Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mia T
What does Q erty mean?

Leni

31 posted on 12/20/2001 6:22:59 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: MinuteGal
 
QWER•TY (kwûr'té) adj.
Of, relating to, or designating the traditional configuration of typewriter or computer keyboard keys. [From the first six letters at the upper left.]
Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration
 
 
No Joke
 
Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.
 
BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
The Wall Street Journal
 
What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and
merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or
"vandalism"?
 
These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and
civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the
Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to
newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and
he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when
others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their
words, or whisper.
 
Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and
sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the
contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with
the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the
White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting
self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like
a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the
soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by
the ex-presidential locusts.
 
According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House
performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White
House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of
drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the
recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the
slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic
images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and
bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory
signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.
 
Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the
monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.
There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate. Peggy
Noonan writes: "You just know when you read about it that it's worse
than anyone is saying--the Bush people being discreet because they don't
want to start out with complaints and finger pointing, the Clinton-Gore
people because it is in their obvious interests to play it down."
 
These actions have been characterized as "pranks" in the press, although
the Washington Post did, in a giveaway line, suggest that there was more
to the story than high jinks. Quoting Clinton(ian) sources, the paper
said:
"The Democratic officials said the actions were meant to be funny, or in
some cases were an outlet for frustration by soon-to-be-unemployed
staffers."
 
 
 
Were these actions "pranks"? Let's parse the situation, and start by
returning to my original question: What is a prank? I think most people
would agree that a prank is an impish action, intended by the prankster
to make the "prankee" feel momentarily sheepish, but not shell-shocked
or outraged. Classic pranks are intended to provoke a prankish payback,
not heated antagonism, or contempt. In other words, the prankster's
motivation lies in a sense of irreverent one-upmanship--in mischief, not
malice. The mental state, or mens rea, of the perpetrator is as central
to the definition of prank as it is to murder or assault.
 
To give you an example: In my days at Oxford, I was witness to a healthy
rivalry between my college, Trinity, and our insufferable neighbors,
Balliol.
Pranks were the currency in which this rivalry was traded. On one
occasion, some chaps from Balliol uprooted the rugby posts from the
Trinity grounds (some four miles away), brought them in a hired lorry to
college, and set them up on the lawns in front of the Trinity chapel.
They chuckled, and, yes, we chuckled too. In reprisal, a handful of
hearties from Trinity stole into Balliol in the pitch of night and
unleashed a sheep in the college library there, the stench of whose
droppings caused the Balliol librarian nearly to faint the next
morning. Again, we chuckled, and they chuckled back. These were
pranks, part of a sequential, good-natured rivalry. There was no malice
aforethought, only a juvenile sense of caper.
 
The other distinction between a prank and an act that exceeds a prank's
bounds is the causing of harm, or damage. In boarding school in India,
as a boy, I once threw a rock at a hive of wild bees that had grown,
high up, on the clock tower of the school's main building. My aim was
unerring, and the hive broke, discharging scores of furious bees in the
direction of my admiring friends. While I was able to scamper to
safety, two boys were stung so badly that they were hospitalized. My
act was not a prank, since it had caused damage. I was publicly caned,
and rightly, by the principal.
 
 
 
In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed
to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention
the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.
So the hanging up, here and there, of signs that said "Dept.
of Strategery"--a play on the president's bumbling way with words--was a
prank worthy of my confreres at Trinity or Balliol, or even of the frat
house at which our "frat boy" president earned his spurs.
 
But the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The
gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers
with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the
public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's
rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards
needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this
repair.
 
Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true
prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.
Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,
of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a
prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.
 
That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation
to you.
 
Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

clinton hunt-and-peck
 

Q ERTY1

Q ERTY2

Q ERTY3

Q ERTY4

Q ERTY5

Q ERTY6

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

 
 

54 posted on 12/20/2001 11:14:01 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson