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

To: jla; Mia T
Q ERTY6

That is the coolest thing!!

33 posted on 04/23/2003 6:42:36 AM PDT by sultan88 ("I keep a close watch on this heart of mine, I keep my eyes wide open all the time...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: sultan88; jla
Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration
 
QWER•TY (kwûr'tee) 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...
 
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....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

link to movie

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.

clinton hunt-and-peck

Q ERTY1

Q ERTY2

Q ERTY3

Q ERTY4

Q ERTY5

Q ERTY6

Q ERTY7

Q ERTY8

Q ERTY9

 

 

 

34 posted on 04/23/2003 7:59:50 AM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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