Flames and flame wars
Zaphkiel
< This is a first draft. I was going to wait until I
was finished to post it, but the subject came up.
Criticize all you want, I welcome the feedback.
--Zaphkiel>
or.... Sun Tzu and the Art of (the flame) War
"All warfare is based on deception. A skilled general
must be master of the complementary arts of simulation
and dissimulation; while creating shapes to confuse and
delude the enemy he conceals his true disposition and
ultimate intent. (.) His primary target is the mind of the
opposing commander; the victorious situation, a product
of his creative imagination. Sun Tzu realized that an
indespensible preliminary to battle was to attack the
mind of the enemy." 1
All warfare is based on deception. If you don't like
deceiving people, or dislike having other people
deceive you, then why are you getting involved in
an activity that is based on them?
Before a flame war begins, you are in a perfect
defensive positon. Nothing can damage you. No one
can reach through the screen, 'Poltergeist'-like, and
drag you into a debate. You have to choose to
participate. My purpose in writing this is not to judge
people who flame or refrain from flaming. My purpose
is to get those who choose to engage in a war to
think of it as a WAR. Because it is a war, from the
enemy it creates right on down to the collateral damage
it caused among the civilian population.
"Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself;
in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." 2
Know yourself. What is important to you? Why are you
involved in this particular newsgroup? What are your
abilities? What are your weaknesses? And the most
important- What are you trying to achieve by flaming?
Before you begin any flame war, decide what your
objectives are. Unless you know what victory is going
to consist of, you are going to have a difficult time finding
it. What do you want to achieve? Decide on that, and
then you can plot a course that will get you there.
Make closed ended objectives. Things like 'setting
the record straight' are good. Things like 'making sure
no one talks about my mama' are bad. Open ended
objectives lead to Vietnam-like experiences. They take
the decision of when the war is over out of your hands,
and place them directly in the hands of your opponent.
It is wise to keep your subjective view of what victory
consists of well within your sights, and under your control.
Know your enemy. Same questions. Why are they
here, and what are they trying to achieve? Only by
knowing where they are coming from, and where they
are trying to go can you effectively stop them from getting
there.
"Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in
war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was
prolonged." 3
For any aspiring flame warrior, this is an important lesson.
In a long flame war, nobody wins. Your time is valuable,
isn't it?
"Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
the enemies strategy." 4
It is always possible to win the battle, and lose the war.
The opposite is also true. Sometimes losing a battle will
achieve your objective. Don't limit your options. Keep your
eye on the ball. To subdue the enemy *without* fighting
is the acme of skill.
"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to
the field of battle and are not brought there by him." 5
Whenever you are in a flame war, and your opponent
tries to dictate what you can and cannot do, or what you
must do in order to be (honest/intelligent/non-hypocritical/
whatever) they are attempting to force you to fight on
their turf. If you do it, you are giving up the initiative, and
in my opinion, asking for trouble. That is not to say that
it's always the wrong move. It might not be. But keep in
mind that what they are trying to do is limit your options.
"Thus, those skilled at making the enemy move do so
by creating a situation to which he must conform; they
entice him with something he is certain to take, and with
lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength." 6
This is where the deception come in. If you know your
enemy, you know what he will leap at a chance to attack.
You know what his emotional buttons are. You know
what he will use to attack with. With a little intellectual
judo any attack can be redirected. IF you know where
it's coming from.
"When fires are raised up wind, do not attack from
down wind."7
Bill Gawne
Zaphkiel wrote:
Quite a bit...
>
> < This is a first draft. I was going to wait until I
> was finished to post it, but the subject came up.
> Criticize all you want, I welcome the feedback.
> --Zaphkiel>
My initial impression is that it contains a lot of good stuff, but
it seems more than a tad offensive to me.
Trying to figure out *why* it rankles, I think that the reasons fall
something like this:
1. Zaph presents all this information from a position of somebody who
apparently understands war. While I have no direct knowledge of Zaph's
expertise in this field, I get the idea that it's not much deeper than
ownership of a translation of Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_.
2. I don't feel that Zaph has established his 'standing' within the
Callahan's 'community' to the point where he ought to be taken seriously.
My personal opinion of the guy, thus far, is that he's a jerk. I've
arrived at this opinion by reading some of his posts (not all, I don't have
time to read all the posts that get made in a.c) over the past few months.
Looking at some of the particulars:
> "All warfare is based on deception. [...snip remainder of Sun Tzu quote]
> All warfare is based on deception. If you don't like
> deceiving people, or dislike having other people
> deceive you, then why are you getting involved in
> an activity that is based on them?
I disagree with the premise here. War is a violent conflict between two
(or more) opposing independent wills. While warfare often uses deception
as a means to securing victory, it is not based on deception. To put it into
a bit more precise mathematical analogy, the Basis of War must include a set
which spans the space of warfare. Deception, alone, does not satisfy this
definition.
I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
resort to deception.
I'll also allow that I don't like the implicit statement that anybody who
engages in a flame war (or war of any other sort) is therefore involved in
deception. I daresay most of the people reading this who consider themselves
'warriors' will agree.
> [...] My purpose in writing this is not to judge
> people who flame or refrain from flaming. My purpose
> is to get those who choose to engage in a war to
> think of it as a WAR. Because it is a war, from the
> enemy it creates right on down to the collateral damage
> it caused among the civilian population.
I think this statement is particularly worthwhile. Good stuff here.
> "Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself;
> in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." 2
This is nonsense. No matter how well you know your opponent, you
still place yourself in harm's way when you go into battle.
(Yeah, I know Sun Tzu was a general who never got into the real action,
but it's still an absurd statement. Then again, I think that _The Art
of War_ is vastly over-rated. Clausewicz (sp?) was a much better
military philosopher, to name but one of many.)
> Know yourself. What is important to you? Why are you
> involved in this particular newsgroup? What are your
> abilities? What are your weaknesses? And the most
> important- What are you trying to achieve by flaming?
While this is pretty good advice for USENET newsgroups at large, it
seems to me to be discounting some of what makes alt.callahans
different from alt.joes.bar.
A fair number of folks who come into this newsgroup do so because they're
looking for a refuge. They are not exactly prime examples of psychological
equilibrium. They find this place because they need it, or at least they
need the bar it was based on and this newsgroup is the closest they can
get to it.
So while a whole bunch of the regular patrons *are* good wholesome well
adjusted folks who actually can 'know themselves' the paragraph ignores
those folks I kinda think are the most vulnerable to being hurt by
a flamewar conducted within alt.callahans, and the ones who I *think* a
flame FAQ should be most concerned with.
> [...] Open ended objectives lead to Vietnam-like experiences.
While I suppose that 'Vietnam-like experience' has entered the vernacular
as shorthand for 'long protracted way to lose', I find myself bridling
at the term here. Partially because I haven't seen anything which makes
me think that Zaph has any more knowledge of what happened in Vietnam than
some kid selling roses on a street corner, and partly because I think that
the use of this kind of term invites mis-communication. This newsgroup
is read by people all over the world, and thus our ADMIN posts should avoid,
in as much as is possible, references to ideas which are uniquely American
in concept.
> For any aspiring flame warrior, this is an important lesson.
> In a long flame war, nobody wins. Your time is valuable,
> isn't it?
It occurs to me that for at least -some- flame warriors, the conflict is
the whole purpose. They enjoy creating and sustaining turmoil. They
thrive on it. So a long flame war is precisely what they want. The longer,
the better.
> "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
> the enemies strategy." 4
Nope. What is of supreme importance in war is to achieve your objectives.
This reasonably includes trying to grasp the opposition's strategy, but
may not require you to attack that strategy at all. Heck, your best course
of action might well be to let them proceed with their strategy while you
do something completely different.
> It is always possible to win the battle, and lose the war.
> The opposite is also true. Sometimes losing a battle will
> achieve your objective. Don't limit your options. Keep your
> eye on the ball.
I'm not quite sure what the point of including these platitudes here is.
If there's a purpose, then why not pile in a few more too?
> To subdue the enemy *without* fighting is the acme of skill.
That's usually true, but not always. Suppose your opponent wants you to be
unskilled in fighting? A series of conflicts which are resolved by diplomacy
might then lead you to believe you can resolve all future conflicts that way.
Then your fighting skills atrophy, and when you need them for the conflict
where diplomacy does not work, you don't have them.
> "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to
> the field of battle and are not brought there by him." 5
Sure, it's always preferable to pick your own time and place for a shootout.
But just because you get ambushed doesn't mean you're unskilled in war.
It means, rather, that you went in harm's way - which is often required
in warfare.
> Whenever you are in a flame war, and your opponent
> tries to dictate what you can and cannot do, or what you
> must do in order to be (honest/intelligent/non-hypocritical/
> whatever) they are attempting to force you to fight on
> their turf. If you do it, you are giving up the initiative, and
> in my opinion, asking for trouble.
Yep, yep, yep.
> "Thus, those skilled at making the enemy move do so
> by creating a situation to which he must conform; they
> entice him with something he is certain to take, and with
> lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength." 6
And sometimes get an unpleasant surprise. Consider the 29th British
Infantry. They invited battle from the Zulus at Islandawana (sp?)
and got wiped out to the last man. Sometimes picking the time and
the place just is not enough.
I understand that a lot of what I've written has more to do with
the kind of war where people get killed and maimed than with USENET
flamewars. Zaph chose to make the analogy that both are in essence
the same thing.
I'd suggest that flamewars are better thought of as 'serious games'
and can be better analyzed in terms of game theory. In that sense
they *are* like real wars at the operational level. But trying to
equate flaming on the net with the life and death business of warfare
seems just a tad silly to me.
(copy to Zaphkiel)
--
Bill Gawne - in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
On the Web: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/SOF/bios/bgawne.html
Senior Spacecraft Analyst, RXTE | Disclaimer: Nothing I post in
Science Operations Facility; and retired | alt.callahans represents an official
Master Sergeant, US Marine Corps Reserve.| position of any organization.
Pat Kight
Bill Gawne wrote:
>
> Zaphkiel wrote:
>
> Quite a bit...
> >
> > < This is a first draft. I was going to wait until I
> > was finished to post it, but the subject came up.
> > Criticize all you want, I welcome the feedback.
> > --Zaphkiel>
>
> My initial impression is that it contains a lot of good stuff, but
> it seems more than a tad offensive to me.
>
> Trying to figure out *why* it rankles, I think that the reasons fall
> something like this:
(Bill's reasoned explanation snipped. Listen to the guy. He knows
whereof he speaks.)
Jezebel shudders.
"I think I can tell you why Zaph's little, er, satire rankles *me*,
Bill, and it doesn't have a lot to do with its inept parody of Shun
Tzu's classic.
"I consider flames to be an unfortunate side-effect of human-to-human
interaction on the 'Net: Something to be avoided if possible, quelled
by reasoned discussion if possible and ignored the rest of the time.
"Zaph, on the other hand, has made it fairly clear that he sees flamage
as a *sport* - a game, if you will, in which the object is to win.
"By bringing Shun Tzu into the equation, Zaph now seems to be telling us
that the petty issues of the average flame fest are the equivalent of
actual warfare, and that disputes between people here should be
approached as if they were battles.
"If that's really his position - if this isn't just an elaborate troll
on Zaph's part - then I'd suggest he enlist in the military and
volunteer at the first opportunity for combat duty in any of the several
places on this planet where real, live war is under way. Then come back
and tell us how to conduct ourselves.
> I'd suggest that flamewars are better thought of as 'serious games'
> and can be better analyzed in terms of game theory. In that sense
> they *are* like real wars at the operational level. But trying to
> equate flaming on the net with the life and death business of warfare
> seems just a tad silly to me.
"I'd go further, Bill, and say that the analogy is goes beyond silliness
and into the realm of the incredibly offensive. Especially to any of us
who have lost friends, relatives and loved ones to actual war."
Jez sighs. There's an irony here that's not lost on her. "This is
probably the closest thing to a flame I've ever posted on Usenet. If
Zaph *is* trolling, then I guess I'm his first catch."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Bill Gawne
First, a cautionary note: I may not see a post in this thread quickly, as I don't
get to read the newsgroup daily. If you want me to see something, then please
e-mail a copy of the post.
Now back to the thread...
Earlier Zaphkiel wrote:
> }> All warfare is based on deception. [...]
I replied:
> }I disagree with the premise here. War is a violent conflict between two
> }(or more) opposing independent wills. While warfare often uses deception
> }as a means to securing victory, it is not based on deception. To put it into
> }a bit more precise mathematical analogy, the Basis of War must include a set
> }which spans the space of warfare. Deception, alone, does not satisfy this
> }definition.
The Unchained Tiger then followed with:
> "Not in and of itself. Effective warfare is based on intelligence (in the
> military use of the word) and therefore deception is essential to get your
> enemy to make mistakes."
I would agree that effective warfare -requires- good intelligence, though I will
still quibble over semantics and claim that intelligence is at best one part of
the basis set.
> }I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
> }resort to deception.
>
> "Possible, certainly. But the purpose of war is winning, and anything
> that serves that end is therefore 'good'.
Agreed. Though this seems to be beside the point of an alt.callahans Flame FAQ...
UT again:
> [...] Most flamewars I have been involved in are more like
> pre-Clausewitz European wars, where there is a 'code' underlying the conflict.
> However, most I have witnessed make full use of deception."
Again, I agree. But do you think that the protracted emotional disagreements
which occur in alt.callahans show this use of deception? I personally think
that one of the key differences between a.c type 'flamewars' and those in
other groups is that the disagreements in a.c don't generally include any
intent to deceive.
> "Yes. The level of truth important to sci.physics is different from that
> of alt.support.incest, where there may be 'Higher Truths' involved. I would
> think that a.c is somewhere in between.
*smile* I gave up on sci.physics years ago but still occassionally participate
in physics discussions here in a.c. The quality of the physics posts here is
much better.
> Truth is important here, but not at any price (IMHO)."
The requirements for accuracy and precision vary depending on the threads, as
I see things. Alt.callahans is something of a net-in-miniature, and we have
posts on all kinds of topics here. In those threads where the discussion is
serious and factual, I think that objective reality needs to be adhered to -
and it generally is. In the humor threads, and the speculative storytelling,
other considerations dominate.
> }> "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
> }> the enemies strategy." 4
> }
> }Nope. What is of supreme importance in war is to achieve your objectives.
> }This reasonably includes trying to grasp the opposition's strategy, but
> }may not require you to attack that strategy at all. Heck, your best course
> }of action might well be to let them proceed with their strategy while you
> }do something completely different.
>
> "That, in itself, is an attack on their strategy, isn't it? You make
> their strategy irrelevant. I win many games that way."
I think this is another case where I'm in fundamental agreement with the UT
but our semantics differ.
> }> It is always possible to win the battle, and lose the war.
> }> The opposite is also true. Sometimes losing a battle will
> }> achieve your objective. Don't limit your options. Keep your
> }> eye on the ball.
> }
> }I'm not quite sure what the point of including these platitudes here is.
> }If there's a purpose, then why not pile in a few more too?
>
> "I would say that one would be useful only combined with specific
> reference to the fact that battles leave lots of collateral damage, that you
> can't fight a full blown flamewar in a.c without it detracting from many
> peoples enjoyment of a.c . Otherwise, it's useful only in a manual in how to
> *win* flamewars."
Very well said UT. I concur.
> }> To subdue the enemy *without* fighting is the acme of skill.
> }
> }That's usually true, but not always. Suppose your opponent wants you to be
> }unskilled in fighting? A series of conflicts which are resolved by diplomacy
> }might then lead you to believe you can resolve all future conflicts that way.
> }Then your fighting skills atrophy, and when you need them for the conflict
> }where diplomacy does not work, you don't have them.
>
> "We should conduct regular excercises in flaming here, so that if
> alt.syntax.tact!cal shows up, we can beat them back?"
No, and I *hope* nobody actually thought I meant that. I was refering to
warfare in general, not flaming.
I would allow that anybody who actually wants to involve themselves in
flamewars - in general - should practice in 'live exercises'. But that is
not germane to alt.callahans other than such practice ought -not- to
occur in here.
> "If you get ambushed, it means one of three things: You either did
> exactly what the enemy expected you to do, you could only be there at that
> time and place, or you were completely unaware that you might be attacked.
> Some combination of these is certainly possible."
Are you familiar with the concept of reconnaisance in force? Again, I
hope nobody is deliberately ambushing anybody else in here... but since
you list those three things as a complete set, I suggest there could
be additional reasons.
> [...] some of the
> people who come to a.c are not expecting an assault, and are not prepared to
> deal with it. To the full-time flamer, it's just a game. To the walking
> wounded who come in here sometimes, it isn't."
Exactly.
> "Applying military metaphors to flamewars is no more silly than applying
> them to games in general. Where they allow you to get useful principles, use
> them. Any metaphor can get stretched out of shape."
I agree. I think that Zaph stretched the metaphors too far, and in doing so
I think that the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
feelings his presentation engendered.
The Gentleman
In article <324D42...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Bill Gawne <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
}Zaphkiel wrote:
}Looking at some of the particulars:
}> "All warfare is based on deception. [...snip remainder of Sun Tzu
quote]
}> All warfare is based on deception. If you don't like
}> deceiving people, or dislike having other people
}> deceive you, then why are you getting involved in
}> an activity that is based on them?
}
}I disagree with the premise here. War is a violent conflict between two
}(or more) opposing independent wills. While warfare often uses deception
}as a means to securing victory, it is not based on deception. To put it into
}a bit more precise mathematical analogy, the Basis of War must include a set
}which spans the space of warfare. Deception, alone, does not satisfy this
}definition.
"Not in and of itself. Effective warfare is based on intelligence (in the
military use of the word) and therefore deception is essential to get your
enemy to make mistakes."
