is implicit, between my ears.)

(Alternate identities are an altogether different matter.
There are not enough names to name all of mine. )

So.
I am not "Lion of Lions".

And I am not everybody's favorite spammer,
the unfortunate victim of MI5 Persecution, whoever.

But "Lion of Lions" is obviously the same person who just recently
posted on alt.music.leonard-cohen the parody titled:
"MI5 Persecution of Mrs Leonard Arthur Cohen"

They could be different people, using the same nonsense-generator.
But I would prefer that they were the same person,
because I have a feeling I know who it is.

Of course I could be wrong. But you can guess what my guess is
from the title of the response that I almost made, namely:
"A TSUNAMI OF TOOTY FROOTIES"

~~

And of course I see the similarities with my writing.
And I am not in the least bit offended
when they're pointed out to me.

We all have our own personal ya-ya's to work out.
There is some degree of boasting that each of us must do,
--if only just to be done with it. And the sooner each of us
can get over our own personal presentation mania, then
the sooner we can be authentic and open to the true
happiness of each other's company.
(Provided we have anything left to say to each other.)

Any obscurity in my writing
is due to some kind of failed attempt to show off
in some way or another.

Because I'm still trying to grow up.


People have always wondered about me.
And I am truly sorry about that.
I never did want to be "different".
It's just that the drive in me to fit-in is exceedingly weak.

I was born that way. I had no choice.

I suppose I was supposed to fit in with the math and physics types.

I've been around them.
And they are truly fine people.
Generally much healthier minded than English department types.
Far fewer oversized fragile egos.

But unfortunately my heart was never with them.
It has always been with the poets and painters.

There are some 30000 physical-books in my library.
I have to sleep in the living room because the bed room is book-solid.

But ever since I first saw the "Songs From A Room" album cover,
that's been my idea of the ideal life style.

Just an empty white-washed room, on a Greek island.
One desk. One typewriter. And a girl or two.

Every day I beg myself - please let me just finish this
one program or theorem or philosophy, or obligatory
response to a klutz like Mr LaPine, --and then I'll
give up this lifeless approach to life, and start writing poetry.
It'll be slime-mold.
But at least it'll be alive.

~~

I never did have any friend who was into everything I was into.
But I've never wanted one

Everything interests me. Much too much.
I have absolute no instinctive sense of realatve value.

My best friends were those who cut me off when I went off
on tangents that they weren't interested in.
But in a way that let me know that it wasn't me they were
cutting off. "The sin, not the sinner."

And it's only that kind of pull-back
that lets me consider whether I really want to get into
the tangents I'm getting into, or not. And sometimes
I think they're worth it, and sometimes I think they aren't.
But at least I get the chance to make the choice.
Without that little help from my friends
I would have been a robot, a machine, a terminator.

So thank you, Dar!
I do consider you a true friend.

I know it can be frustrating for you plow through
some of my stuff without exploding in expletives!

