Silencing and ad hominem attacks (was Re: The Rule of Sturgeon)
Mary Ellen Curtin
> But Mary Ellen, it's my opinion your original
> post(#42114) wasn't even in response to EmGee's
> message or concerns. It was a response to a message
> that Greywolf had sent.
I believe I made a mistake there. In order to keep my post
(#42114) short (and more likely to be read) I elided a couple
of steps that maybe I should have made explicit.
EmGee's post (#41793) was titled, "Re: Reposting an Overlooked
Comment". Since xe went to the trouble of re-posting, I
figured it was about something of more than usual importance
to hir. That was the one I pondered deeply and figured was (in
part) about how Helen SK was hounded out. I wrote to EmGee
privately and xe said yes, that was one of the things xe was talking
about.
Meanwhile, back on the public NG, EmGee posted (#41837) in
"Re: just a little bit disappointed":
> It is difficult for me to simply say "what's past is past" when I
> continue to be haunted by the image of a list member viciously
> attacked to the point of tears - and worse, that from the tenor of
> the comments to the person who attacked hir, at least some
> members of this list consider such viciousness to be appropriate
> (even laudatory) list behavior.
<and other deeply-felt remarks>
A little later EmGee posted #42094, Re: The Rule of Sturgeon:
> I'm not sure why I should continue to post comments on this thread,
> when they are met only with a resounding silence. Or are you all
> just politely trying to tell me to shut up? That's kinda what it
> feels like.
and Greywolf replied in #42098:
>If I wanted ye to shut up I'd
> say so.
and that's where I came in.
So you see, in my mind and possibly in EmGee's (I'm Cc:ing
this to hir, so xe has a heads-up if xe feels like disagreeing) there
was a clear historical & logical line between EmGee's tactful
and general comments on ad hominem attacks (though xe didn't
call them that) to GW's post. Basicly, EmGee had said "people
have been attacked", and GW *seemed* to be saying, "don't
worry, I'm not attacking you -- yet". I emphasize "seemed"
because I don't think that was what GW was actually doing -- I
don't think he saw the chain of history & logic I did, he was just
responding to the post in front of him. But I felt that enough
tact was enough, it was time to get really, really explicit.
Probably I went about this the wrong way. On the one hand,
I wanted to write something clear and shocking enough that
people might overcome their natural resistance to finding
fault with themselves; on the other hand, I wanted to be brief
enough that my whole post would be read and understood;
on the other other hand, I didn't want to lay out too many
steps in my thinking, because (in my experience) each step
is an opportunity for people to get distracted onto side issues;
on the other other other hand, I write rather slowly and the
time I had available was limited, and I didn't want to delay
posting so long that everyone said, "why rake up the past"?
Altogether I felt like I needed to be Odo on a really good day.<g>
I don't know how much of this could have been prevented
if my personal correspondence with GW over the past half
year or so hadn't been "Abbott and Costello Visit a Temporal
Anomaly." I'm not sure how much I *want* to have been
prevented. I think your post, Lady Hawk, on "ASCEM: The
Flamewar Story" is so accurate it should be the starting point
for further conversation, and it's hard for me to feel completely
bad about anything that got you to write it.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
http://www.eclipse.net/~mecurtin/au/
Alternate Universes: Fanfiction Studies
http://www.eclipse.net/~mecurtin/foresmut/
The Foresmutters Project
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ASCEM messages are copied to a mailing list. Most recent messages
can be found at http://www.egroups.com/group/ASCEML.
Greywolf the Wanderer
> Lady Hawk said:
> > But Mary Ellen, it's my opinion your original
> > post(#42114) wasn't even in response to EmGee's
> > message or concerns. It was a response to a message
> > that Greywolf had sent.
>
> I believe I made a mistake there. In order to keep my post
> (#42114) short (and more likely to be read) I elided a couple
> of steps that maybe I should have made explicit.
>
> EmGee's post (#41793) was titled, "Re: Reposting an Overlooked
> Comment". Since xe went to the trouble of re-posting, I
> figured it was about something of more than usual importance
> to hir. That was the one I pondered deeply and figured was (in
> part) about how Helen SK was hounded out. I wrote to EmGee
> privately and xe said yes, that was one of the things xe was talking
> about.
As did I. However the solving of that one will be private and quite
frankly, girl, none of your business. I blew that one. That hardly makes
the rest of your rant either pertinent to me, or true. And frankly, I still
think you are a fine one to be speaking of such things, given your actions
in the past which, to my knowledge, you still maintain were perfectly all
right.
Forgiveness is a lovely idea. But you know what, folks? It has to come
from the heart. And me, I'm not convinced any of this is. Just my own
opinion. Nobody else has to agree with me. Either way, life, and the NG,
will go on.
<snippage>
> A little later EmGee posted #42094, Re: The Rule of Sturgeon:
> > I'm not sure why I should continue to post comments on this thread, when
> they are met only with a resounding silence. Or are you all just politely
> trying to tell me to shut up? That's kinda what it feels like.
>
> and Greywolf replied in #42098:
> >If I wanted ye to shut up I'd
> > say so.
You are *still* snipping my words to make them look worse. shame on you,
ME. You damn well know better than that. Such tricks should be beneath
you. Evidently they are not. Everyone who read my original message knows
what I really said, and that your convenient little snip is just part of it,
calculated to show me in the worst possible light. But you know what? From
the email I'm getting, you aren't fooling people any more. Which relieves
me no end.
> and that's where I came in.
Ah, yes. In size 12 hobnailed boots, loudly proclaiming your innocence and
that you were only trying to help. Well, thanks but no thanks. Help like
that I can live without.
> So you see, in my mind and possibly in EmGee's (I'm Cc:ing
> this to hir, so xe has a heads-up if xe feels like disagreeing) there
> was a clear historical & logical line between EmGee's tactful
> and general comments on ad hominem attacks (though xe didn't
> call them that) to GW's post. Basicly, EmGee had said "people
> have been attacked", and GW *seemed* to be saying, "don't
> worry, I'm not attacking you -- yet". I emphasize "seemed"
> because I don't think that was what GW was actually doing -- I
> don't think he saw the chain of history & logic I did, he was just
> responding to the post in front of him. But I felt that enough
> tact was enough, it was time to get really, really explicit.
Uh-huh. Ya sure, you betcha. I was seeming to do no such thing and the
full text of my original post proves it. But of course, that wouldn't back
up the point you want to make, so you conveniently lose half my words. Fie
on you, for shame.
> Probably I went about this the wrong way.
*definitely*. And as for your claims to admire and respect me, well, again,
you sure as hell haven't convinced me of either, yet. Nor am I holding my
breath. I think whoever posted that message about the history of flame wars
hit the nail on the head. *All* this stuff is just round 8, between you and
I certainly, and probably in other cases as well. And given your past
intransigence with respect to those historical events, you have completely
failed to convince me of either your present repentance, or your good
intentions. Saying "I love you", as you put the shiv in my back, is not
very credible.
> On the one hand,
> I wanted to write something clear and shocking enough that
> people might overcome their natural resistance to finding
> fault with themselves; on the other hand, I wanted to be brief
> enough that my whole post would be read and understood;
> on the other other hand, I didn't want to lay out too many
> steps in my thinking, because (in my experience) each step
> is an opportunity for people to get distracted onto side issues;
> on the other other other hand, I write rather slowly and the
> time I had available was limited, and I didn't want to delay
> posting so long that everyone said, "why rake up the past"?
> Altogether I felt like I needed to be Odo on a really good day.<g>
And, IMHO, failed in all regards. Thanks, but no thanks.
> I don't know how much of this could have been prevented
> if my personal correspondence with GW over the past half
> year or so hadn't been "Abbott and Costello Visit a Temporal
> Anomaly."
Not much, since for me the basic issue was your previous behaviour, which
you to this day stubbornly maintain was innocent and above board. Not to
mention your conversational tactics, of which your latest attack on me is a
perfect, shining, textbook example.
No. I have not forgotten, and although I think forgiveness is a wonderful
thing, in your case, I can not forgive. Because you have not changed a bit,
not at all, not a jot nor a tittle. Sorry, folks, but that's the truth. I
take forgiveness seriously. I'm not about to mouth the words when I cannot
feel the sentiment in question. I do not think falsehoods will help any of
this.
> I'm not sure how much I *want* to have been
> prevented. I think your post, Lady Hawk, on "ASCEM: The
> Flamewar Story" is so accurate it should be the starting point
> for further conversation, and it's hard for me to feel completely
> bad about anything that got you to write it.
I think she got it bang on, and I want to compliment you, Lady Hawk, for
doing so. Very perceptive indeed. And I would like to be able to speak of
forgiveness. Perhaps the totally unlikely will indeed occur, and such
substantive change will happen that I *will* be able to do so. But as it
stands right now, I can't. And I'm not *about* to lie about it. It's too
important for that.
However -- a lot of this is personal stuff between ME and I. My own
preference would be to take our personal war to email, and leave all you
uninterested onlookers out of it. Whether she will concur I cannot
predict. But that's what I would prefer. This really isn't you guys'
problem. None of you other folks did the stuff that pissed me off, and none
of you have attacked me either. Quite the opposite in fact, and blessings
on the many folks who have emailed me to say, "Right on brothah, keep
fighting!" You cheered me up immensely and I am duly grateful.
> Mary Ellen
Greywolf, forging on though he does not expect it to make any difference
ka...@ipass.net
hominem' mean?
Kaki (not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination)
hafital
Ok, I promised myself I wasn't going to respond to this thread 'cause,
well, I was pretty sure I would be talking to a wall and didn't see
the point. Especially when others were doing such a good job of it.
But I never learn. <g>
I just spend way to much time going back through egroups to the post
named in regards to Helen SK and that whole mess. And it was a mess,
ugly, and unfortunate. Why I didn't respond to your earlier posts, and
I knew you were referring to Helen SK, was because as much as
Greywolf's posts could have been perhaps less "adhominemy", she walked
right into it. So I didn't know what to say.
I'm not defending Greywolf, he's very good at doing that himself, and
on the whole I don't care for ad hominem attacks either but all the
people involved in that flamewar are not innocent in that respect and
Helen SK chose to leave. She could have examined her words as well and
didn't. I'm not blaming her, Greywolf, or Karmen; the whole thing was
just ugly and a result of trigger finger sending, imo. I say this
because I can't imagine making a comment like the one Helen SK did
about concentration camps to another individual unless I'm damn well
sure they deserve that comparison. I'm taking it on faith that Helen
SK didn't think it through at the time.
So I understand why this affected you so much. It was an unpleasant
thing to witness and it could have been handled better, I'm sure.
Now, aside from Helen SK and that whole thing which is not black or
white but gray, you make some excellent points about how we as a
community react and act to one another and for the most part I agree.
I like what you said about how we should be as courteous as with the
clerk at the local store. So true. Unfortunately, as courteous as you
and I might be, there are always incidents where courtesy is thrown
out the window, human nature being what it is. Passions rise,
unfeeling statements are said, people rise to the defense of others
and say things they might regret, or not. It happens. I think it was
Istannor who said we can only police ourselves. We can also learn
from our mistakes. Or not.
As far as I can tell, nobody is saying that personal attacks are a
good thing. But, as they say, shit happens. And it's been happening a
lot lately so we're all a little tense. I think bringing attention to
it is good and saying how it affects us when it does happen is
probably even better. I also think ME went about doing that in just
about the worst possible way because, whatever she might have
intended, her post was basically a personal attack so she's gotten
nowhere in her argument and has only caused more nasty words to be
flung around. That's my opinion.
hafital
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
hafital
,
> > well, I was pretty sure I would be talking to a wall and didn't
see
> > the point. Especially when others were doing such a good job of
it.
> > But I never learn. <g>
>
> I'm trying really hard not to be a wall here.
I wasn't really referring to you, dear.
<snip for brevity>
> > people involved in that flamewar are not innocent in that respect
and
> > Helen SK chose to leave. She could have examined her words as well
and
> >didn't.
> Yes, she could have, if she had Mary Ellen's psychic armor, "the
envy
> of rhinos everywhere." Not all of us are so blessed. I think of
> myself as a fairly tough individual in many respects, but if I had
> been on the receiving end of the kind of withering attack that Helen
> SK suffered (and she told me that some private messages were much,
> much worse than what was posted publicly), I'm pretty sure that I
> would have left in a state of shock, in no shape to wonder just what
> I'd done that was *so awful* that I deserved getting kicked and
> stomped upon. Generally speaking, people are not in the best
> condition for self-examination when they are lying in a dazed,
bloody
> heap in the corner.