}
}I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
}resort to deception.
"Possible, certainly. But the purpose of war is winning, and anything
that serves that end is therefore 'good'. This assumes, of course, that one's
only interest is 'winning'."
}
}I'll also allow that I don't like the implicit statement that anybody who
}engages in a flame war (or war of any other sort) is therefore involved in
}deception. I daresay most of the people reading this who consider themselves
}'warriors' will agree.
"True enough. Most flamewars I have been involved in are more like
pre-Clausewitz European wars, where there is a 'code' underlying the conflict.
However, most I have witnessed make full use of deception."
}
}> [...] My purpose in writing this is not to judge
}> people who flame or refrain from flaming. My purpose
}> is to get those who choose to engage in a war to
}> think of it as a WAR. Because it is a war, from the
}> enemy it creates right on down to the collateral damage
}> it caused among the civilian population.
}
}I think this statement is particularly worthwhile. Good stuff here.
Agreement.
}
}> "Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself;
}> in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." 2
}
}This is nonsense. No matter how well you know your opponent, you
}still place yourself in harm's way when you go into battle.
}(Yeah, I know Sun Tzu was a general who never got into the real action,
}but it's still an absurd statement. Then again, I think that _The Art
}of War_ is vastly over-rated. Clausewicz (sp?) was a much better
}military philosopher, to name but one of many.)
"Sun Tzu was referring to the need for accurate information. Remember,
until Sun Tzu, little attention had been paid to the idea. Clausewitz had two
millenia of additional experience to build on, as well as the works of Sun
Tzu, Machiavelli, and others. Still, Sun Tzu is difficult to understand, but
Clausewitz is easy to *mis*understand. He had a habit for making strong,
clear, agressive direct statements, and qualifying them in language that was
much less clear. I have been told by people that can read German that this is
true even in the original, although it is worse in translation."
}
}> Know yourself. What is important to you? Why are you
}> involved in this particular newsgroup? What are your
}> abilities? What are your weaknesses? And the most
}> important- What are you trying to achieve by flaming?
}
}While this is pretty good advice for USENET newsgroups at large, it
}seems to me to be discounting some of what makes alt.callahans
}different from alt.joes.bar.
}
}A fair number of folks who come into this newsgroup do so because they're
}looking for a refuge. They are not exactly prime examples of psychological
}equilibrium. They find this place because they need it, or at least they
}need the bar it was based on and this newsgroup is the closest they can
}get to it.
"Yes. The level of truth important to sci.physics is different from that
of alt.support.incest, where there may be 'Higher Truths' involved. I would
think that a.c is somewhere in between. Truth is important here, but not at
any price (IMHO)."
}
}> [...] Open ended objectives lead to Vietnam-like experiences.
}
}While I suppose that 'Vietnam-like experience' has entered the vernacular
}as shorthand for 'long protracted way to lose', I find myself bridling
}at the term here. Partially because I haven't seen anything which makes
}me think that Zaph has any more knowledge of what happened in Vietnam than
}some kid selling roses on a street corner, and partly because I think that
}the use of this kind of term invites mis-communication. This newsgroup
}is read by people all over the world, and thus our ADMIN posts should avoid,
}in as much as is possible, references to ideas which are uniquely American
}in concept.
"It needs some qualification, such as 'Open ended objectives lead to
open-ended conflicts', and then try to name examples."
}
}> For any aspiring flame warrior, this is an important lesson.
}> In a long flame war, nobody wins. Your time is valuable,
}> isn't it?
}
}It occurs to me that for at least -some- flame warriors, the conflict is
}the whole purpose. They enjoy creating and sustaining turmoil. They
}thrive on it. So a long flame war is precisely what they want. The longer,
}the better.
"More than a few of that type. There are entire groups dedicated to such
people, who make a game out of attacking and ruining other groups."
}
}> "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
}> the enemies strategy." 4
}
}Nope. What is of supreme importance in war is to achieve your objectives.
}This reasonably includes trying to grasp the opposition's strategy, but
}may not require you to attack that strategy at all. Heck, your best course
}of action might well be to let them proceed with their strategy while you
}do something completely different.
"That, in itself, is an attack on their strategy, isn't it? You make
their strategy irrelevant. I win many games that way."
}
}> It is always possible to win the battle, and lose the war.
}> The opposite is also true. Sometimes losing a battle will
}> achieve your objective. Don't limit your options. Keep your
}> eye on the ball.
}
}I'm not quite sure what the point of including these platitudes here is.
}If there's a purpose, then why not pile in a few more too?
"I would say that one would be useful only combined with specific
reference to the fact that battles leave lots of collateral damage, that you
can't fight a full blown flamewar in a.c without it detracting from many
peoples enjoyment of a.c . Otherwise, it's useful only in a manual in how to
*win* flamewars."
}
}> To subdue the enemy *without* fighting is the acme of skill.
}
}That's usually true, but not always. Suppose your opponent wants you to be
}unskilled in fighting? A series of conflicts which are resolved by diplomacy
}might then lead you to believe you can resolve all future conflicts that way.
}Then your fighting skills atrophy, and when you need them for the conflict
}where diplomacy does not work, you don't have them.
"We should conduct regular excercises in flaming here, so that if
alt.syntax.tact!cal shows up, we can beat them back?"
}
}> "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to
}> the field of battle and are not brought there by him." 5
}
}Sure, it's always preferable to pick your own time and place for a shootout.
}But just because you get ambushed doesn't mean you're unskilled in war.
}It means, rather, that you went in harm's way - which is often required
}in warfare.
"If you get ambushed, it means one of three things: You either did
exactly what the enemy expected you to do, you could only be there at that
time and place, or you were completely unaware that you might be attacked.
Some combination of these is certainly possible."
}
}> "Thus, those skilled at making the enemy move do so
}> by creating a situation to which he must conform; they
}> entice him with something he is certain to take, and with
}> lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength." 6
}
}And sometimes get an unpleasant surprise. Consider the 29th British
}Infantry. They invited battle from the Zulus at Islandawana (sp?)
}and got wiped out to the last man. Sometimes picking the time and
}the place just is not enough.
}
}I understand that a lot of what I've written has more to do with
}the kind of war where people get killed and maimed than with USENET
}flamewars. Zaph chose to make the analogy that both are in essence
}the same thing.
}
}I'd suggest that flamewars are better thought of as 'serious games'
}and can be better analyzed in terms of game theory. In that sense
}they *are* like real wars at the operational level. But trying to
}equate flaming on the net with the life and death business of warfare
}seems just a tad silly to me.
}
"I have written a little on gaming strategy, I'm even working on a book
about it, for computer gamers. However, as you mentioned above, some of the
people who come to a.c are not expecting an assault, and are not prepared to
deal with it. To the full-time flamer, it's just a game. To the walking
wounded who come in here sometimes, it isn't."
"Applying military metaphors to flamewars is no more silly than applying
them to games in general. Where they allow you to get useful principles, use
them. Any metaphor can get stretched out of shape."
UT
--
It's good to know that if I behave strangely enough, society will take full
responsibility for me.
Ashleigh Brilliant
//.sig created by Inscrutable V0.2a
//Please report any irregularities to elcab...@aol.com
Zaphkiel
In article <52k6fn$7...@library.airnews.net>, elcab...@aol.com says...
>}
>}I'll also allow that I don't like the implicit statement that anybody who
>}engages in a flame war (or war of any other sort) is therefore involved in
>}deception. I daresay most of the people reading this who consider themselves
>}'warriors' will agree.
>
> "True enough. Most flamewars I have been involved in are more like
>pre-Clausewitz European wars, where there is a 'code' underlying the conflict.
> However, most I have witnessed make full use of deception."
Most I have seen as well. I suppose it depends on whether you consider
"spin doctoring" to be deceptive. I do. While putting something in the best
possible light may not be an untruth, it most certainly is not the whole
truth.
>}
>}> For any aspiring flame warrior, this is an important lesson.
>}> In a long flame war, nobody wins. Your time is valuable,
>}> isn't it?
>}
>}It occurs to me that for at least -some- flame warriors, the conflict is
>}the whole purpose. They enjoy creating and sustaining turmoil. They
>}thrive on it. So a long flame war is precisely what they want. The longer,
>}the better.
INdeed. And if you understand your enemy, determine that they are the
type of person who wants that, then wouldn't the most effective way of
defeating them be to NOT give them what they want?
However, the words "nobody wins" are, indeed an over generalization. I
stand corrected. There are some people like that.
>}I understand that a lot of what I've written has more to do with
>}the kind of war where people get killed and maimed than with USENET
>}flamewars. Zaph chose to make the analogy that both are in essence
>}the same thing.
Well, which is it? Did I make an analogy, or did I say they were the
same thing? It is possible to compare two things, see where they are
the same, and see where they are different, and use that knowledge to
your advantage.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <324DAC...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Bill says...
>UT said
>> [...] some of the
>> people who come to a.c are not expecting an assault, and are not prepared to
>> deal with it. To the full-time flamer, it's just a game. To the walking
>> wounded who come in here sometimes, it isn't."
>
>Exactly.
Precisely. Now, we have already established in another thread that we,
as a group, are unable to stop flaming. We, as a group, are unwilling (and
in all probablity unable) to do anything to stop those who feel they must
flame from doing so. That is the first half of the problem.
The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
Or I suppose we could do nothing. Just throw up our hands and say 'Gee, it's
too bad that people got hurt. I wish that wouldn't happen.' If we teach
them how the game is played, show them how to avoid being hurt by it, is
that not a worthwhile goal?
>
>> "Applying military metaphors to flamewars is no more silly than applying
>> them to games in general. Where they allow you to get useful principles, use
>> them. Any metaphor can get stretched out of shape."
>
>I agree. I think that Zaph stretched the metaphors too far, and in doing so
>I think that the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
>feelings his presentation engendered.
>
Those metaphors have been 'successfully' (from the standpoint of the
people using them) used in business.
As for "the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
feelings his presentation engendered", well, that phrase sounds oddly
familiar. Where have I heard it before?
--Zaphkiel
The Gentleman
In article <324DAC...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Bill Gawne <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
}First, a cautionary note: I may not see a post in this thread quickly, as I
don't
}get to read the newsgroup daily. If you want me to see something, then
please
}e-mail a copy of the post.
You certainly saw this one quickly enough.
}
}Now back to the thread...
}
}The Unchained Tiger then followed with:
}> "Not in and of itself. Effective warfare is based on intelligence (in
the
}> military use of the word) and therefore deception is essential to get your
}> enemy to make mistakes."
}
}I would agree that effective warfare -requires- good intelligence, though I
will
}still quibble over semantics and claim that intelligence is at best one part
of
}the basis set.
"Yeah. I should note, any 'practical' experience I have in military
strategy is in the highly stylized area of strategy gaming. Although I have
done extensive research into military strategy, it was all viewed through that
filter."
"I tend to highly emphasize intelligence because in gaming it is
frequently underestimated. And even then, my descriptions of the fundamentals
of gaming describes it only as one critical part of effective strategy."
}
}> }I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
}> }resort to deception.
}>
}> "Possible, certainly. But the purpose of war is winning, and anything
}> that serves that end is therefore 'good'.
}
}Agreed. Though this seems to be beside the point of an alt.callahans Flame
FAQ...
"Part of the problem is that we're trying to discuss two things at once,
strategy, and flaming."
}
}UT again:
}> [...] Most flamewars I have been involved in are more like
}> pre-Clausewitz European wars, where there is a 'code' underlying the
conflict.
}> However, most I have witnessed make full use of deception."
}
}Again, I agree. But do you think that the protracted emotional disagreements
}which occur in alt.callahans show this use of deception? I personally think
}that one of the key differences between a.c type 'flamewars' and those in
}other groups is that the disagreements in a.c don't generally include any
}intent to deceive.
"True enough. Most of even the inaccurate information to be found in them
was presented in good faith. They don't usually get nasty until their is
disagreement over the 'good faith' part of that."
}
}> "Yes. The level of truth important to sci.physics is different from
that
}> of alt.support.incest, where there may be 'Higher Truths' involved. I
would
}> think that a.c is somewhere in between.
}
}*smile* I gave up on sci.physics years ago but still occassionally
participate
}in physics discussions here in a.c. The quality of the physics posts here is
}much better.
"Yeah, perhaps not the best example. sci.crypt.research would be a better
example, although they're having their own troubles lately. But I am
constantly finding myself impressed by the knowledge of people I am
discussing things with, both in a.c and the rest of the net. Although
frankly, I have to agree that a.c frequently manages to maintain higher
standards. I don't often meet RL people who really are smarter than I am.
It's actually an enjoyable experience, I get to learn things."
}
}> Truth is important here, but not at any price (IMHO)."
}
}The requirements for accuracy and precision vary depending on the threads, as
}I see things. Alt.callahans is something of a net-in-miniature, and we have
}posts on all kinds of topics here. In those threads where the discussion is
}serious and factual, I think that objective reality needs to be adhered to -
}and it generally is. In the humor threads, and the speculative storytelling,
}other considerations dominate.
"Can't argue with you there."
}
}> }> "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
}> }> the enemies strategy." 4
}> }
}> }Nope. What is of supreme importance in war is to achieve your objectives.
}> }This reasonably includes trying to grasp the opposition's strategy, but
}> }may not require you to attack that strategy at all. Heck, your best
course
}> }of action might well be to let them proceed with their strategy while you
}> }do something completely different.
}>
}> "That, in itself, is an attack on their strategy, isn't it? You make
}> their strategy irrelevant. I win many games that way."
}
}I think this is another case where I'm in fundamental agreement with the UT
}but our semantics differ.
"Again, probably because your background is more formal than mine.
Still, the real point here is that 'winning' a flamewar in a.c is perhaps not
an objective you should try to achieve."
}
}> }That's usually true, but not always. Suppose your opponent wants you to
be
}> }unskilled in fighting? A series of conflicts which are resolved by
diplomacy
}> }might then lead you to believe you can resolve all future conflicts that
way.
}> }Then your fighting skills atrophy, and when you need them for the conflict
}> }where diplomacy does not work, you don't have them.
}>
}> "We should conduct regular excercises in flaming here, so that if
}> alt.syntax.tact!cal shows up, we can beat them back?"
}
}No, and I *hope* nobody actually thought I meant that. I was refering to
}warfare in general, not flaming.
}
}I would allow that anybody who actually wants to involve themselves in
}flamewars - in general - should practice in 'live exercises'. But that is
}not germane to alt.callahans other than such practice ought -not- to
}occur in here.
"There are certainly plenty of groups where flamewars are common. Indeed,
it is starting to take work to find those where flaming is not the primary
activity."
}
}> "If you get ambushed, it means one of three things: You either did
}> exactly what the enemy expected you to do, you could only be there at that
}> time and place, or you were completely unaware that you might be attacked.
}> Some combination of these is certainly possible."
}
}Are you familiar with the concept of reconnaisance in force? Again, I
}hope nobody is deliberately ambushing anybody else in here... but since
}you list those three things as a complete set, I suggest there could
}be additional reasons.
"Reconnaisance in force, in the context of a.c, would verge on being an
attack in itself. But yes, listing them as an inclusive set was not entirely
brilliant on my part. I was trying to avoid bringing too much military
context into it, and managed to step on my fingers."
}
}> "Applying military metaphors to flamewars is no more silly than
applying
}> them to games in general. Where they allow you to get useful principles,
use
}> them. Any metaphor can get stretched out of shape."
}
}I agree. I think that Zaph stretched the metaphors too far, and in doing so
}I think that the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
}feelings his presentation engendered.
}
"He may have. The idea does have merit, but the connotations are pretty
dire. Most people are not used to thinking of military strategy in its pure
form."
UT
--
There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.
Winston Churchill
Leslie
On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:00:25 -0700 in alt.callahans,
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> said:
+ Jez sighs. There's an irony here that's not lost on her. "This is
+ probably the closest thing to a flame I've ever posted on Usenet. If
+ Zaph *is* trolling, then I guess I'm his first catch."
Leslie hugs Jez. "Oh, heck no, you're not his first catch. He
had me damn near begging to jump into his boat, a while back.
"That was because he quite succesfully deceived me; he had me
believing that he was arguing (and even flaming) in good faith;
that he was representing himself and his beliefs honestly.
"A mistake I'll never make again, especially after reading this
little tract of his, where he openly confesses to using deceit,
lies, dishonesty, and calculated manipulation when he argues.
Not to mention that he admits that he flames for fun, for kicks.
The more disgusted and angry he makes people, the better he enjoys
it, because he doesn't care if anyone respects him or not.
"He forgot one of my favorite Sun Tzu quotes, though--
"'There are some battles which should not be joined.'
"Obviously, there can be no point whatsover in engaging in a battle with a
self-admitted lying flame-bait troller."
Leslie. What if they gave a war and nobody came?
--
Just the FAQs--If you need info about alt.callahans, I've got the FAQs!
*** <http://www.io.org/~deirdre/> || ftp.io.org/pub/users/deirdre ***
Sometimes the light's all shining on me--other times I can barely see--
Grateful Dead * If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane. J. Buffett
Zaphkiel
In article <324D42...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Bill says...
>
>Zaphkiel wrote:
>My initial impression is that it contains a lot of good stuff, but
>it seems more than a tad offensive to me.
>
>Trying to figure out *why* it rankles, I think that the reasons fall
>something like this:
>
>1. Zaph presents all this information from a position of somebody who
>apparently understands war. While I have no direct knowledge of Zaph's
>expertise in this field, I get the idea that it's not much deeper than
>ownership of a translation of Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_.
Don't let complete ignorance stand in the way of a good insult.
>
>2. I don't feel that Zaph has established his 'standing' within the
>Callahan's 'community' to the point where he ought to be taken seriously.
>My personal opinion of the guy, thus far, is that he's a jerk. I've
>arrived at this opinion by reading some of his posts (not all, I don't have
>time to read all the posts that get made in a.c) over the past few months.
So you feel that only people who you *like* are capable of coming up
with good ideas? What are the rules for becoming a member of this 'community'?
Is there a secret modem handshake? If I become a member, can I post
incredibly elitist bullshit, too? Gosh, I can hardly wait.
>I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
>resort to deception.
Ok, lets say we have two opponents. Equal strength. One doesn't
resort to deception, and the other does. Who wins?
Sure, it's possible. But if you want to avoid deception, I suggest
you (generic) stick to civilized debate. Avoiding deception *there* will
actually increase your chance of winning, instead of lowering it.
>> [...] My purpose in writing this is not to judge
>> people who flame or refrain from flaming. My purpose
>> is to get those who choose to engage in a war to
>> think of it as a WAR. Because it is a war, from the
>> enemy it creates right on down to the collateral damage
>> it caused among the civilian population.
>
>I think this statement is particularly worthwhile. Good stuff here.
Perhaps you could explain it to Jezebel for me, then? Please?
>
>> Know yourself. What is important to you? Why are you
>> involved in this particular newsgroup? What are your
>> abilities? What are your weaknesses? And the most
>> important- What are you trying to achieve by flaming?
>
>While this is pretty good advice for USENET newsgroups at large, it
>seems to me to be discounting some of what makes alt.callahans
>different from alt.joes.bar.
I wouldn't say 'discounting', really. What makes ac different would
become apparent by the *answers* to those questions.
>So while a whole bunch of the regular patrons *are* good wholesome well
>adjusted folks who actually can 'know themselves' the paragraph ignores
>those folks I kinda think are the most vulnerable to being hurt by
>a flamewar conducted within alt.callahans, and the ones who I *think* a
>flame FAQ should be most concerned with.
I agree totally, in fact. I certainly wasn't encouraging people who
have good self-knowledge to go out and flame people. If I was encouraging
anything at all, I was encouraging people who are not sure about what they
want to NOT engage in flame wars with people they don't know very well. It's
unwise.
>
>> "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack
>> the enemies strategy." 4
>
>Nope. What is of supreme importance in war is to achieve your objectives.
>This reasonably includes trying to grasp the opposition's strategy, but
>may not require you to attack that strategy at all. Heck, your best course
>of action might well be to let them proceed with their strategy while you
>do something completely different.
If you demand a literal definition of "attack", then yes.
>> "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to
>> the field of battle and are not brought there by him." 5
>
>Sure, it's always preferable to pick your own time and place for a shootout.
>But just because you get ambushed doesn't mean you're unskilled in war.
>It means, rather, that you went in harm's way - which is often required
>in warfare.
True, but if you get ambused, that means that in that time and place,
there was someone more skilled in warfare than you. There is always risk.
When you are operating without perfect intelligence (that is, always) you
have to play the odds. The odds are better if you pick the time and place.
--Zaphkiel
Bill Gawne
Eariler I wrote:
> }First, a cautionary note: I may not see a post in this thread quickly,
> } as I don't get to read the newsgroup daily. If you want me to see
> } something, then please e-mail a copy of the post.
The UT replied:
> You certainly saw this one quickly enough.
Yes, but this is an unusual case. I actually have a pretty quiet weekend and
I'm able to check the newsgroup several times a day as I do other stuff. That
will not be the case for me in general though...
Now back to the thread...
UT:
> "Yeah. I should note, any 'practical' experience I have in military
> strategy is in the highly stylized area of strategy gaming. Although I have
> done extensive research into military strategy, it was all viewed through that
> filter."
*nod* Mine has been a bit more practical than that. I served 22 years in the
USMC, 9 of them on active duty. Along the way I had formal instruction in
strategy, tactics, etc... several times. I've also spent more time in the
field applying that knowledge than I care to recall right now.
> "I tend to highly emphasize intelligence because in gaming it is
> frequently underestimated.
Not just gaming...
> "Part of the problem is that we're trying to discuss two things at once,
> strategy, and flaming."
Good point.
Further along I asked:
> }[...] But do you think that the protracted emotional disagreements
> }which occur in alt.callahans show this use of deception? I personally think
> }that one of the key differences between a.c type 'flamewars' and those in
> }other groups is that the disagreements in a.c don't generally include any
> }intent to deceive.
>
> "True enough. Most of even the inaccurate information to be found in them
> was presented in good faith. They don't usually get nasty until their is
> disagreement over the 'good faith' part of that."
Very good observation UT. Well said. I see it as an integrity issue, where
patrons become upset if their integrity is impugned; in the sense that their
integrity is represented by their good faith in participating within this
newsgroup.
> [...] I am
> constantly finding myself impressed by the knowledge of people I am
> discussing things with, both in a.c and the rest of the net. Although
> frankly, I have to agree that a.c frequently manages to maintain higher
> standards. I don't often meet RL people who really are smarter than I am.
> It's actually an enjoyable experience, I get to learn things."
*smile* This newsgroup is quite a place. A lot of these people here are
well worth knowing. Certainly most of the ones I've met in person are.
Before I close, I'd like to thank the UT for several other kind things he
said in the remainder of his followup. Glad to have you here UT. Hope
you hang around a while.
Bill Gawne
Zaphkiel:
> as a group, are unable to stop flaming.
As I just mentioned in a followup to the UT, the nature of what we seem to
be calling 'flaming' within a.c is significantly different from what gets
called 'flaming' on the net in general. This difference, I think, should
be kept clearly in mind as we proceed with a discussion of mitigating measures.
> We, as a group, are unwilling (and in all probablity unable) to do anything
> to stop those who feel they must flame from doing so.
I think this statement is too broad. We, as a group, tend to respect each
others rights to speak their minds - often with strong and emotional language -
when the person(s) posting feel strongly about whatever is being discussed.
OTOH, I don't think that most patrons have much tolerance for anybody who just
seems to be stirring up dissent. (admittedly, there have been many protracted
arguments based on whether or not a given person *is* deliberately stirring up
dissent, and that issue deserves attention too...)
> That is the first half of the problem.
Would you agree if I re-phrase it as, "Strong, often heated arguments occur
in alt.callahans from time to time. These arguments frequently resemble the
'flaming' seen on the net at large."?
> The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
> will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
How about we advise them of what is really going on? That may be more fruitful.
I'll admit I don't at all like the 'since we will not protect them...' sentence
above. It bothers me. It gives me the impression that you think we are
being callously negligent of peoples' feelings out of our respect for each
others right to an open forum. Was that your intention Zaph?
Beyond that, I don't see a requirement anywhere in this for us to 'teach them
to defend themselves.' I *do* see a requirement for good, clear advice to
newcomers about what really goes on in here and why it happens - with suggestions
about how to prevent the heated discussions from ruining their enjoyment of
the newsgroup.
> Or I suppose we could do nothing. Just throw up our hands and say 'Gee, it's
> too bad that people got hurt. I wish that wouldn't happen.' If we teach
> them how the game is played, show them how to avoid being hurt by it, is
> that not a worthwhile goal?
If the game you refer to is 'flaming' then my answer is no. Not here.
I don't think that anybody who has put the effort to make even one post
in the several threads currently running would endorse the idea of 'throwing
up our hands'. It looks like unnecessary and misleading rhetoric to me.
[concerning the use of warfare metaphors in this discussion Zaph wrote...]
> Those metaphors have been 'successfully' (from the standpoint of the
> people using them) used in business.
Yes, they have. I don't think alt.callahans is a business though. As I
understand it, this is a (mostly) social newsgroup.
> As for "the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
> feelings his presentation engendered", well, that phrase sounds oddly
> familiar. Where have I heard it before?
Any number of places are possible Zaph. I've heard it said about presidential
candidates in recent months. Or were you thinking of someone here in Callahans?
Bill Gawne
--
Bill Gawne
Earlier I wrote:
> >}I understand that a lot of what I've written has more to do with
> >}the kind of war where people get killed and maimed than with USENET
> >}flamewars. Zaph chose to make the analogy that both are in essence
> >}the same thing.
Zaphkiel asked in reply:
> Well, which is it? Did I make an analogy, or did I say they were the
> same thing?
As I understood your post, you did both. As I read it you sometimes seemed
to be asserting a 1 to 1 equivelence, and at other times you were more clear
about it being only an approximation.
> It is possible to compare two things, see where they are
> the same, and see where they are different, and use that knowledge to
> your advantage.
Yes, it is.
Bill Gawne
In the initial post of this thread, Zaphkiel wrote (in part):
>>> [...] My purpose in writing this is not to judge
>>> people who flame or refrain from flaming. My purpose
>>> is to get those who choose to engage in a war to
>>> think of it as a WAR. Because it is a war, from the
>>> enemy it creates right on down to the collateral damage
>>> it caused among the civilian population.
I replied to that paragraph:
> >I think this statement is particularly worthwhile. Good stuff here.
And then Zaphkiel requested:
> Perhaps you could explain it to Jezebel for me, then? Please?
Sure. I'll try anyway.
I considered it worthwhile because it stated Zaph's purpose clearly.
It defined what he did and didn't want to do, with some good explanation
of why he was trying to do it.
I happen to disagree with the implicit premise that a heated emotional
discussion within alt.callahans is a war. I gathered from Jez's response
that she shares my disagreement -and- feels such strong emotions reading
Zaph's prose that she was unable to appreciate what I saw as good in the
above paragraph.
(copies to Zaphkiel and Jez)
Alan Kors
Leslie (dei...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: The more disgusted and angry he makes people, the better he enjoys
: it, because he doesn't care if anyone respects him or not.
The Prof wants to know if we're talking Albert Belle here?
: "He forgot one of my favorite Sun Tzu quotes, though--
: "'There are some battles which should not be joined.'
Leslie, that is SunTzuble advice.
: "Obviously, there can be no point whatsover in engaging in a battle with a
: self-admitted lying flame-bait troller."
The Prof points out that you've just done it!
: Leslie. What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Ask the Czechs in 1938!!
Cheers, ACK
Bill Gawne
Earlier I posted:
> >1. Zaph presents all this information from a position of somebody who
> >apparently understands war. While I have no direct knowledge of Zaph's
> >expertise in this field, I get the idea that it's not much deeper than
> >ownership of a translation of Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_.
Zaph replied:
> Don't let complete ignorance stand in the way of a good insult.
I think that I was pretty clear about things there. I do not feel that I
wrote from a position of 'complete ignorance'. I based what I said on what
I have read of what Zaph has posted here in Callahan's. If 'ignorance' is
a matter of ignoring information, then I didn't act from ignorance at all.
Rather, I wrote having considered the source.
As for the implication that I insulted Zaphkiel with my statement, I
suppose I did. I wouldn't go so far as to claim it was a 'good' insult
though. It was, at most, a fair insult.
[Aside... Zaph, I'm willing to allow as I might be all wrong about you.
You might be a great guy. Surely there's some reason you came in here
in the first place and I'm trying, honestly I'm trying, to keep in mind
that there's another human being out there. I *do* think you made your
initial flame post 'in good faith', wanting to offer a solution to a
problem in Callahans. Thanks for doing that. I want to make sure you
know I appreciate your good intentions. -Bill]
> >2. I don't feel that Zaph has established his 'standing' within the
> >Callahan's 'community' to the point where he ought to be taken seriously.
> >My personal opinion of the guy, thus far, is that he's a jerk. I've
> >arrived at this opinion by reading some of his posts (not all, I don't have
> >time to read all the posts that get made in a.c) over the past few months.
>
> So you feel that only people who you *like* are capable of coming up
> with good ideas?
Nope. Didn't mean to imply that at all.
> What are the rules for becoming a member of this 'community'?
It's a slippery kind of thing. You hang around and get to know people and
let us get to know you. There are no specific rules. But you can't force
your way in. Sure, you can post to the newsgroup... but that doesn't mean
you get invited to RealSpaces, or asked to participate in group writing
efforts, or any of the other stuff which goes on among patrons.
It's a lot like a RL bar in that regard. You can walk in and buy a
drink. You can sit there all you want. But unless you get accepted by
the other patrons as a member of their community they don't tend to take
you seriously or to give much weight to your opinions.
> Is there a secret modem handshake? If I become a member, can I post
> incredibly elitist bullshit, too?
I gather from that statement that you consider my statement of my _opinion_
to be 'elitist bullshit'.
As far as I'm concerned Zaph, you've already posted a whole lot of
elitist bullshit in a.c. But apparently our notions of what constitutes
elitist bullshit differ.
> >I submit that it is possible to engage in warfare without ever having to
> >resort to deception.
>
> Ok, lets say we have two opponents. Equal strength. One doesn't
> resort to deception, and the other does. Who wins?
It depends on more than that. If I re-phrase your scenario to be two
equal forces differing -only- in the willingness of one side to resort
to deception, then that will give the side with the greater freedom of
action a slight edge. Whether or not that results in a clear win is
still not clear to me, because the other side may understand the deception
well enough to negate any advantage it provided.
But we've wandered off into a discussion of warfare again...
> Sure, it's possible. But if you want to avoid deception, I suggest
> you (generic) stick to civilized debate. Avoiding deception *there* will
> actually increase your chance of winning, instead of lowering it.
Yes. And this *is* germane to a.c, and heated discussions, and how to
deal with them.
> >So while a whole bunch of the regular patrons *are* good wholesome well
> >adjusted folks who actually can 'know themselves' the paragraph ignores
> >those folks I kinda think are the most vulnerable to being hurt by
> >a flamewar conducted within alt.callahans, and the ones who I *think* a
> >flame FAQ should be most concerned with.
>
> I agree totally, in fact. I certainly wasn't encouraging people who
> have good self-knowledge to go out and flame people.
Thanks. I didn't *think* you were either, and if I gave the impression that
I did anywhere along the line I'm sorry.
> If I was encouraging
> anything at all, I was encouraging people who are not sure about what they
> want to NOT engage in flame wars with people they don't know very well. It's
> unwise.
Sound advice, that.
Wandering back to discussing warfare per se...
> >Sure, it's always preferable to pick your own time and place for a shootout.
> >But just because you get ambushed doesn't mean you're unskilled in war.
> >It means, rather, that you went in harm's way - which is often required
> >in warfare.
>
> True, but if you get ambused, that means that in that time and place,
> there was someone more skilled in warfare than you.
I really must disagree.
I used to have a 1st Sergeant who had fought his way out of somewhere
upward of 50 combat ambushes. As an infantry squad leader, he'd take
his squad into the bush and patrol along avenues which he *knew* would
invite an enemy force's ambush.
While he never knew the exact moment of 'first contact', he was able to
win those firefights by having a squad that was expert in immediate
action and counterattack skills. He took advantage of the sense of
superiority an ambushing force has and used it against them. By having
a squad which counterattacked within seconds, he took away their advantage
and shocked them when they saw that the force they had engaged would not
just freeze up and cooperate by sitting still.
I can not imagine that all those people he and his squad killed were
'more skilled in warfare'.
Leslie
On 28 Sep 1996 22:29:06 -0700 in alt.callahans,
<Zaphkiel> said:
+ In article <52k6fn$7...@library.airnews.net>, elcab...@aol.com says...
+ >}It occurs to me that for at least -some- flame warriors, the conflict is
+ >}the whole purpose. They enjoy creating and sustaining turmoil. They
+ >}thrive on it. So a long flame war is precisely what they want. The
+ >}longer, the better.
+
+ INdeed. And if you understand your enemy, determine that they are the
+ type of person who wants that, then wouldn't the most effective way of
+ defeating them be to NOT give them what they want?
+ However, the words "nobody wins" are, indeed an over generalization. I
+ stand corrected. There are some people like that.
"And who would know that better than you, Zaph, since you're one of those
people? I can just picture you giggling to yourself whenever someone
gets angry at you, or disgusted, or flames you for being an asshole,
because that's the *exact* reaction you were hoping you'd get, right?
"Since you're trying to be so helpful here, why not give us all some
advice on how to cope with flame-bait trollers?"
Leslie.
barbara trumpinski
zaph:
> So you feel that only people who you *like* are capable of coming up
>with good ideas? What are the rules for becoming a member of this 'community'?
>Is there a secret modem handshake? If I become a member, can I post
>incredibly elitist bullshit, too? Gosh, I can hardly wait.
kitten, on her way out the door for a week ABEND with her beloved
starknight, blows a razzberry at zaphkiel, in lieu of calling him a
'shit-for-brains moron'. "god, what an idiot!!!! even _I_ know
enough to know that....why not give it up. i have to say, and it's
not normally something i admit, i liked speaker a hell of a lot better
than i like you....and i sure as hell respect bill, jez, leslie, and
UT a lot more...why don't you whine a little more quietly??????
btw, don't bother to respond, i'm outta here till next week. anyone
who is going to be at archon in collinsville, illinois...look us up.
we're staying in the drury inn across the street from the con hotel."
kitten raises her glass and toasts callahan's a farewell till later...
--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu barbara trumpinski
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} 'how can you be in two places at once when you're
~ not anywhere at all?'
The Gentleman
In article <52kvbi$6...@lex.zippo.com>, Zaphkiel wrote:
}In article <324DAC...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Bill says...
}>UT said
}>> [...] some of the
}>> people who come to a.c are not expecting an assault, and are not prepared
to
}>> deal with it. To the full-time flamer, it's just a game. To the walking
}>> wounded who come in here sometimes, it isn't."
}>
}>Exactly.