But you've managed to do - and state your complaints
- without going that far.
And I really appreciate that.

~~~

Today I heard on CNN that Rudy Giuliani had Won!

Which surprised me. So I looked up and noticed
that what he, really, had was --"one".
Just 1 vote.

Language is hard to use. And I can't control what
people are or aren't interested in.

But when they have taken the trouble to try to read
something I have written, and still can't follow it,
then that is my fault. And I'd much rather they
just told me that than - - - (nothing).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And so for you Dar,
this is the last time I am going to explain this.

This --is the way I was using Warshall's algorithm.

It's taken verbatim from the script
that generated the lcngarc site at twoshakesofalamgstail,
-with my comments about the proof of the theorem, inside the subroutine.

The proof that this works - is the site itself!

So, if this isn't clear enough for you,
then it really is your fault.
You are simply hopeless. And I have to give up
trying to explain this to you.

(--And in that, you'd be following me.
Because I can't follow this anymore either!

There's a great expression in perl programming:
"write-once; read-never" ; )


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sub CLOSE_VECTORS
{
print "begin closing vector.\n";

MarkTime( my $op = 'Transitive closure of vectors' );

GET('`count', '`arrows');

# There are 2 subtle issues
# to do with closing 'vectors'.

# One is original hard "conflicts",
# meaning illusory instances of
# loops $p < $q && $q < $p,
# most likely due to missing posts
# or misordered references lines.
# I take extraordinary pains
# when initializing 'vectors' from 'arrow'
# to correct these few situations!

# The second problem is that Warshall's
# algorithm is incredibly slow if it's
# done straight. But it can be done
# much more quickly if it can be trusted
# that the relationship will never have
# loops. (And if it has loops, then I don't
# have the foggiest idea what to do about them!)
#
#
# So
# initialize 'vectors' from '`arrows'

# (vs old way of setting 'vectors' to 'arrow',
# --because either I want to to keep '`arrows'
# around to check which posts cause loops,
# or simply to keep the structures clean
# and separate.)

# notation: "$p < $q in $k" means that
# ..$p..$q.. occurs in the reference line
# of real post $k.

# "$p < $q" means that ..$p..$q.. occurs
# in some reference line.

# If $p < $q for some $i
# and $q < $p for no $j
# then $p < $q is asserted.

# But if $p < $q in $i
# whereas $q < $p in $j
# then there is a conflict.

# An attempt is made to resolve this rare
# but existing conflict by checking if
# exactly one of $p < $q ($q) and $q < $p ($p) occures.
# If so then the conflict is resolved.
# But if neither exists then the conflict remains,
# and we can't trust either ordering.
# (The posts will not get isolated
# from their threads because for $p < $q
# to be attested at all, means that
# $p < $q must occur in some $i,
# and therefore both $p < $i and $q < $i
# are attested, so $p and $q associate
# with the $i thread.
# BUT IF BOTH $p<$q($q) AND $q<$p($p) occur
# THEN THIS IS A LOOP!!!
# It's the smallest possible loop
# (unless some reference line actually
# contains ..$p..$q...$p !!)
# but a loop none the less,
# and the program dies. The problem
# if it occurs will have to be delt
# with manually.


#foreach my $q (0..$TOP)
foreach my $q (1..$COUNT)
{
print "ini vectors from arrows $q\n" if $q % 1000 == 0;
foreach my $p (keys %{$DB{'`arrows'}[$q]})
{
# so we know that $DB{'`arrows'}[$q]{$p} exists,
# that is, $p < $q is attested

my $pq = 1;
my $qp = 0;

if(exists $DB{'`arrows'}[$p]{$q})
{
# if also $q < $p is attested,
# then this is a conflict that has to be resolved.
$pq = exists $DB{'`arrows'}[$q]{$p}{$q}; # $p < $q is hard-attested
$qp = exists $DB{'`arrows'}[$p]{$q}{$p}; # $q < $p is hard-attested
}

if($pq and $qp)
{
# if both are hard-attested
# then this is a loop!!!
Log(0, "LOOP!!! $p refers to $q and $q refers to $p!!!");
next;
}

if( ! ($pq || $qp) )
{
# if neither is hard-attested
# then the conflict is unresolvable
Log(0, "unresolvable conflict");
next;
}

# At this point there was either no conflict
# or the conflict was resolved.

if($pq)
{
$DB{'vectors'}[$p]{$q} = -1; # means $p < $q
$DB{'vectors'}[$q]{$p} = 1; # means $q > $p
}
elsif($qp)
{
$DB{'vectors'}[$q]{$p} = -1; # means $q < $p
$DB{'vectors'}[$p]{$q} = 1; # means $p > $q
}
}
}

# Warshall's algorithm is
# foreach 3
# foreach 1
# foreach 2
# set 1 < 3
# if 1 < 2 < 3

# This is equivalent to "Quick Warshall's algorithm" (my term)
# foreach 3
# A = {x: x < 3}
# D = {x: 3 < x}
# foreach 1 in A
# foreach 3 in D
# set 1 < 3
# provided that the relationship is loopless
# (ie, not just irreflexive initially)

# Proof of Warshall's algorithm:
# It is asserted that after the algorithm
# has been run, then a < ... < z
# => a < z,
# where '<' on the left side of =>
# is the original given relationship,
# and '<' on the right side
# is the final processed relationship.
#
# Consider any chain
# a < ... < p < i < q < ... < z
# where < is the original given relationship.
# After the i-cycle this reduces to
# a < ... < p < q < ... < z
# where < is now in an intermediate state.
# But this intermediate state of '<' becomes
# the initial given state for each
# subsequent cycle. Meaning that if
# the final < is closed wrt this intermediate state,
# then it is closed wrt the original given state.
# So order the intermediate nodes
# in this cycle by the order in which they
# are processed in the loop. Then the chain
# reduces completely, in that order.

# Now: In general,
# '<' is in a "pre-i state" before cycle i,
# a "post-i" state after cycle i,
# and in various intermediate-i states during cycle i.
# During cycle i '<' changes by the additions of p < q,
# for each encountered pair (p,q) such that p < i < q.
# The point is, the set of these (p,q) pairs
# such that p < i < q,
# is exactly the same set in the pre-i,
# intermediate-i, and post-i states of '<',
# --provided the relationship is loopless.
# This is because the set would be augmented
# iff there is a (p,i) or an (i,q)
# such that p<i<i or i<i<q,
# which would imply instances of i < i,
# (If at any point there is a loop, a < ... < a,
# then at some stage of processing '<'
# would becomes reflexive (a < a),
# so it is not sufficient to stipulate
# that the original given relationship
# is irreflexive. It must remain irreflexive.)

# I believe Warshall's algorithm works when
# the relationship is reflexive.
# And I'm thinking now it works in any case!
# Cycle i would add a p < i (or i < q)
# iff there already is an instance of
# p < i && i < i
# (or i < i && i < q)
# BUT THIS IS NO ADDITION!!!
# p < i && i < i => p < i adds no information!!
# SO WHETHER OR NOT the relation is irreflexive,
# the quick algorithm should work!



#foreach my $i (0..$TOP)
foreach my $i (1..$COUNT)
{
print "warshall $i\n" if $i % 1000 == 0;
my @P = Ancestors($i);
my @Q = Descendants($i);
foreach my $p ( @P)
{
foreach my $q (@Q)
{
$DB{'vectors'}[$p]{$q} = -1;
$DB{'vectors'}[$q]{$p} = 1;
}
}
}

PUT('vectors');
REMOVE_DB('`arrows');

print "done closing vectors.\n";

Log(0, MarkTime($op) );
}