As I said before, the whole incident was unfortunate. Helen SK's grasp
of English seemed pretty good to me, and she knew very well what
connotation concentration camps were going to have. That she might not
have had the same association to them that I and yourself do is a
possibility, but that's where you take into account that you're
posting to a public ng and you step carefully when you post such
things. Others didn't step carefully either (many actually), I know,
but her post was in response to Karmen's which was in response to
Kira. Helen's reference came out of left field and opened the door for
a full blown flamewar. It was going to happen anyway, the flamewar I
mean, but she might not have gotten so bloody if she hadn't done what
she did.
Quite frankly, language barriers shouldn't absolve her of making such
comments, that's my opinion, but I'm willing to entertain she didn't
know her words would have caused such a reaction. Saying that, I'm
sorry she received private posts that were so harsh. The one's made
publicly where certainly not padded, but not so terrible that they
would have made me leave. Not any more then her comments to Karmen
would have. Did she deserve what she got? Probably not. I don't think
anybody should be hounded off this list for making a bad judgment call
and making mistakes. I don't think she should have left. As I said
before, it was unfortunate. I'm truly sorry it happened.
>
> > I'm not blaming her, Greywolf, or Karmen; the whole thing was
> > just ugly and a result of trigger finger sending, imo.
>
> Absolutely. And your remarks have been very even-handed. But I
have
> seen a general tendency to apply different standards of behavior to
> different list members. I seem to recall one comment (and I wish I
> had the time to look for it and quote it verbatim) that defended
> someone else's *very rude* comment on the grounds that the
individual
> had done "so much for ASCEM." Other comments have been similarly
> flavored, though not quite so blatant.
Hm. Well that shouldn't be the case. I'm not quite sure how to respond
to this without seeming like I'm defending someone's rude comment
because of whatever reason. The fact of the matter is Greywolf is my
friend and I'll defend him tooth and nail against what seems to me
injustice, as he did for Karmen. Notice, I'm not defending him in
regards to his posts; that's really between him and Helen SK and
perhaps Karmen. As this recent business is between him and Mary Ellen.
He has to answer for himself in regards to his behavior. I cannot do
that for him, nor would he expect me or any other person to do that.
<snipping again>
> > I say this
> > because I can't imagine making a comment like the one Helen SK did
> > about concentration camps to another individual unless I'm damn
well
> > sure they deserve that comparison. I'm taking it on faith that
Helen
> > SK didn't think it through at the time.
>
> Well, neither can I imagine making such a comment, but it *was* a
> single comment, and the response to it put me in mind of someone
> using a hammer to dispatch a mosquito.
Perhaps. That's what happens in the heat of the moment. The same could
be said for the K/S reaction to Karmen's original post. She was just
one person posting a concern about the fests, etc. and all the "K/S
camp" started jumping up and down *and* on top of her, making many
rude comments to her in turn. It goes both ways. Nobody's hands are
clean.
Karmen's been here longer then you or I and has been on the receiving
end of many a stomp that puts what occurred to Helen SK to shame. I
think she shares Mary Ellen's rhino armor. But she also takes it off
and listens which makes a world of difference.
>
> > Unfortunately, as courteous as you
> > and I might be, there are always incidents where courtesy is
thrown
> > out the window, human nature being what it is. Passions rise,
> > unfeeling statements are said, people rise to the defense of
others
> > and say things they might regret, or not. It happens.
>
> Yes, but it happens *so often*. <sigh>
I know. And part of all this is an attempt to figure out why and
perhaps slap a Band-Aid on it. Who knows, might still happen.
>
> > I think it was
> > Istannor who said we can only police ourselves. We can also learn
> > from our mistakes. Or not.
>
> Yes. And to learn, we need feedback. If rude, personal,
> hurtful "this person is my enemy" comments are treated with the same
> equanimity as strong (but politely expressed) criticism, how are we
> ever to learn to differentiate between them?
Perhaps by treating the ailment and not the symptom. <visions of
Frankenfurter are floating before me>Generally people make rude and
hurtful comments like "this person is my enemy" when they have been
threatened or attacked or someone they love has been threatened or
attacked. Then it just ends up being who has the bigger bark and in
that case all votes go to the wolf. <g> Again I'm not defending him or
anyone else (sorry greywolf for using your poor hide as an example.
please forgive me.) but we're never going to get to the heart of the
matter if you ask everybody to behave better when their friends are
still getting stepped on. They just won't stand for it. That's not to
say it wouldn't make things a lot calmer around here and probably be
better for all concerned if we could refrain from such behavior, but I
again cite human nature. It's in our nature to defend those we love or
care about or even those we see wronged, like yourself in regards to
Helen SK.