}
}as a group, are unable to stop flaming. We, as a group, are unwilling (and
}in all probablity unable) to do anything to stop those who feel they must
} The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
}will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
}too bad that people got hurt. I wish that wouldn't happen.' If we teach
}them how the game is played, show them how to avoid being hurt by it, is
}that not a worthwhile goal?
}
I don't think so. There are 10,000+ groups that someone can get all the
practice at that they need."
"Also, if things got that bad in here, there are things that could be
done. In many ways, this group is less vulnerable than it appears."
}>
}>> "Applying military metaphors to flamewars is no more silly than
applying
}>> them to games in general. Where they allow you to get useful principles,
use
}>> them. Any metaphor can get stretched out of shape."
}>
}>I agree. I think that Zaph stretched the metaphors too far, and in doing so
}>I think that the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
}>feelings his presentation engendered.
}>
}
} Those metaphors have been 'successfully' (from the standpoint of the
}people using them) used in business.
"Yeah, I know. Often with disastrous longterm results. The
take-no-prisoners business ethic you develop from military metaphors is not
conducive to employee morale. And, IMHO, employee morale is critical in any
business. If selfish satisfaction is all somebody cares about, I humbly
suggest this isn't really the best group for them."
} As for "the good things he had to say got overshadowed by the negative
}feelings his presentation engendered", well, that phrase sounds oddly
}familiar. Where have I heard it before?
}
"Perhaps you will be more receptive?"
UT
--
Nature abhors a hero. For one thing, he violates the law of conservation of
energy. For another, how can it be the survival of the fittest when the
fittest keeps putting himself in situations where he is most likely to be creamed?
Solomon Short
Dave Hayes
zaph...@acun.com (Zaphkiel) writes:
> Before a flame war begins, you are in a perfect
> defensive positon. Nothing can damage you.
A wide grin spreads across the Loon's face. "So when is it that
something *can* damage you?"
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
"How often do you shave?" "Twenty or thirty times a day."
"You must be a freak!" "No, only a barber."
Dave Hayes
Zaphkiel writes:
> Precisely. Now, we have already established in another thread that we,
> as a group, are unable to stop flaming.
"I seriously doubt that we are unable." admonishes the Loon, "I
suggest that we are unwilling. 'Flaming' is fun for me, since I take
very little seriously. In fact, 'flaming' without 'flaming' is an art
form."
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
There is enough for all in this world but not enough to meet one man's greed.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Zaphkiel
In article <52m5f5$2...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
>
>On 28 Sep 1996 22:29:06 -0700 in alt.callahans,
> <Zaphkiel> said:
>+ In article <52k6fn$7...@library.airnews.net>, elcab...@aol.com says...
>+ >}It occurs to me that for at least -some- flame warriors, the conflict is
>+ >}the whole purpose. They enjoy creating and sustaining turmoil. They
>+ >}thrive on it. So a long flame war is precisely what they want. The
>+ >}longer, the better.
>+
>+ INdeed. And if you understand your enemy, determine that they are the
>+ type of person who wants that, then wouldn't the most effective way of
>+ defeating them be to NOT give them what they want?
>+ However, the words "nobody wins" are, indeed an over generalization. I
>+ stand corrected. There are some people like that.
>
>"And who would know that better than you, Zaph, since you're one of those
>people? I can just picture you giggling to yourself whenever someone
>gets angry at you, or disgusted, or flames you for being an asshole,
>because that's the *exact* reaction you were hoping you'd get, right?
>
>"Since you're trying to be so helpful here, why not give us all some
>advice on how to cope with flame-bait trollers?"
>Leslie.
Well, ok. The first helpful hint would be to take good advice when it's
given. If you truely think that I am what you said I am, then the advice for
handling a person like that is in what I wrote above. You read it. You
saw the advice for how to handle a situation like that. And you chose to
disregard it.
You know what they say, "You can lead an elephant to Watergate, but you
can't make them remember anything."
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <324E8C...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Bill says...
>
>
>[Aside... Zaph, I'm willing to allow as I might be all wrong about you.
>You might be a great guy. Surely there's some reason you came in here
>in the first place and I'm trying, honestly I'm trying, to keep in mind
>that there's another human being out there. I *do* think you made your
>initial flame post 'in good faith', wanting to offer a solution to a
>problem in Callahans. Thanks for doing that. I want to make sure you
>know I appreciate your good intentions. -Bill]
I knew that people would probably find disagreement with my post. I
expected that, and I even noted that I welcomed criticism. I guess I should
have been more exact and stated 'criticism of the ideas in the post'.
I'm far more familiar with my faults than anyone else here. I'm a
smart-ass, a jerk, and sometimes even an asshole. When someone points out
something that I already know, I don't get all that upset about it. The
only insults that anger me are the ones that are not true. If any of you
really want to insult me, that's how you can do it. Of course, you'll have
to become a liar to do it.....
(snip)
> But you can't force your way in. (to the a.c. community)
Are you sure about that? I believe it has happened at least once.
>
>As far as I'm concerned Zaph, you've already posted a whole lot of
>elitist bullshit in a.c. But apparently our notions of what constitutes
>elitist bullshit differ.
Pretty much anything that includes a big helping of condescension.
Are we close?
>> Sure, it's possible. But if you want to avoid deception, I suggest
>> you (generic) stick to civilized debate. Avoiding deception *there* will
>> actually increase your chance of winning, instead of lowering it.
>
>Yes. And this *is* germane to a.c, and heated discussions, and how to
>deal with them.
How you should deal with them, yes. But that's not how they are being
dealt with most of the time. How do we get from where things are, to where
they should be?
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <324E7A...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Bill says...
>I think this statement is too broad. We, as a group, tend to respect each
>others rights to speak their minds - often with strong and emotional language -
>when the person(s) posting feel strongly about whatever is being discussed.
Since there is really no way to stop people from speaking their minds, it's
hard to tell how much of that is respect, and how much of it is just the
lack of recourse. I have seen a lot of posts that suggest that someone
else should refrain from posting something. Not all of them were directed
at me, either.
>> That is the first half of the problem.
>
>Would you agree if I re-phrase it as, "Strong, often heated arguments occur
>in alt.callahans from time to time. These arguments frequently resemble the
>'flaming' seen on the net at large."?
I would tend to agree with it now. I wouldn't have a year ago.
>
>> The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
>> will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
>
>How about we advise them of what is really going on? That may be more fruitful.
You betcha. Now all we have to do is come to some kind of agreement on
what is really going on.
>I'll admit I don't at all like the 'since we will not protect them...' sentence
>above. It bothers me. It gives me the impression that you think we are
>being callously negligent of peoples' feelings out of our respect for each
>others right to an open forum. Was that your intention Zaph?
I'd leave out 'callously'. I'd also replace 'will not' with 'probably
can not'. I changed that the first time I used that phrase, and failed
to change it for the second. I would say that people have been far more
active in the defense of some people's right to an open forum, and far too
inactive in the defense of the victims when that freedom is abused. The
scales need to tip back.
--Zaphkiel
Sam Robinson
> >You might be a great guy. Surely there's some reason you came in here
> >in the first place and I'm trying, honestly I'm trying, to keep in mind
> >that there's another human being out there. I *do* think you made your
> >initial flame post 'in good faith', wanting to offer a solution to a
> >problem in Callahans. Thanks for doing that. I want to make sure you
> >know I appreciate your good intentions. -Bill]
>
> expected that, and I even noted that I welcomed criticism. I guess I should
> have been more exact and stated 'criticism of the ideas in the post'.
> I'm far more familiar with my faults than anyone else here. I'm a
> smart-ass, a jerk, and sometimes even an asshole. When someone points out
> something that I already know, I don't get all that upset about it. The
> only insults that anger me are the ones that are not true. If any of you
> really want to insult me, that's how you can do it. Of course, you'll have
> to become a liar to do it.....
> (snip)
> > But you can't force your way in. (to the a.c. community)
>
> Are you sure about that? I believe it has happened at least once.
>
> >
> >elitist bullshit in a.c. But apparently our notions of what constitutes
> >elitist bullshit differ.
>
> Are we close?
>
> >> you (generic) stick to civilized debate. Avoiding deception *there* will
> >> actually increase your chance of winning, instead of lowering it.
> >
> >Yes. And this *is* germane to a.c, and heated discussions, and how to
> >deal with them.
>
> dealt with most of the time. How do we get from where things are, to where
> they should be?
>
I've avoided speaking up to now, because I didn't think that I could add
anything constructive. The last line here is the real topic that I'd
like to see discussed. Getting from dysfunctional communication to a
functional dialog is a goal that I believe is, or should be, paramount
to all of us.
Dysfunctional communication, by my definition, is communication that has
no chance of being heard and acted on by your partners in a discussion.
It may be emotionally loaded, or perhaps logically indefensable, or even
dishonest and untrue. In any event, it is my opinion that carefully
reasoned, polite posts are preferable to anything that could pass as a
flame.
In my opinion, a functional dialog require two or more active and
willing participants, who can forgo the ego driven will to win in favor
of searching for some sort of truth. Of course there's precious little
of that in our world. We seem to get more of it than usual here in
alt.callahans. In a discussion of flaming, once you focus on technique,
you have pretty much given up on the possiblity of a rational discourse.
This may be your intent, and if so, then certainly methodology is worth
discussing, although I wouldn't paraphrase Sun Tzu, Machavellie or
Mushashi. Recommend the original and move on.
My point is that any of us can choose to disrupt communication and use
various tactics to attempt to drive a point home. Bad communication is
fairly easy. I would prefer to see good communication or improvements to
communication.
I have some very specific ideas on that topic. The first of which is to
never engage in personal attack. Attacking an idea is fine, calling an
idea foolish, or oversimplified or just plain wrong is ok by me. Calling
the person who put for the idea any of these things, I believe that to
be poor communication. Checking to make certain that you understand the
other person's position is important too, many times I've read responses
which were to positions that the previous poster had not held.
Rephrasing the statement while saying "This is what I think you said",
and asking if you are correct will get you a reputation for
evenhandedness while helping you correctly dispute the points you
dissagree on. Maintaing a civil manner and trying to act in a way that
promotes communication will help too.
Do I always live up to this? Well, no. But I think that it is the way
from where we find ourselves to where we might want to be. Just because
some of us occasionally fail to live up to our rather high standards is
no reason to become more contentious. We also need to let things die
after we've clearly stated our positions, unless we are either being
misquoted, misunderstood or the person who is discussing with us is
using that tactic that counts on burying opposing opinions in the
scroll. Even if they are, a polite correction or restatement is
sufficient.
I believe that we are all trying to be better communicators, and to be
honest in those communications. I tried to find good in your posting,
and although I feel that something like this is better suited to
alt.flame or one of the other more contentious groups, I also understood
that you were trying to get people to examine their motives and methods
more carefully. If I'm correct, you meant for the posting to be read on
more than one level, a how-to, a bit of black humor, and perhaps even a
some what subtle request for thought before action. Of course I could be
wrong about that, and would be interested in knowing if I have your
motives correct. Hopefully this won't come off as "elitist bullshit"
it's not intended to be.
--
Sam Robinson Sams...@mindspring.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know what you want, you can never ever have it.
Randolph Fritz
>will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
>too bad that people got hurt. I wish that wouldn't happen.' If we teach
>them how the game is played, show them how to avoid being hurt by it, is
>that not a worthwhile goal?
>
"I think what you are talking about is defining psychological
boundaries, not just in flaming, but in general. This is an
interesting point because, in the broader sense, this is one of the
jobs that support groups (and I think alt.callahans counts) are for.
"Part of the problem we have is that very sophisticated attacks on
personal boundaries have been developed on the net. I think Zaphkiel
has a point--one needs to be aware of these, though perhaps such a
thorough analysis is too much.
"It may be that part of the responsibility of old-timers is to
recognize and intervene in such cases."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Leslie
On 29 Sep 1996 23:05:20 -0700 in alt.callahans,
<Zaphkiel> said:
+ In article <52m5f5$2...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
+ >"Since you're trying to be so helpful here, why not give us all some
+ >advice on how to cope with flame-bait trollers?"
+
+ Well, ok. The first helpful hint would be to take good advice when it's
+ given. If you truely think that I am what you said I am, then the advice for
+ handling a person like that is in what I wrote above. You read it. You
+ saw the advice for how to handle a situation like that. And you chose to
+ disregard it.
"Did I? Did I really? Then can I take it you're assuming my motivation
for following up to you was to 'engage in battle with you'--?
"If so, then may I suggest you have a gap in your intelligence collecting?
That was not my motivation."
Pat Kight
In article <52p506$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Randolph Fritz <rand...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>"Part of the problem we have is that very sophisticated attacks on
>personal boundaries have been developed on the net. I think Zaphkiel
>has a point--one needs to be aware of these, though perhaps such a
>thorough analysis is too much.
>
>"It may be that part of the responsibility of old-timers is to
>recognize and intervene in such cases."
"Well, of course. And I think that's one of the responsibilities
old-timers here have always taken.
"I know from repeated personal experience (on both the receiving and
giving ends) that newcomers who seem to be putting themselves at risk
*often* receive gentle e-mail from those who've been around the block a
few times.
"The message offered may be as simple as "You know, you might want not
want to type in all caps, 'cause people will think you're screaming at
them" to 'I see you're having a discussion with so-and-so about Topic X;
it might be useful for you to know that Topic X *really* pushes this
person's buttons ... ' to 'Allow me to explain to you what `trolling' is ...'
"If that's the sort of intervention you're suggesting, Randolph - well,
it already occurs, and if someone wants to codify it somewhere - *shrug*
- fine.
"If you're talking about some sort of intervention *beyond* private email,
I'd have to withhold comment until I see a more specific proposal.
"I will say, though, that I've had some not-quite-direct RL experience
with what the, um, helping professions call `intervention' ... and it left
a very, very bad taste in my mouth. From where I sat, it looked a lot like
a bunch of self-righteous bullies ganging up on someone to force a change
in his behavior. It (a) didn't work and (b) made permanent enemies out of
some former friends."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Zaphkiel
In article <52p79b$9...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
>
>On 29 Sep 1996 23:05:20 -0700 in alt.callahans,
> <Zaphkiel> said:
>+ In article <52m5f5$2...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
>+ >"Since you're trying to be so helpful here, why not give us all some
>+ >advice on how to cope with flame-bait trollers?"
>+
>+ Well, ok. The first helpful hint would be to take good advice when it's
>+ given. If you truely think that I am what you said I am, then the advice for
>+ handling a person like that is in what I wrote above. You read it. You
>+ saw the advice for how to handle a situation like that. And you chose to
>+ disregard it.
>
>"Did I? Did I really? Then can I take it you're assuming my motivation
>for following up to you was to 'engage in battle with you'--?
>
>"If so, then may I suggest you have a gap in your intelligence collecting?
>That was not my motivation."
Well, then, your stated motivation (to get advice) and your *real*
motivation (whatever that is) are different. Congratulations, you've
learned the first lesson on how to flame. Here's your gold star. *
--Zaphkiel
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach Bill Gawne <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> (<324E7A...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>):
+-----
| Zaphkiel:
| > people using them) used in business.
| understand it, this is a (mostly) social newsgroup.
Many people seem to believe that there are only zero-sum games. The world
would be a much better place if people would stop insisting on playing the
zero-sum games which are the only thing they currently acknowledge (note
that the warfare metaphors are a prime example of this) and recognize that
most endeavors --- certainly including *social* endeavors --- are non-zero-
sum by nature.
IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
"save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
complete lack of understanding of it.
(Quick hint for those unfamiliar with games theory: a zero-sum game has
only one "winner". A non-zero-sum game can have more than one, including
the possibility that *all* the "players" can "win". It gets deeper than
that, but that's the gist of it. ---Note also that warfare announces that
it is not truly zero-sum by the fact that there can be *no* winner...)
--
++brandon s. allbery flying with merlin! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
telotech's "loup-guru" :-) FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara trumpinski) (<52mjpt$2...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>):
+-----
| zaph:
| >Is there a secret modem handshake? If I become a member, can I post
| >incredibly elitist bullshit, too? Gosh, I can hardly wait.
| starknight, blows a razzberry at zaphkiel, in lieu of calling him a
| 'shit-for-brains moron'. "god, what an idiot!!!! even _I_ know
| enough to know that....why not give it up. i have to say, and it's
He's certainly doing a good job with the elitist --- "holier-than-thou"
most definitely qualifies --- bullshit as it is.
He's still trying to declare himself the new Speaker-to-Minerals. Which
proves that he still misses the point; then again, so does his quote above.
Zaph, you want to be a "member"? Quit trying to take over. Or are you,
as you appear, one of those people who will only accept "membership" if
(s)he is the alpha wolf?
Alan Kors
Leslie (dei...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: "Did I? Did I really? Then can I take it you're assuming my motivation
: for following up to you was to 'engage in battle with you'--?
The Prof offers the triumphant Leslie a drink. "Well done! You are
absolutely correct that you were a) addressing an issue under discussion,
and b) addressing a larger audience. On the other hand, where are you
when all the punning and double-entendres go on at The Place? You used to
offer some quite breathtaking ones, if I recall. What are you drinking
these days?" Cheers, ACK
Randolph Fritz
In article <52pbo3$b...@kira.peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>
>"If you're talking about some sort of intervention *beyond* private email,
>I'd have to withhold comment until I see a more specific proposal.
>
>"I will say, though, that I've had some not-quite-direct RL experience
>with what the, um, helping professions call `intervention' ... and it left
>a very, very bad taste in my mouth. From where I sat, it looked a lot like
>a bunch of self-righteous bullies ganging up on someone to force a change
>in his behavior. It (a) didn't work and (b) made permanent enemies out of
>some former friends."
>
"I was thinking more of interfering in such a situation, or at least
giving people a better idea of how to recognize that going on. My
concern is to prevent bullying and also to prevent unfairnesses from
accumulating."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Pat Kight
In article <52qhfc$6...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Randolph Fritz <rand...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>"I was thinking more of interfering in such a situation, or at least
>giving people a better idea of how to recognize that going on. My
>concern is to prevent bullying and also to prevent unfairnesses from
>accumulating."
"OK, I see what you're talking about. And as a practice for *individuals*
to follow, it seems quite reasonable. ... In the past, I've occasionally
stepped in to the middle of a fight and said, "OK, you guys, this is
getting ugly, maybe you should take it to email." One reaction, of
course, is that some people (and not necessarily the ones you may be
thinking of) have responded by saying, "You're trying to stifle
discussion." And I've had to admit that, yes, I was.
"It's what folx keep coming back to in this increasingly circular
discussion, you know: How do we (if there *is* such a thing as a
collective `we' on this subject) discourage bothersome behavior without
discouraging the free exchange of ideas, opinions and even passions -
because, frankly, the passions are *important* here. I certainly don't
have any answers, other than taking personal action when I see fit - and
being willing to take my lumps if people are offended by my words.
"I guess I keep coming back to what several people have suggested: That
the best we can hope for is that *individuals* will take responsibility
for their actions, and that individuals (not even necessarily the same
ones) will step in, privately, to explain things to newcomers."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Zaphkiel
In article <325011...@mindspring.com>, Sam says...
If I'm correct, you meant for the posting to be read on
>more than one level, a how-to, a bit of black humor, and perhaps even a
>some what subtle request for thought before action. Of course I could be
>wrong about that, and would be interested in knowing if I have your
>motives correct. Hopefully this won't come off as "elitist bullshit"
>it's not intended to be.
Didn't come off that way, no. I like your .sig, btw. I also think
the reverse is true. If you don't understand what you *don't* want, you
can't always avoid it. I also believe that teaching safe sex to young
people is a good idea. Knowledge about how something works is not inherently
bad. It depends on how you use it.
There are various levels to the post. My main objective was to make sure
everyone understood that it's not called a flame 'war' for nothing. It's
an inherently destructive process. Secondary objectives included getting
discussion started, black humor, an oblique swipe at people who glorified
and defended people who flame, irony, and a few other minor ones. The
irony seems to have struck a much louder chord than I anticipated. I guess
that will teach me to post a rough draft.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <87684wz...@elxr.jetcafe.org>, Dave says...
>
>zaph...@acun.com (Zaphkiel) writes:
>> Before a flame war begins, you are in a perfect
>> defensive positon. Nothing can damage you.
>
>A wide grin spreads across the Loon's face. "So when is it that
>something *can* damage you?"
When you have staked your reputation on achieving an objective.
When you stick your neck out. When you place enough store in the
opinions of others that being ridiculed in public is damaging to you.
Vulnerabilities vary from person to person.
--Zaphkiel
BetNoir
Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> In article <52pbo3$b...@kira.peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
> >
> >"If you're talking about some sort of intervention *beyond* private email,
> >I'd have to withhold comment until I see a more specific proposal.
> >
> >"I will say, though, that I've had some not-quite-direct RL experience
> >with what the, um, helping professions call `intervention' ... and it left
> >a very, very bad taste in my mouth. From where I sat, it looked a lot like
> >a bunch of self-righteous bullies ganging up on someone to force a change
> >in his behavior. It (a) didn't work and (b) made permanent enemies out of
> >some former friends."
> >
>
> giving people a better idea of how to recognize that going on. My
> concern is to prevent bullying and also to prevent unfairnesses from
> accumulating."
But isn't 'interfering' just a polite word for bullying. Bullying both
parties to 'play nice'? And just what the HELL makes you any more
objective to be able to be objective to others about 'what is going on'?
And what if they don't WANT to play nice? What then? Where, pray tell,
is your 'enforcer' to MAKE them play nice?
Threaten me with a knife if your hands are empty, and I will laugh at
you. Threaten me with a machete in your hand, and THEN I will pay
attention....
--
BetN
'We close our eyes...and the world has turned around again...' D. Elfman
'It's just the night in my veins....' C. Hynde
NEVER parry with your head
Randolph Fritz
In article <52rdfr$j...@kira.peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>"OK, I see what you're talking about. And as a practice for *individuals*
>to follow, it seems quite reasonable. ... In the past, I've occasionally
>stepped in to the middle of a fight and said, "OK, you guys, this is
>getting ugly, maybe you should take it to email." One reaction, of
>course, is that some people (and not necessarily the ones you may be
>thinking of) have responded by saying, "You're trying to stifle
>discussion." And I've had to admit that, yes, I was.
>
>"It's what folx keep coming back to in this increasingly circular
>discussion, you know: How do we (if there *is* such a thing as a
>collective `we' on this subject) discourage bothersome behavior without
>discouraging the free exchange of ideas, opinions and even passions -
>because, frankly, the passions are *important* here. I certainly don't
>have any answers, other than taking personal action when I see fit - and
>being willing to take my lumps if people are offended by my words.
>
>"I guess I keep coming back to what several people have suggested: That
>the best we can hope for is that *individuals* will take responsibility
>for their actions, and that individuals (not even necessarily the same
>ones) will step in, privately, to explain things to newcomers."
>
"Well, I think that part of it is understanding and agreeing on the
nature of at least some 'bothersome' behavior; this is one of the
genuine virtues of Zaphkiel's piece. I have a number of analytical
pieces accumulated over the years on this one; I'll dust them off and
edit them together soon. I think some of the ideas will be
useful--and some will undoubtedly be about as valid as some of my gun
control ideas, ie--not."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Randolph Fritz
In article <325154...@earthlink.net>,
"Not in my vocabulary."
>Bullying both parties to 'play nice'?
"In most of the instances I'm thinking of there is fairly plain
unfairness--one would at most be concerned with one party."
>And just what the HELL makes you any more objective to be able to be
>objective to others about 'what is going on'?
"That's why--if this is to be done at all--we need to work out ways of
recognizing and deciding what we feel is fair here."
>And what if they don't WANT to play nice? What then? Where, pray tell,
>is your 'enforcer' to MAKE them play nice?
"Well, this would have to be thought out more carefully. Off the top
of my head, and subject to later revision and retraction, since some
of the worst abuses I'm thinking of involve getting people to gang up
on a target (strange how that analog of real-life bullying occurs
here), simply persuading other people not to participate might be
effective. Other options...hmmm. More later, maybe."
>
>Threaten me with a knife if your hands are empty, and I will laugh at
>you. Threaten me with a machete in your hand, and THEN I will pay
>attention....
>
"The point is to do as much as possible without threat. And if you
are speaking of yourself, personally, I don't see any reason to raise
such an issue with you--I never have."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Bill Gawne
[We now pause for a brief intermission.]
I'd like to say for the record that I think Leslie has gone a little
far with what (and how) she's spoken in reply to Zaphkiel in this
thread.
I'll allow that Leslie might be entirely correct, but I want to be sure
that she and Zaph and everyone else reading the thread knows I'm not
tacitly supporting her assertions that this is all just a troll and
that Zaph is a liar. Although Leslie is my dear and good friend of
long standing, I'm not convinced she's right in this case.
I thought Zaph's initial post was made in good faith. I took issue
with it, and him, for reasons I tried to make clear. Zaph has to
live with the reputation he's earned, but I must say he's been
decent in his interactions with me these past few days.
[And now, back to our feature presentation]
Randolph Fritz
In article <52puor$t...@kf8nh.apk.net>,
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <b...@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote:
>
>He's certainly doing a good job with the elitist --- "holier-than-thou"
>most definitely qualifies --- bullshit as it is.
>
>He's still trying to declare himself the new Speaker-to-Minerals. Which
>proves that he still misses the point; then again, so does his quote above.
>
"Hardly so. He'd have to be a lot nastier, for one thing."
>Zaph, you want to be a "member"? Quit trying to take over. Or are you,
>as you appear, one of those people who will only accept "membership" if
>(s)he is the alpha wolf?
"I don't get this from him.
"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
soldier."
"And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Zaphkiel
In article <52sugg$e...@nadine.teleport.com>, rand...@teleport.com says...
>"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
>Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
>ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
>would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
>a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
>soldier."
>
>"And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
Illuminating. For me, anyway. Notice how some people react more
negatively to a discussion about flaming than they ever did to actual
flames? Notice how people who used to defend speaker and
demand that we must try to *understand* him are now leading the assault?
Notice how several people who had no reason to, *have* gone out of their
way to try to understand me?
If you want to call it that, please make it 'advice from an old usenet
soldier'.
--Zaphkiel
Randolph Fritz
In article <324D67...@peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>Bill Gawne wrote:
>
>Jezebel shudders.
>
>"I think I can tell you why Zaph's little, er, satire rankles *me*,
>Bill, and it doesn't have a lot to do with its inept parody of Shun
>Tzu's classic.
>
>"I consider flames to be an unfortunate side-effect of human-to-human
>interaction on the 'Net: Something to be avoided if possible, quelled
>by reasoned discussion if possible and ignored the rest of the time.
>
>"Zaph, on the other hand, has made it fairly clear that he sees flamage
>as a *sport* - a game, if you will, in which the object is to win.
>
"Well--I'm not sure how Zaphkiel sees it; he appears to be ambiguous
on the subject and offers several specific warnings against
participation. But there are certainly people who do see it that
way."
>
>"By bringing Shun Tzu into the equation, Zaph now seems to be telling us
>that the petty issues of the average flame fest are the equivalent of
>actual warfare, and that disputes between people here should be
>approached as if they were battles.
>
"Or at least conflicts subject to strategic and tactical analysis.
Which, plainly and unsettlingly, they are. One of the things that
Zaphkiel hasn't said, but strongly implies, is that successful flamers
are aware of this. Some people tend to see everything as a kind of
conflict, subject to analysis.
"Why reason this way? Well, if one is going any serious attempts to
restrain flames, one has to first understand flames. If one is going
to be involved in a flame war--and, as targets, that's most of us--
one is well advised to have and understanding of how they work."
>
>Jez sighs. There's an irony here that's not lost on her. "This is
>probably the closest thing to a flame I've ever posted on Usenet. If
>Zaph *is* trolling, then I guess I'm his first catch."
>
"You're being told something important and unpleasant.
Jezebel--please think on it."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Pat Kight
In article <52sugg$e...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Randolph Fritz <rand...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
>Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
>ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
>would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
>a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
>soldier."
>
>"And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
"Cumulative effect?" Jezebel suggests.
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Leslie
On Tue, 01 Oct 1996 18:14:59 -0400 in alt.callahans,
Bill Gawne <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> said:
+ [We now pause for a brief intermission.]
+
+ I'd like to say for the record that I think Leslie has gone a little
+ far with what (and how) she's spoken in reply to Zaphkiel in this
+ thread.
My own fault. I let him out of my killfile. But his redeeming qualities
(the ability to speak politely, if the mood strikes him) just do not
outweigh his bad qualities, IMO. Just knowing there's no way I'll ever
know if he's being honest, or if he's being deliberately deceptive is
too hard for me to handle. That, plus the fact that he knifed me in
the back after I'd spent a lot of time trying to understand him, just
makes him not worth the effort for me to try to cope with anymore.
He'll just end up hurting me again, so, taking my own advice, into
the killfile he goes. Curiously enough, his 'deep concern' for the
'walking wounded' didn't extend to *me*...
(Yes, I know what the FAQ says about mentioning killfiling. But
I wanted people to know *why* I don't respond to him.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: "You're being told something important and unpleasant.
: Jezebel--please think on it."
What, that Zaph's an asshole and you're a purposely obtuse idiot?
I, at least, already knew that.
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"Most men live lives of quiet desperation." -- H. D. Thoreau
I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
John Palmer
Bill Gawne (ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Zaphkiel:
: > The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
: > will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
: How about we advise them of what is really going on? That may be more fruitful.
: I'll admit I don't at all like the 'since we will not protect them...' sentence
: above. It bothers me.
That's because it's deceitful, and if it weren't Zaphkiel, I'd be
willing to believe that it's probably unintentionally deceitful. Y'see, we
can't guarantee that no one will come to harm, so yes, we can't "protect"
them. Since we CAN'T protect them, it follows that we WON'T. I can't fly
unassisted, so I WON'T fly unassisted.
But "won't" usually implies "but could". It doesn't always, but the
whole idea of "will not" encompasses that idea of "making a decision not
to".
Zaph seems to refuse to believe that people can, and do, try to
protect people from emotional hurt, but often find themselves unable to do
something meaningful.
John Palmer
Sam Robinson (Sams...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: I have some very specific ideas on that topic. The first of which is to
: never engage in personal attack. Attacking an idea is fine, calling an
: idea foolish, or oversimplified or just plain wrong is ok by me. Calling
: the person who put for the idea any of these things, I believe that to
: be poor communication.
Grin. My response is not far from what Speaker would say, though
not as impolite. If a person refuses to listen to your counter arguments
and seems to be habitually misleading in the discussion, pointing out that
person's failings is GOOD communication, and pretending that you're still
happy to let the conversation continue in the manner that it is going in
now is bad communication.
Saying, with justification, "Listen, dummy, I told you that I don't
think abortion should be illegal. I said that I think it was morally wrong
in most cases!"
is better communication than saying
"Perhaps you misread me
the previous 53 times I said this. I'm sure that's possible, and I surely
won't suggest that you're not reading carefully, or, if you are reading
carefully, you're not thinking clearly, or lying. I pointed out that I
find abortion to be morally repugnant, but not of the sort of issue that
should be legislated. . . "
because the first points out your feelings about the issue and about
the fact that you are not being listened to. It also, IMHO, points out
more important information: that you consider a fight, however minor or
major, to have started already, and that the other person should consider
this before continuing the discussion.
John Palmer
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <52puor$t...@kf8nh.apk.net>,
: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <b...@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote:
: >
: >He's certainly doing a good job with the elitist --- "holier-than-thou"
: >most definitely qualifies --- bullshit as it is.
: >
: >He's still trying to declare himself the new Speaker-to-Minerals. Which
: >proves that he still misses the point; then again, so does his quote above.
: >
: "Hardly so. He'd have to be a lot nastier, for one thing."
Many shit-for-brains does not a nasty make, nor the lack remove the
possibility. Seek, grasshopper, for that which grows beneath the bark, and
that which has its bite.
: Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
: a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
: soldier."
Further discussion also makes it plain that he intends to be an
elitist moralist who can preach and try to insist that all who disagree are
horrible, evil flamers.
John Palmer
Leslie (dei...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: (Yes, I know what the FAQ says about mentioning killfiling. But
: I wanted people to know *why* I don't respond to him.
I will point out that I've NEVER understood the wrongness of this in
general. I've seen it used nastily in particulars. . .
More importantly, saying "I'm killfiling X" publically allows you to
feel freer to do so. "Man, I can't believe you let him get away with
saying that!" "Huh? Who said what? I TOLD you I killfiled him!"
There's been a kind of longstanding agreement than public
announcement of killfiles is "bad", but I don't know why, and, frankly, I'd
like to.
BetNoir
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> Also sprach Bill Gawne <ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> (<324E7A...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>):
> +-----
> | Zaphkiel:
> | [concerning the use of warfare metaphors in this discussion Zaph wrote...]
> | > Those metaphors have been 'successfully' (from the standpoint of the
> | > people using them) used in business.
> | Yes, they have. I don't think alt.callahans is a business though. As I
> | understand it, this is a (mostly) social newsgroup.
> +--->8
>
> Many people seem to believe that there are only zero-sum games. The world
> would be a much better place if people would stop insisting on playing the
> zero-sum games which are the only thing they currently acknowledge (note
> that the warfare metaphors are a prime example of this) and recognize that
> most endeavors --- certainly including *social* endeavors --- are non-zero-
> sum by nature.
>
> IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
> on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
> "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
> complete lack of understanding of it.
Thank YOU, Brandon!
Glad to know I am not the only one around here who finds it dreadfully
ironic that the two people who 'led the Crusade' to SAVE US FROM SPEAKER
are promulgating this idea - Zaph and Randolph.
Carl is DEAD...bought the Buick....kicked the bucket...planted 6 feet
under....(insert favorite death euphamism here)...so why is this torch
still being carried around????
Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
Just something to think about....
Randolph Fritz
In article <533fgg$1...@news1.infinet.com>,
John Palmer <jpa...@infinet.com> wrote:
> Zaph seems to refuse to believe that people can, and do, try to
>protect people from emotional hurt, but often find themselves unable to do
>something meaningful.
"Unable, or unwilling?"
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Randolph Fritz
In article <530lb6$p...@kira.peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>In article <52sugg$e...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>Randolph Fritz <rand...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>>"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
>>Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
>>ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
>>a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
>>soldier."
>>
>
>
>"Cumulative effect?" Jezebel suggests.
>
"Surely it could have occurred earlier? Something's very wrong here."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Randolph Fritz
In article <32553C...@earthlink.net>,
BetNoir <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
>> on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
>> "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
>> complete lack of understanding of it.
>
"He does? Where does he say it?"
>
>Glad to know I am not the only one around here who finds it dreadfully
>ironic that the two people who 'led the Crusade' to SAVE US FROM SPEAKER
>are promulgating this idea - Zaph and Randolph.
>
>Carl is DEAD...bought the Buick....kicked the bucket...planted 6 feet
>under....(insert favorite death euphamism here)...so why is this torch
>still being carried around????
>
"You brought up Carl--we're talking about conduct."
>Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
>plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
>himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
"Well, you know--Carl himself was a big advocate of the rational
expectations/game theoretic analysis of conduct and ethics. He
definitely thought of his net conduct in terms of strategy & tactics.
Since you supported him--what's your problem with this?"
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Michael Holmes
BetNoir (bet...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Randolph Fritz wrote:
: > "I was thinking more of interfering in such a situation, or at least
: > giving people a better idea of how to recognize that going on. My
: > concern is to prevent bullying and also to prevent unfairnesses from
: > accumulating."
: But isn't 'interfering' just a polite word for bullying. Bullying both
: parties to 'play nice'? And just what the HELL makes you any more
: objective to be able to be objective to others about 'what is going on'?
"No, BetNoir, I don't think 'interfering' must automatically mean
bullying. It can mean a lot of things -- like deflecting a heated
exchange, or pointing out to onlookers your impressions of what's
going on in the context of past flame wars, to warn newcomers (and
impulsive oldtimers!) the dangers of jumping into one side or the
other of an already-heated exchanged."
"And I think we're already discussing the issue that none of us is
really objective... that this is probably going to have to be based
on individuals making individual choices and taking individual actions."
: And what if they don't WANT to play nice? What then? Where, pray tell,
: is your 'enforcer' to MAKE them play nice?
"I think you missed the point. I don't think even Randolph thinks
we can _force_ people to play nice if they are determined to be rude,
selfish, and hurtful. But we can diminish their effect in how we
respond. And pointing out this to people is not a bad thing. It can
stop rude flamers from having tremendous power over people and
newsgroups."
: Threaten me with a knife if your hands are empty, and I will laugh at
: you. Threaten me with a machete in your hand, and THEN I will pay
: attention....
/* the Purple Niceness Nazi leaps into action. First, pulling out
the Tickling Bazooka of Happiness, he fires round after round of
feathers at BetNoir, until she is gasping for air. Quickly, he
follows up with a Grape Cream Pie barrage -- and for once, his
aim is incredibly accurate. Finally, he runs around with his
Licorice Lasso (kind of like Wonder Woman's, only I'm NOT wearing
her OUTFIT so don't EVEN think it!), with which he ties up the
helpless BetNoir and won't let her go until she smiles and says
'Please tell me how I can be super nicey-nice just like
you' 100 times in a Barney-the-Purple-Dinosaur voice.
-=-
/*, Happiness Patrol, Enforcement Division. I'm waiting BetNoir,
go ahead and say it, I've got many more licorice whips where
those came from... ;-)
[ps. for clarity's sake, I don't think of BetNoir as a flamer,
I'm just 'interfering' without being truly 'bullying' as I think
BetNoir has been using the term... and this is just one possible
example among many... ]
--
/* -> Mike Holmes, Happiness Patrol // Happiness Will Prevail! \\
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Few things are needful to make the wise man happy, but nothing
satisfies the fool; and this is the reason why so many of mankind
are miserable." -- Duc Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Michael Holmes
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <52puor$t...@kf8nh.apk.net>,
: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <b...@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote:
: >He's certainly doing a good job with the elitist --- "holier-than-thou"
: >most definitely qualifies --- bullshit as it is.
: >He's still trying to declare himself the new Speaker-to-Minerals. Which
: >proves that he still misses the point; then again, so does his quote above.
: "Hardly so. He'd have to be a lot nastier, for one thing."
"Neither, actually... and Brandon, I think there's a lot that went
down with Zaph that you missed during your ABEND... you've been
pretty quick to judge someone without knowing the whole story. I doubt
very highly that Zaph really wants to be the new 'StM'."
"I could be wrong, but I doubt it."
: >Zaph, you want to be a "member"? Quit trying to take over. Or are you,
: >as you appear, one of those people who will only accept "membership" if
: >(s)he is the alpha wolf?
"Hmmm... but a lot of people, who are 'members' (whatever the HECK
that really means!) can also be seen as trying to be 'leaders' in some
manner. That doesn't mean that's what they really are doing. And
imo I've seen stronger evidence of this attitude in other patrons rather
than Zaph."
"This isn't saying I _agree_ with all of his positions, or even
all of his 'tactics'... but I do think that some of this has
gone a little overboard, and it would be nice if people could take
a moment or two to chill."
: "I don't get this from him.
: "What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
: Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
: ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
: would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
: a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
: soldier."
: "And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
/* shrugs. "Continued emotional aftermath of Speaker's death?
Frustration with the seemingly never-ending meta-discussion on
posting styles? Simple personality clashes? Stubbornness? Some
combination of all of these?"
"Zaph, I think you've actually weathered this storm quite nicely,
given your relatively mild and gentlemanly replies in this thread.
I appreciate that, and I wanted to state so publically. I think
it's helped to shift focus back onto your ideas, and away from
personality issues."
John Palmer
Hmmm. . .
Zaphkiel wrote:
: In article <52p79b$9...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
: >
: >On 29 Sep 1996 23:05:20 -0700 in alt.callahans,
: > <Zaphkiel> said:
: >+ In article <52m5f5$2...@zot.io.org>, dei...@zot.io.org says...
: >+ >"Since you're trying to be so helpful here, why not give us all some
: >+ >advice on how to cope with flame-bait trollers?"
Here, Leslie seems to be throwing a challenge to Zaphkiel, though
perhaps a pointed one.
: >+
: >+ Well, ok. The first helpful hint would be to take good advice when it's
: >+ given. If you truely think that I am what you said I am, then the advice for
: >+ handling a person like that is in what I wrote above. You read it. You
: >+ saw the advice for how to handle a situation like that. And you chose to
: >+ disregard it.
Here Zaph seems to be quite willing to suppose that he is a flame
bait troller, and claims that Leslie disregarded his already given advice
on it. . .
: >
: >"Did I? Did I really? Then can I take it you're assuming my motivation
: >for following up to you was to 'engage in battle with you'--?
It would seem that Zaph suggested that one not engage in battle with
a flame bait troller. . .
: >
: >"If so, then may I suggest you have a gap in your intelligence collecting?
: >That was not my motivation."
: Well, then, your stated motivation (to get advice) and your *real*
: motivation (whatever that is) are different.
Bullshit. She stated no motivation. She threw down a challenge.
"Why don't you tell us what to do if X is happening". You presumed from
that that she had a particularly obvious motivation because it served your
purposes. You most certainly have learned quite a few lessons in how to
flame.
Pat Kight
In article <533eq0$3a8...@library.airnews.net>,
The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <533gjb$1...@news1.infinet.com>,
> jpa...@infinet.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>}
>} There's been a kind of longstanding agreement than public
>}announcement of killfiles is "bad", but I don't know why, and, frankly, I'd
>}like to.
>
>Personally, if I plonk somebody, I let them and the rest of the group know it
>in my last response to them. Of course, some people respond to this by
>deliberately forging addresses or getting new accounts. I can think of one
>that has his own domain, and changes his address every week. At least he
>hasn't tried new domains yet."
"I believe John is referring to the `longstanding agreement' here in a.c,
specifically - it's even mentioned in one of the admin posts. While the
Gentleman, OTOH, is referring to more the 'longstanding argument'
on Usenet at large," Jezebel suggests.
"I mention this only to remind the Gentleman that, although we in a.c
probably aren't as different from the rest of the Usenet universe as we'd
like to think we are, we do have some of our own folkways ... and they
work pretty well most of the time, IMHO.
"As to not mentioning that we're killfiling people ... well, I *have*
seen instances, in other groups, where `I'm just going to killfile him'
gets used as a sort of `I'm taking my toys and going home' thing that
tends to escalate the squabbling. So it's my own preference to keep my
killfile (and it's a very small one) to myself."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Zaphkiel
In article <5345sb$6...@news1.infinet.com>, jpa...@infinet.com says...
>: >"If so, then may I suggest you have a gap in your intelligence collecting?
>: >That was not my motivation."
>
>: Well, then, your stated motivation (to get advice) and your *real*
>: motivation (whatever that is) are different.
>
> Bullshit. She stated no motivation. She threw down a challenge.
>"Why don't you tell us what to do if X is happening". You presumed from
>that that she had a particularly obvious motivation because it served your
>purposes. You most certainly have learned quite a few lessons in how to
>flame.
She threw down a challenge for me to repeat myself? I quite clearly
stated what to do if X is happening. Why don't we just say that she
let her emotions get ahead of her reasoning and leave it at that?
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <533g0l$1...@news1.infinet.com>, jpa...@infinet.com says...
> because the first points out your feelings about the issue and about
>the fact that you are not being listened to. It also, IMHO, points out
>more important information: that you consider a fight, however minor or
>major, to have started already, and that the other person should consider
>this before continuing the discussion.
Indeed? I'll have to save this post. I'm sure some day you'll regret
saying that refusing to listen to you is sufficient grounds to start a fight.
I think this should be quoted in the flames FAQ. Under the heading "How
to intimidate".
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <533d7l$4...@news.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
>"Zaph, I think you've actually weathered this storm quite nicely,
>given your relatively mild and gentlemanly replies in this thread.
>I appreciate that, and I wanted to state so publically. I think
>it's helped to shift focus back onto your ideas, and away from
>personality issues."
I'm sure not everyone will agree with that. But for those who do,
I'd just like to say that no storm can disturb you if you understand
the nature of flaming. That's what I said from the beginning, and that's
what I've tried to show by my actions. I don't claim that I've been
a perfect gentleman in all this. That's not me. I do claim that I'm
as calm and unperturbed now as I was a week ago. And I have learned just
a little bit more about human nature.
I'm better off for the knowledge, and you can be, too.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <533cjp$4...@news.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
>
>"And I think we're already discussing the issue that none of us is
>really objective... that this is probably going to have to be based
>on individuals making individual choices and taking individual actions."
>
>: And what if they don't WANT to play nice? What then? Where, pray tell,
>: is your 'enforcer' to MAKE them play nice?
>
>"I think you missed the point. I don't think even Randolph thinks
>we can _force_ people to play nice if they are determined to be rude,
>selfish, and hurtful. But we can diminish their effect in how we
>respond. And pointing out this to people is not a bad thing. It can
>stop rude flamers from having tremendous power over people and
>newsgroups."
>
What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
Personally, I think that agreeing on what is 'fighting fairly' and
what is not is a key indicator of how any relationship will withstand
hardship. Even if two people in a relationship both have very loose
definitions (loose as in 'almost anything goes'), as long as both people
have the *same* definition, that relationship can last.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <32553C...@earthlink.net>, BetNoir says...
>
>Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
>> on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
>> "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
>> complete lack of understanding of it.
>
>Thank YOU, Brandon!
>
>Glad to know I am not the only one around here who finds it dreadfully
>ironic that the two people who 'led the Crusade' to SAVE US FROM SPEAKER
>are promulgating this idea - Zaph and Randolph.
>
>Carl is DEAD...bought the Buick....kicked the bucket...planted 6 feet
>under....(insert favorite death euphamism here)...so why is this torch
>still being carried around????
Because Brandon lit it? I've been talking about flaming and people
who flame. If I say 'flamer' and everyone thinks of speaker, well....
what can I say? I find it hard to talk about flame wars without his
memory popping up, too. That doesn't mean that the ideas I've been
trying to discuss aren't useful in and of themselves.
>Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
>plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
>himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
>
>Just something to think about....
Ok, I've thought about it. I have a Quickcam. If you want to take the
time, download CuSeeMe and I'll let you watch me as I post. Then you will
notice that I don't jump up and down, I don't turn any color in the face,
and, in fact, I spend most of my time drinking Coke, eating Totino's Pizza
rolls, and looking up words in the dictionary.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <533gds$1...@news1.infinet.com>, jpa...@infinet.com says...
>
>Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
>: Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
>: a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
>: soldier."
>
> Further discussion also makes it plain that he intends to be an
>elitist moralist who can preach and try to insist that all who disagree are
>horrible, evil flamers.
>
Not hardly. I'm not insisting on anything. Several people have
disagreed. Some have disagreed quite reasonably. Some have disagreed
quite emotionally. Some have disagreed by flaming and attempting to
spin doctor my position. The strength of my position is that every time
someone flames me for holding it, I can use their flame as an example.
Dissect the tactics being employed, and learn from it.
So not *all* who disagree are horrible, evil flamers. But the ones
who are, are certainly making my case stronger.
--Zaphkiel
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach rand...@teleport.com (Randolph Fritz) (<533js2$1...@nadine.teleport.com>):
+-----
| In article <32553C...@earthlink.net>,
| BetNoir <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > (this is me)
| >> IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
| >> on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
| >> "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
| >> complete lack of understanding of it.
Oh, he has to explicitly say it or it can't be true?
He all but told kitten several weeks ago that he was trying to take over
the position that he perceived Speaker to be in with respect to this
newsgroup. He posts a missive cribbed from Sun Tzu on how to "win"
flamewars --- when there *are* no winners in a flamewar. (Sun Tzu knew
that not everything is zero sum, BTW, but his objective was always to
maximize "his own" outcome at the expense of "the enemy". Non-zero-sum
came into play only when it was necessary to minimize "his own" losses
instead.)
| >Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
| >plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
| >himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
| "Well, you know--Carl himself was a big advocate of the rational
| expectations/game theoretic analysis of conduct and ethics. He
+--->8
Big talker --- but somehow his own behavior never looked like a successful
strategy for the Prisoner's Dilemma.
It's not just "strategy and tactics", BTW, it's how they're applied.
Warriors tend to think in terms of "we win or we lose" --- zero sum. (See
above re: Sun Tzu.) They use strategy and tactics to achieve this. But one
also uses strategy and tactics in non-zero-sum games... ideally, to maximize
the outcome for *all* participants.
| definitely thought of his net conduct in terms of strategy & tactics.
+--->8
He did. The focus being to get others to acknowledge his declarations.
Again, a zero-sum proposition.
--
++brandon s. allbery flying with merlin! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
telotech's "loup-guru" :-) FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach mj...@bu.edu (Michael Holmes) (<533d7l$4...@news.bu.edu>):
+-----
| "Neither, actually... and Brandon, I think there's a lot that went
| down with Zaph that you missed during your ABEND... you've been
| pretty quick to judge someone without knowing the whole story. I doubt
| very highly that Zaph really wants to be the new 'StM'."
I'm responding more to comments he made to kitten in another thread. He
all but said that he considered StM to have been the "leader" of this
newsgroup --- including a description of how he had come in, challenged
this leader, had been rebuffed --- and now that the "leader" is gone, he
was going to challenge again. He didn't say it in those words, but the
words he used are words that I associate with that kind of behavior.
*If* this newsgroup has a leader, it's kitten. IMHO it *doesn't* have a
leader, though, and shouldn't; and I'm less than impressed with anyone
who would muscle their way into being "the leader".
Randolph Fritz
In article <533gds$1...@news1.infinet.com>,
John Palmer <jpa...@infinet.com> wrote:
>
> Further discussion also makes it plain that he intends to be an
>elitist moralist who can preach and try to insist that all who disagree are
>horrible, evil flamers.
>
"If Zaphkiel is promulgating a moral position you dislike--all you
have to do is say so, or simply ignore it. Instead you flame him?
This makes lots of sense--not! And it's striking, too, that some of
the strongest responses have come from Speaker's old friends--people
who, ironically, preached tolerance and understanding of Speaker's far
more extensive flames. Zaph's used some sharp words? But sharp words
have been used towards him.
"I honestly don't understand the responses; I don't see how people get
some of the responses from what Zaph's written. I don't see how his
relatively minor criticism translates into something worth the
reaction it's gotten."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
John Palmer
BetNoir (bet...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Carl is DEAD...bought the Buick....kicked the bucket...planted 6 feet
: under....(insert favorite death euphamism here)...
Smiling sadly, and hoping that Carl enjoyed Monty Python. . .
"He is no more; he has ceased to be. Bereft of life, he rests in peace; if
you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daiseys!"
: Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
: plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
: himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
The trouble is, I think they consider the problem with Carl to be
other people's reactions to him, not Carl himself. Why didn't "Callahans"
do something about it? Zaph has explicitly mentioned a desire to shame those
who didn't toady to his view of what Callahan's should have been.
BetNoir
(SARCASM AND UNPLEASANTRY ALERT - those with delicate sensibilities are
forewarned...)
Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> In article <32553C...@earthlink.net>,
> BetNoir <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
> >> on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
> >> "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
> >> complete lack of understanding of it.
> >
>
> "He does? Where does he say it?"
Ask Brandon....it was HIS post I was replying to (the header for which, I
noticed you omitted in your reply to me).
> >Glad to know I am not the only one around here who finds it dreadfully
> >ironic that the two people who 'led the Crusade' to SAVE US FROM SPEAKER
> >are promulgating this idea - Zaph and Randolph.
> >
> >Carl is DEAD...bought the Buick....kicked the bucket...planted 6 feet
> >under....(insert favorite death euphamism here)...so why is this torch
> >still being carried around????
> >
>
> "You brought up Carl--we're talking about conduct."
Noooo....it was BRANDON who brought up the subject of Carl. If you had
left both his header and my first sentence THANKING him for his
observation intact from my post, it would have made more sense. Now, I
would like to think that was just an honest mistake on your part, and not
an attempt to 'misquote' me for your own purposes (Heaven forfend you
should chop a post to change the meaning around...that's a Carl tactic,
after all).
> >Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
> >plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
> >himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
>
> "Well, you know--Carl himself was a big advocate of the rational
> expectations/game theoretic analysis of conduct and ethics. He
> definitely thought of his net conduct in terms of strategy & tactics.
> Since you supported him--what's your problem with this?"
First off -
Why are you and Zaph so hell-bent on dividing us Patron's into 'camps' on
this issue?? I NEVER said that I supported Carl, or didn't support him.
If anything, I would belong to the
"There-go-Carl-and-Randolph-behaving-like-four-year-olds-again" camp.
Get it through your head - I have NEVER, nor do I NOW, give a rat's ass
about your 'problems' with Carl, nor his with you. That would have been
for you and him to sort out twixt the two of you (or is all of this just
some sort of misplaced guilt factor because the obstinant cuss went and
died on you without apologizing?).
So quit divying us up like an elementary school kick-ball team. Or is
this a case of 'If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of
the problem'? (Gee, and don't THAT sound like the Ghost of Carl all over
again...)
Second -
Thank you for proving my point for me. Zaph is using 'warfare'
terminology....Carl used the same terminology....therefore, Zaph equal
Carl.
Any questions?
BetNoir
Zaphkiel wrote:
>
> What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
But how do you come to an agreement on this? Personally, I give ONE
warning before getting into a 'heated discussion' with someone....the
philosophy being that if you REALLY feel it necessary to 'go there,' you
got your one chance to back out. After that, you pays yer nickel, you
takes your chances.
What if someone doesn't heed my one warning, then cries foul? Am I being
unfair? Or is that the other person does not take me seriously, then
cries 'victim'?
> Personally, I think that agreeing on what is 'fighting fairly' and
> what is not is a key indicator of how any relationship will withstand
> hardship. Even if two people in a relationship both have very loose
> definitions (loose as in 'almost anything goes'), as long as both people
> have the *same* definition, that relationship can last.
Thats TWO people....not the number of Patrons who (even semi-)actively
participate here. You just multiplied your problem 10-fold.
Zaphkiel
In article <3256E6...@earthlink.net>, BetNoir says...
>
>Zaphkiel wrote:
>>
>> What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
>> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
>> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
>
>But how do you come to an agreement on this? Personally, I give ONE
>warning before getting into a 'heated discussion' with someone....the
>philosophy being that if you REALLY feel it necessary to 'go there,' you
>got your one chance to back out. After that, you pays yer nickel, you
>takes your chances.
How do we come to an agreement? Well, first of all we have to agree that
it's a worthwhile goal. After that, we negotiate the problems until there
are no problems left.
I said it's what I'd like to see, I didn't say it was going to be easy.
>What if someone doesn't heed my one warning, then cries foul? Am I being
>unfair? Or is that the other person does not take me seriously, then
>cries 'victim'?
We don't know. That's why I think we need some objective criteria for
what is fair. How many arguments have we seen that were over exactly this
subject? In many cases, the argument over who's fault the argument was
goes on even longer than the original arguement.
After *either* side decides that fairness has been viloated, then they
are both less likely to treat the other person fairly in return. That's
when things get ugly. If we had some sort of guideline to use, we could
more easily decide. Sure, there would still be arguments. There would
still be arguments over how to interpret the guidelines, too. But they
would be fewer in number, and hopefully not last so long that they produce
life-long enemies and dehumanizing attitudes.
>
>> Personally, I think that agreeing on what is 'fighting fairly' and
>> what is not is a key indicator of how any relationship will withstand
>> hardship. Even if two people in a relationship both have very loose
>> definitions (loose as in 'almost anything goes'), as long as both people
>> have the *same* definition, that relationship can last.
>
>Thats TWO people....not the number of Patrons who (even semi-)actively
>participate here. You just multiplied your problem 10-fold.
Yes I did. It's a hard problem. If we were anywhere but here, I'd
have given up long ago. But here, there is the slight possiblity of a
miracle. Says so on the label. :-)
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <536sbp$1...@kf8nh.apk.net>, b...@kf8nh.apk.net says...
>
>Also sprach mj...@bu.edu (Michael Holmes) (<533d7l$4...@news.bu.edu>):
>+-----
>| "Neither, actually... and Brandon, I think there's a lot that went
>| down with Zaph that you missed during your ABEND... you've been
>| pretty quick to judge someone without knowing the whole story. I doubt
>| very highly that Zaph really wants to be the new 'StM'."
>+--->8
>
>I'm responding more to comments he made to kitten in another thread. He
>all but said that he considered StM to have been the "leader" of this
>newsgroup --- including a description of how he had come in, challenged
>this leader, had been rebuffed --- and now that the "leader" is gone, he
>was going to challenge again. He didn't say it in those words, but the
>words he used are words that I associate with that kind of behavior.
Ok, I'm going to use some words. You tell me the first thing that
pops into your mind.
Demagogue
Wankel rotory engine
Kachina
twaddle
Zeitgeist
decrepitate
Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <3256E6...@earthlink.net>, BetNoir says...
>
>Zaphkiel wrote:
>>
>> What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
>> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
>> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
>
>But how do you come to an agreement on this? Personally, I give ONE
>warning before getting into a 'heated discussion' with someone....the
>philosophy being that if you REALLY feel it necessary to 'go there,' you
>got your one chance to back out. After that, you pays yer nickel, you
>takes your chances.
>unfair? Or is that the other person does not take me seriously, then
>cries 'victim'?
I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea that fairness and justice
are only availible to those with the power to go out and take them. When
you say 'you takes your chances' it sound to me like 'might makes right'.
Perhaps not by design, but by consequence.
Say someone doesn't heed your one warning, and then cries foul. Then
you both pay your nickels, and take your chances. And the chances fall the
other way, and that person is able, by whatever means, to influence everyone
else here that they are right, and you are wrong. Would that bother you?
Or are you willing to be the scapegoat if the chances go against you?
--Zaphkiel
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach Zaphkiel (<535018$s...@lex.zippo.com>):
+-----
| who flame. If I say 'flamer' and everyone thinks of speaker, well....
| what can I say? I find it hard to talk about flame wars without his
You spend three weeks flaming about Speaker, then expect anyone *not* to
associate your rants with flaming about Speaker? You're quite the sophist.
donpaul
Zaphkiel wrote:
> We don't know. That's why I think we need some objective criteria for
> what is fair. snip After *either* side decides that fairness has been viloated, then they
> are both less likely to treat the other person fairly in return. That's
> when things get ugly. If we had some sort of guideline to use, we could
> more easily decide. Sure, there would still be arguments. There would
> still be arguments over how to interpret the guidelines, too. But they
> would be fewer in number, and hopefully not last so long that they produce
> life-long enemies and dehumanizing attitudes.Whew, there's a strong smelly of pedantry in here.
Don Paul would like to chip in with a quote from Bill Bernbach, the
American advertiser credited with the brilliant Volkswagen ads of the
60's like Lemon etc.
"There are no rules. They only make it possible for brilliant exeptions."
You could also take a leaf out of my President's book (The long road to
freedom - Nelson Mandela) He will talk to anyone. Enemy, friend, friend
of enemy, enemy of friend. He just keeps on talking. But most of all, he
listens.
Get smart - shut up.
Don Paul sends regards from Darkest Africa and places south.
Michael Holmes
Zaphkiel wrote:
: In article <52sugg$e...@nadine.teleport.com>, rand...@teleport.com says...
: >"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
: >Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
: >ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
: >would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
: >a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
: >soldier."
: >
: >"And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
: Illuminating. For me, anyway. Notice how some people react more
: negatively to a discussion about flaming than they ever did to actual
: flames?
"Possibly because they think it is a subtle dig on Speaker, or themselves."
"One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion, so far, is
something that Speaker and I agreed on: that 'polite' language can
be used in an insulting way, and that often 'politely phrased flames'
are considered acceptable in alt.callahans."
"I'd certainly like to see some acknowledgement of the fact that
a deliberately hurtful post might not contain any nasty language
at all -- and discuss how people can deal with that, and what
bystanding patrons responses could be (not 'should' be!), in cases
like these."
Notice how people who used to defend speaker and
: demand that we must try to *understand* him are now leading the assault?
"Sigh. It does seem ironic. I don't know that they'd see it this way,
but since that can be said equally about those who led assaults on
Speaker, it still seems like a case of pot, kettle, black."
"But emotions seem to running high, and people have trouble making
those kind of connections and attaining that kind of self-understanding
under these conditions. They feel that this is a different enough
situation where they don't have to take the advice they gave people
about Speaker. And in a way, they are right, because each situation
is different. But I think it would be educational for everyone to
recognize how sides have 'switched' and to learn how it feels to be
'on the other side' of a heated discussion like this."
"Too much of it is hinging on personality issues for me to be happy
with the contributions of many people. I'm really not interested
in a 'flame policy by popularity contest'. And right now a lot of
us just seem to be rubbing each other the wrong way."
"Of course, that's exactly the KIND of situation we should be
discussing, too!" ;-)
: Notice how several people who had no reason to, *have* gone out of their
: way to try to understand me?
"But, you know, we should always 'have a reason' to try to understand
people, especially if we are going to bother _responding_ to them. Given
that we'll never truly understand another human being perfectly, that
doesn't mean we can't make the attempt, AND leave an opening to be
surprised or learn something new about someone."
"I think sometimes that people are too quick to shut doors, too quick
to plop someone in a pigeonhole ('I know this person is THIS way') and have
done with them. Simple (mis)understandings of a complex conglomeration
(people!)."
Michael Holmes
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (b...@kf8nh.apk.net) wrote:
: Many people seem to believe that there are only zero-sum games. The world
: would be a much better place if people would stop insisting on playing the
: zero-sum games which are the only thing they currently acknowledge (note
: that the warfare metaphors are a prime example of this) and recognize that
: most endeavors --- certainly including *social* endeavors --- are non-zero-
: sum by nature.
: IMHO Carl claimed to understand this but never showed that understanding
: on Usenet. I find it ironic that Zaph, who seems to believe that he must
: "save" us from the memory of Speaker-to-Minerals, similarly betrays a
: complete lack of understanding of it.
"I don't know if I agree with your analysis of Zaph's post or his
intentions, but I agree with the point you make about non-zero-sum
games."
"I think when you have a group of people, many of them quite strong-willed,
you often get clashes of ideas and styles and personalities... and often,
people feel they need to 'win' or 'be right' at the _expense_ of the
'other guy'. When that isn't the only way of looking at the situation."
"I also think, frankly, that some people in THIS thread are also
getting a little wound up and trying to 'win' by making Zaph 'lose'
rather than trying to listen or understand or debate the _ideas_
he has posted about."
"I think, for example, if *I* had made the _exact_ same post Zaph
did, it would have sparked an entirely different conversation. Some
of that is natural, of course, but I hope it makes people pause for
a moment to consider whether or not they are interested in discussing
this topic, or if they are involved because they have a 'thing' about
Zaph."
Michael Holmes
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <52pbo3$b...@kira.peak.org>,
Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
: >"I will say, though, that I've had some not-quite-direct RL experience
: >with what the, um, helping professions call `intervention' ... and it left
: >a very, very bad taste in my mouth. From where I sat, it looked a lot like
: >a bunch of self-righteous bullies ganging up on someone to force a change
: >in his behavior. It (a) didn't work and (b) made permanent enemies out of
: >some former friends."
: "I was thinking more of interfering in such a situation, or at least
: giving people a better idea of how to recognize that going on. My
: concern is to prevent bullying and also to prevent unfairnesses from
: accumulating."
"That's not a bad idea if it _is_ couched in terms of 'suggestions'
and 'observations' rather than 'rules and regulations'. I think a lot
of people have been gun-shy about this issue with you, Randolph, because
it sometimes _seems_ like you are stretching the point a bit too far
in that direction."
"Now, that may no longer be true, but I think that some people are perhaps
having a hard time evaluating your current offerings without filtering
them through their memories of your past positions."
"*I* am fairly confident that you are acting for what you feel
is a motive in accord with the philosophy of alt.callahans -- you
see something that has caused pain, and you feel is likely to cause
pain again -- it makes sense to try to think of ways to lessen that,
even prevent it."
"But it's a balancing act -- between the different perspectives,
the anarchy of usenet, and the freedom of speech that many of us
hold dear."
"I think that discussions of posting styles that are hurtful or
deceptive might not be bad, as long as a) they weren't themselves
used as counter-attacks against a specific patron and b) they
offered multiple _suggestions_ to bystanding patrons about how
to deal with the situation, rather than mandating only one 'proper'
response."
"I don't think you've disagreed with this, but I think people
THINK you have. I also think that some patrons suspect that you
are still using this as some vendetta against Speaker, to try to
get the 'last' digs in. I hope that's not true, I don't THINK
it's true, but that may be coloring some people's interpretation
of your words."
Michael Holmes
John Palmer (jpa...@infinet.com) wrote:
: Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : "Hardly so. He'd have to be a lot nastier, for one thing."
: Many shit-for-brains does not a nasty make, nor the lack remove the
: possibility. Seek, grasshopper, for that which grows beneath the bark, and
: that which has its bite.
"Very strong agreement."
: : Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
: : a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
: : soldier."
: Further discussion also makes it plain that he intends to be an
: elitist moralist who can preach and try to insist that all who disagree are
: horrible, evil flamers.
"Very strong disagreement."
Michael Holmes
John Palmer (jpa...@infinet.com) wrote:
: Bill Gawne (ga...@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: : Zaphkiel:
::> The second half is the 'walking wounded' you mentioned above. Since we
::> will not protect them from harm, we must teach them to defend themselves.
:: How about we advise them of what is really going on? That may be more
:: fruitful.
:: I'll admit I don't at all like the 'since we will not protect them...'
:: sentence above. It bothers me.
: That's because it's deceitful, and if it weren't Zaphkiel, I'd be
: willing to believe that it's probably unintentionally deceitful. Y'see, we
: can't guarantee that no one will come to harm, so yes, we can't "protect"
: them. Since we CAN'T protect them, it follows that we WON'T. I can't fly
: unassisted, so I WON'T fly unassisted.
"Perhaps if someone had asked Zaph about this statement, he might have
clarified it, rather than assuming that this was intentionally deceitful."
"One of the aspects of Usenet discussion is that, while it *mimics* a
conversation, with back and forth interaction, it often doesn't have
much 'interaction' at all."
"In this case, a lot of us have been making 'statements'. Sometimes,
we intersperse our 'statements' among the paragraphs of another poster
to make it appear like a conversation, but it isn't."
"In real life, Bill would have had a chance, through facial expression,
or even by speaking, to stop Zaph and ask him what he meant by that
phrase, *before* Zaph continued with the rest of his article. But
that doesn't happen here. So it _appears_ that Zaph goes on and on...
without having a chance to explain whether or not his word choice
was deliberate, or simply a misstatement. And, as Zaph has publically
admitted misspeaking before, it's certainly not a stretch to think
that, if he made a mistake in what he actually said versus what he
meant to say, that he'd try to correct himself in this case."
"Or, he might have had a specific reason for the word choice that
Bill and John haven't realized, and again, in RL, he would have
had a chance _immediately_ to point this out."
"With the additional issue of net.lag, it makes it particularly tempting
to make the kinds of assumptions that John did, especially if you
feel you can point to 'past' behavior as a guide. But it still is
making an assumption, and I'm afraid that's the kind of thing that
makes these conversations more difficult. And it's often unfair."
: But "won't" usually implies "but could". It doesn't always, but the
: whole idea of "will not" encompasses that idea of "making a decision not
: to".
: Zaph seems to refuse to believe that people can, and do, try to
: protect people from emotional hurt, but often find themselves unable to do
: something meaningful.
"Before jumping to this conclusion, it might have been better to _ask_ Zaph
if that's what he meant. It could have prevented any tense feelings AND
also stopped the 'snowball' effect about Zaph's personality that
seems to have been developing. Even the use of the word 'seem' doesn't
really help in this case -- because if you don't know REALLY if this
is what Zaph is thinking, the obvious thing to do is ASK before
making this kind of post."
"I know this may seem like I'm being a little schoolmarmish, but
to me this is quite frustrating -- people, in general, make a lot
of assumptions, and don't do as much direct _asking_ as perhaps
they should to ensure good communication."
"And, I feel this is germane to the larger discussion of flaming --
because making an assumption without 'just asking' first often seems
like a bit of an attack, making the person you are doing it about
more defensive than they were before... which may affect the tone
of their next post, 'upping' the heat a little bit more, and if
this goes around one or two more times, you've got a nice little
flamewar going... which could have easily been avoided if a few
questions had been asked early on, rather than making statements
about another person or their position that were really assumptions."
Michael Holmes
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <533fgg$1...@news1.infinet.com>,
: John Palmer <jpa...@infinet.com> wrote:
: > Zaph seems to refuse to believe that people can, and do, try to
: >protect people from emotional hurt, but often find themselves unable to do
: >something meaningful.
: "Unable, or unwilling?"
/* can't help but snort in disbelief. "Randolph, that's exactly the
point of controversy! Aside from what we've been discussing, what
meaningful actions can we _actually_, _realistically_ take?"
"I'm not going to disagree with some of your assessments of
people who have been hurt and how these painful posts develop...
but we can only get so far if we don't look at what practical
options we have."
"I think there are a lot of people here who would be more than
willing to take positive action -- if they felt it was appropriate
and had a chance of working."
Michael Holmes
John Palmer (jpa...@infinet.com) wrote:
: Leslie (dei...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: : (Yes, I know what the FAQ says about mentioning killfiling. But
: : I wanted people to know *why* I don't respond to him.
: I will point out that I've NEVER understood the wrongness of this in
: general. I've seen it used nastily in particulars. . .
"Mainly because it is almost always used as a 'last dig' at someone
before making yourself 'immune' from their counterattack."
"Yeah, I know you aren't REALLY immune, because the person can still be
talking about you, but it can seem like the same thing. It's also quite
commonly used in 'ganging up' on another person or in trying to
sway public opinion... which is much easier than I think people
are willing to admit to themselves."
: More importantly, saying "I'm killfiling X" publically allows you to
: feel freer to do so. "Man, I can't believe you let him get away with
: saying that!" "Huh? Who said what? I TOLD you I killfiled him!"
"This kind of thing can be done in email, however, to the same effect."
: There's been a kind of longstanding agreement than public
: announcement of killfiles is "bad", but I don't know why, and, frankly, I'd
: like to.
"I think because it's almost always another attack. I know that,
depending on how it's done, I tend to lose a LOT of respect for
someone who resorts to this. I can't think of any situation which
REQUIRES a public posting of killfiling. Since it's usually
suggested as a way to AVOID threads or people you don't want to deal
with, such a public declaration only puts you right in the middle
of it again, and creates controversy. It also smacks WAY too
much of 'cliqueishness' or 'popularity contests'. It tends to
ADD to raw feelings rather than lessening them, which is the
whole point."
"I've killfiled threads and patrons in the last year, and
don't think I've ever mentioned it. It accomplished what I
needed it to accomplish, without making the situation worse,
or getting me into long-standing feuds. The issues are already
charged enough with personality clashes. Adding to that
isn't _necessary_."
"Again, since I can't _mandate_ anything, I can just give my
impressions and suggestions. But, for those to whom it matters,
I will state that I _personally_ dislike the tactic of public
announcement of killfiling, no matter whom the target, and it
_does_ lessen your standing in my eyes. FWIW."
Bruce E Golightly
Excerpts from netnews.alt.callahans: 4-Oct-96 Re: Flames and flame wars
by Zaphkiel@???
> What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
Anam chuckles to himself, remembering "The Quiet Man" (John Wayne, et al.)
There's a scene in there where Wayne and the brother-in-law are squaring
off. They're agreeing to rules, and Wayne gets punched out.
Marquis of Queensbury, indeed!
Anam
John Palmer
Pat Kight (kig...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: "I guess I keep coming back to what several people have suggested: That
: the best we can hope for is that *individuals* will take responsibility
: for their actions, and that individuals (not even necessarily the same
: ones) will step in, privately, to explain things to newcomers."
Nod. But I think that a policy of respect for those who specifically
do not rise to flamebait and support for those who are flamed (without
supporting their positions) is a Good Thing.
Sailor Jim was getting flamed by Speaker over his (IMHO,
understandable) anger over how the rights of criminals puts his life and
his shipmates' lives in danger. I *AGREED* with Speaker; the rights that
he was bitching about *WERE* the ones he's sworn to protect. . . but I
understood his feelings, as well, and didn't consider them to be as
flameworthy as Speaker was making them out to be.
I mean, it's EASY to say "That's part of your job" when you're not
the one getting shot at. . . and it's hard to remember how important it is
to be secure in your place and person when granting that security is
getting you shot at. That doesn't mean that the Coast Guard should truly
consider changing their procedures, but I grant free license for any
individual coast guard sailor to think about it in a "I know I can't change
it" manner.
John Palmer
Pat Kight (kig...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: In article <533eq0$3a8...@library.airnews.net>,
: The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
: >In article <533gjb$1...@news1.infinet.com>,
: > jpa...@infinet.com (John Palmer) wrote:
: >}
: >} There's been a kind of longstanding agreement than public
: >}announcement of killfiles is "bad", but I don't know why, and, frankly, I'd
: >}like to.
: > "No, there's been a longstanding argument over whether it was bad.
: "I believe John is referring to the `longstanding agreement' here in a.c,
Bingo.
: "As to not mentioning that we're killfiling people ... well, I *have*
: seen instances, in other groups, where `I'm just going to killfile him'
: gets used as a sort of `I'm taking my toys and going home' thing that
: tends to escalate the squabbling.
Erm. Actually, as dangerous would be the "oh, you're killfiling,
eh? Can't take the discussion you yourself created, eh? You big baby!"
reaction. (I have to admit, I'm semi-guilty of this myself, but my
reaction to people who announce they're killfiling me is "great, now I can
counter your bullshit and you won't even know how I'm doing it; that makes
my job easier". Of course, these heated discussions DO tend to take place
in support groups. . . )
But keep in mind that ignoring provocation without announcement that
you're ignoring it invites people to take "the last shot", and can hurt
your pride no end, as you wonder if people think you really and truly CAN'T
take it, as opposed to deciding you don't want to take it any more.
John Palmer
: >"What *is* this? We used to have flames morning, noon, and night.
: >Zaphkiel writes one article on flaming. The article is ambiguous and
: >ironic. He names no-one personally. It is almost a discouragement to
: >would-be flamers. Further discussion makes it plain he intends it as
: >a guide to self-defense; perhaps one might call it advice from an old
: >soldier."
: >
: >"And people are all over him? What *is* this?"
Hmmm. I seem to remember something about bullshitters being
executed, selling popcorn to the live show, and so forth. I can't figure
out *WHY* I'm remembering that. . . but it's quite clear in my mind.
: Illuminating. For me, anyway. Notice how some people react more
: negatively to a discussion about flaming than they ever did to actual
: flames?
Maybe that's because there's more bullshit in a discussion about
flaming than in some of those "actual flames". BTW: I'm curious as to how
you know that everyone in this thread has NOT reacted more negatively to
flames at some point in the past?
: Notice how people who used to defend speaker and
: demand that we must try to *understand* him are now leading the assault?
Shrug. I don't notice that. I know that I said that you shouldn't
dislike Speaker for what he wasn't, only for what he was. I don't like or
respect you for what you are, though I'll admit that I can't tell *EXACTLY*
what you are.
Michael Holmes
Zaphkiel wrote:
: In article <32553C...@earthlink.net>, BetNoir says...
: >Like I said before.....the more they jump up and down and holler and turn
: >plaid in the face, the more they eerily seem to resemble Carl
: >himself...esp. with this 'warfare terminology.'
: >
: >Just something to think about....
: Ok, I've thought about it. I have a Quickcam. If you want to take the
: time, download CuSeeMe and I'll let you watch me as I post. Then you will
: notice that I don't jump up and down, I don't turn any color in the face,
: and, in fact, I spend most of my time drinking Coke, eating Totino's Pizza
: rolls, and looking up words in the dictionary.
"Leslie mentioned this, in regards to Speaker, a long time ago, and
it is a really, really good point: how you 'hear' someone's posts
can often make a big difference in their effect on you. And that
sometimes we misattribute emotional content to posts because we
are 'putting a different tone' to the poster's 'voice' than they
really had."
"I don't think I've ever really 'heard' you as ranting and jumping
up and down and hollering, Zaph, for one example. And that may
make a difference in how I receive your ideas as opposed to how
others are."
"It's one of the reasons why I _like_ the third person aspect of a.c,
because it gives me another way of making sure my emotional
expression is more clear. But there are other ways of insuring
this, too."
P. Kight
John Palmer wrote:
anent killfilling, and the announcement thereof
>
> But keep in mind that ignoring provocation without announcement that
> you're ignoring it invites people to take "the last shot", and can hurt
> your pride no end, as you wonder if people think you really and truly CAN'T
> take it, as opposed to deciding you don't want to take it any more.
"Well, not *my* pride," Jezebel says, laughing. "But then, pride's not
one of my Top 10 Personality Traits. Trust me on this: I'm absolutely
willing to stand on my own words and deeds - just as I try hard to judge
individuals on their own words and deeds. I don't *care* if someone else
gets the last word; if it makes them feel better, cool. And if the last
word is a direct criticism of me - well, so what? Something someone says
on the 'Net is going to *hurt* me? Not likely. I've had my share of
actual, RL pain, both physical and psychological, and if I could learn
to cope with that, then anything someone could `inflict' on me here is
child's play.
"I frankly don't *care* if people think I `can't take it.' Those who
know me won't make that assumption; those who don't are free to ask,
`Gee, where'd you go?' ... or not, at their pleasure.
"Sometimes I think we all overestimate our own importance ... If someone
stops taking part in a thread without making a big deal out of it, I
suspect most folx won't even notice ... or will figure, as I usually do,
that the 'Net swallowed them. Lord knows my own connections are loose
enough (Internet connections! I'm talking about Internet connections,
you guys!) that I'm quite familiar with the concept of involuntary
ABEND-ness.
"Once again -- and I'm beginning to feel like I should make this my own
personal standard disclaimer or something -- I admit that I'm a bit of
an odd duck in this regard, and I neither expect nor require that others
react the same way. I *do* understand that some folx feel real emotional
pain when they believe they have been slighted or maligned. I'm sorry
about that, and I usually try to avoid inflicting it. YMMV and all
that."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Sanford E. Walke IV
Zaphkiel wrote:
: So not *all* who disagree are horrible, evil flamers. But the ones
Sandy cracks up at this incredible delusion. He simply cannot stop
laughing.
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"Most men live lives of quiet desperation." -- H. D. Thoreau
I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Zaphkiel wrote:
: She threw down a challenge for me to repeat myself? I quite clearly
: stated what to do if X is happening. Why don't we just say that she
: let her emotions get ahead of her reasoning and leave it at that?
Learn to read. You posted what to do with a flamer, not what to do with
a flame-bait troller.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Randolph Fritz (rand...@teleport.com) wrote:
: And it's striking, too, that some of
: the strongest responses have come from Speaker's old friends--people
: who, ironically, preached tolerance and understanding of Speaker's far
: more extensive flames. Zaph's used some sharp words? But sharp words
: have been used towards him.
Ya know, I honestly can't think of a time when Speaker flamed someone.
I mean, he called people idiots and liars (including me), but they *were*!
Maybe it's just because I don't see how someone telling the truth can be
considered a flame. I'd rather hear the truth than half-truths. Half-
truths are much more dangerous.
: I don't see how his relatively minor criticism translates into something
: worth the reaction it's gotten."
Criticism coming from an asshole is most vexing.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Zaphkiel wrote:
: Or are you willing to be the scapegoat if the chances go against you?
you have, at the least, an odd definition of the word "scapegoat".
Sanford E. Walke IV
Michael Holmes (mj...@bu.edu) wrote:
: "I think, for example, if *I* had made the _exact_ same post Zaph
: did, it would have sparked an entirely different conversation.
Honestly and truly, /*, IMO you *NEVER* would have made that post.
: Some
: of that is natural, of course, but I hope it makes people pause for
: a moment to consider whether or not they are interested in discussing
: this topic, or if they are involved because they have a 'thing' about
: Zaph."
Who listens to demonstrated (and admitted) asshole flamers anyway? Z
has not yet, so far as I can recall, said anything worth listening to,
ever.
He's awful fun to laugh at, though.
Pat Kight
John Palmer wrote:
>
> Nod. But I think that a policy of respect for those who specifically
> do not rise to flamebait and support for those who are flamed (without
> supporting their positions) is a Good Thing.
Jezebel looks confused.
"But, John, don't we already *have* that?" Leaping over to Leslie's home
page, the Spinster rummages through the FAQs and finds the following:
---
from the alt.callahans Flames FAQ:
"Ignoring a flame thread may easily be misinterpreted as ignoring the
person who is being flamed. This can feel like rejection, especially if
this person is a relative newcomer. So if it looks as if someone is
getting flamed OR is being ignored, it's a nice idea to e-mail a quick
message to them, asking if everything is all right, or sending some
message of support. Or, post a _neutral_ message supporting the flamee,
without referring to the flames or the flamer _at_all_.
"Not only will you be helping a flamethread to die down, but you will
be
doing something active and constructive to assist another Patron (the
flamee) and after all, that's part of what Callahan's is about."
---
"That pretty much sounds like what you're in favor of, John. Or am I
missing something?"
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
BetNoir
> >> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
> >> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
> >
> >warning before getting into a 'heated discussion' with someone....the
> >philosophy being that if you REALLY feel it necessary to 'go there,' you
> >got your one chance to back out. After that, you pays yer nickel, you
> >takes your chances.
> >What if someone doesn't heed my one warning, then cries foul? Am I being
> >unfair? Or is that the other person does not take me seriously, then
> >cries 'victim'?
>
> I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea that fairness and justice
> are only availible to those with the power to go out and take them. When
> you say 'you takes your chances' it sound to me like 'might makes right'.
OK-fine...so I can't post a pro-gun statement because it might (not will,
but MIGHT) offend, say, Randolph or Shonias because they are anti-gun?
And a pro-choice statement might offend Patchmaker or Dr. Bill????
Now who is preaching 'right makes might'?
> Say someone doesn't heed your one warning, and then cries foul. Then
> you both pay your nickels, and take your chances. And the chances fall the
> other way, and that person is able, by whatever means, to influence everyone
> else here that they are right, and you are wrong. Would that bother you?
> Or are you willing to be the scapegoat if the chances go against you?
How MUCH handholding do you honestly think people need?? I do come with
warning labels for 'hot button' issues (see my 'delicate sensibilities
disclaimer in reply to Randolph in this thread and, if you can, my
similar disclaimers in the abortion thread from a while back), but I do
ask that people take the time to READ THEM and, if they think they will
be upset, they can avert their eyes. I have upheld MY end of the bargin
- truth in advertising about possible 'harsh' sounding statements.
And now I am supposed to be responsible if they rush in where angels fear
to tread even after reading my disclaimer?? So this means I get be on
the receiving end of statements like "Feel sorry for me cuz mean ol' Bet
yelled at me"? That is nothing short of emotional blackmail, IF (and
that is a big whoppin' IF, I shall grant...) they have been duly warned
in advance that potential unpleasantries are about to be discussed.
And this I should feel guilty for???
Zaphkiel
In article <53c2h5$q...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net says...
>Who listens to demonstrated (and admitted) asshole flamers anyway? Z
>has not yet, so far as I can recall, said anything worth listening to,
>ever.
>
>He's awful fun to laugh at, though.
A little song,
A little dance,
A little seltzer
Down my pants.
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <3259CA...@earthlink.net>, BetNoir says...
>
>> Say someone doesn't heed your one warning, and then cries foul. Then
>> you both pay your nickels, and take your chances. And the chances fall the
>> other way, and that person is able, by whatever means, to influence everyone
>> else here that they are right, and you are wrong. Would that bother you?
>> Or are you willing to be the scapegoat if the chances go against you?
>
>How MUCH handholding do you honestly think people need?? I do come with
>warning labels for 'hot button' issues (see my 'delicate sensibilities
>disclaimer in reply to Randolph in this thread and, if you can, my
>similar disclaimers in the abortion thread from a while back), but I do
>ask that people take the time to READ THEM and, if they think they will
>be upset, they can avert their eyes. I have upheld MY end of the bargin
>- truth in advertising about possible 'harsh' sounding statements.
>
>And now I am supposed to be responsible if they rush in where angels fear
>to tread even after reading my disclaimer?? So this means I get be on
>the receiving end of statements like "Feel sorry for me cuz mean ol' Bet
>yelled at me"? That is nothing short of emotional blackmail, IF (and
>that is a big whoppin' IF, I shall grant...) they have been duly warned
>in advance that potential unpleasantries are about to be discussed.
>
>And this I should feel guilty for???
I have read all of the above, and I don't see any word, or group of
words, that even hint at the possibility that you might lose a flame
contest. I admire that.
However, back to my point. We're talking about 'chance'. Let me change
the scenario and give you another way to look at it. Let's say someone
fails to heed your warning and goes afoul of your temper. You blast them
to the best of your ability. You feel no guilt about it. They were warned.
Then that person responds with a series of anecdotes about your past,
including misrepresentation of facts and doctored .jpg's that seem to
prove that you repeatedly engaged in the immoral practice that you like
least. Your friends are disgusted, and abandon you.
Now, let me ask again. Are you willing to leave truth and justice up
to chance? If someone else has the power and influence to put you down,
and keep you down, does that make them right?
--Zaphkiel
Zaphkiel
In article <53b48k$c...@news.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
>
>"I'd certainly like to see some acknowledgement of the fact that
>a deliberately hurtful post might not contain any nasty language
>at all -- and discuss how people can deal with that, and what
>bystanding patrons responses could be (not 'should' be!), in cases
>like these."
The tactics are the same. My suggestion would be to deliberately miss
the point. To thank them most politely for the compliment, and topspin
that flame volley back into their court. If it *truely* was a deliberate
attempt to hurt (and not a massive miscommunication) then they will be
dissapointed. (and when it comes down to it, isn't that what all who
are deliberately hurtful *should* be?)
--Zaphkiel
Ieuan
Zaphkiel wrote:
>
> What I would like to see is some sort of usenet equivalent to the
> 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules. (sp??) Something that describes what
> is 'hitting below the belt' and what is fair in a heated discussion.
It's probably easier in a stand-up, knock-down bout of fisticuffs
to decide what is 'hitting below the belt'. I mean, you just
point at it, and say 'there'.
Harder, though, to point at feelings, which may be at risk in an
argument or an escalated discussion. Many people have emotional
'buttons' that, when pushed, trigger responses. They're different
for different people, so no one set of rules is going to apply
completely for everyone.
I've been kicked in the soul so much harder than I've ever been
kicked in the balls.
Besides, you can construct a set of rules all you like and there's
almost no way of enforcing them (especially given the nature
of usenet) and almost no way of getting them accepted into general
use (again, given the nature of usenet).
> Personally, I think that agreeing on what is 'fighting fairly' and
> what is not is a key indicator of how any relationship will withstand
> hardship. Even if two people in a relationship both have very loose
> definitions (loose as in 'almost anything goes'), as long as both people
> have the *same* definition, that relationship can last.
>
> --Zaphkiel
Dunno 'bout that. I suppose it *can* last. Perhaps, if in addition
to having the same definition, they agree that the definition is
acceptable, and furthermore adhere to it, you've got something.
Plenty of people can give more than they can take, and a few can
take more than they ever give, but that's not necessarily a measure
of strength of a relationship.
--
Ieuan Wickham, Auckland University, New Zealand (disclaimer)
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts
to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- The Doctor (Face of Evil)