>
> > As far as I can tell, nobody is saying that personal attacks are a
> > good thing.
>
> Except when we're attacking trolls. Or people who are being really,
> really annoying. That's what certain members seem to be saying.
> IMO, that's a pretty slippery slope. What's annoying to me might
not
> be annoying to you. One person's troll is another person's treasure.
> <g>
Yes it is a slippery slope. Trolls I can't answer for. I've only seen
one or two since my birth into fanfiction and they generally post
something incendiary and then beat it out of here pretty darn quick.
As for annoying people, what I said about defending people pretty much
stands for that as well, since I think you're referring to GD and LG.
And agian, nobody asked either of those two to leave. They did that on
their own.
>
> > But, as they say, shit happens. And it's been happening a
> > lot lately so we're all a little tense. I think bringing attention
> to
> > it is good and saying how it affects us when it does happen is
> > probably even better. I also think ME went about doing that in
just
> > about the worst possible way because, whatever she might have
> > intended, her post was basically a personal attack so she's gotten
> > nowhere in her argument and has only caused more nasty words to be
> > flung around. That's my opinion.
>
> And that's where our opinions differ, I think. I agree that ME's
> comments were hard, and they were specific, and they almost
certainly
> stung. But I don't believe that they were personal in the sense of
> attacking GW as an entity. Rather, they decried his behavior in
> several very specific instances, and I thought that ME went to great
> pains to couple them with words of support and caring for GW
> personally. She hated the sin, and loved the sinner. At least
> that's how I interpreted her remarks.
Yes. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there.
>
> I am gratified by the wealth of debate - in the finest sense of the
> word - that these issues now are generating. Strongly held opinions
> expressed with courtesy. Truly polite discourse. Thank you,
> hafital, for adding to the conversation.
<g> Thank you too.
hafital
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
Mark Stanley
> >
> > Perhaps. That's what happens in the heat of the moment.
>
> show "This Old House"? It says, "Measure Twice, Cut Once." Maybe
> our motto should be "Write Once, Read Twice, Edit Three Times, Post
> Once. And Then Duck!"
>
I often write angry comments in response to a post, then delete instead
of sending. I also write responses to posts that make me tense or angry,
then save my response for 24 hours and decide then whether I should
send, edit and send, or delete. (I often delete.)
Mark
--
"It's more fun than a Cardassian tractor-pull!" -- segue from The Warp
Zone on KFH radio.
~~~
mrs...@sk.sympatico.ca
http://members.tripod.com/~MarkStanley/
hafital
> --- In ASC...@egroups.com, "hafital" <hafital@u...> wrote:
> > I still think everybody
> > should get into a big tub of jello and just wiggle around for a
> > while. It'd do wonders, in my opinion.
>
> *Wonderful* idea. I love it. Mmm, I can feel it already.
ooOOOoo, Jane want's to wiggle with me!!! Yippee do.
smooches,
hafital
p.s. I'm writing Gary, Jane. I really am. Just ask T'Aan and Isla.
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
hafital
> --- In ASC...@egroups.com, "hafital" <hafital@u...> wrote:
> <regarding applying different standards of behavior to different
list
> members>
> > Hm. Well that shouldn't be the case. I'm not quite sure how to
> respond
> > to this without seeming like I'm defending someone's rude comment
> > because of whatever reason. The fact of the matter is Greywolf is
my
> > friend and I'll defend him tooth and nail against what seems to me
> > injustice, as he did for Karmen. Notice, I'm not defending him in
> > regards to his posts; that's really between him and Helen SK and
> > perhaps Karmen. As this recent business is between him and Mary
> Ellen.
>
> When we - and I most definitely include myself - can defend those
who
> we do *not* consider our friends (indeed, those who perhaps we don't
> like very much at all) against cruelty and injustice, then I'll know
> we have arrived. I certainly have a long way to go myself on this
> one.
I think we all do.
>
> <regarding extreme reaction to a comment>
>
> > > Well, neither can I imagine making such a comment, but it *was*
a
> > > single comment, and the response to it put me in mind of someone
> > > using a hammer to dispatch a mosquito.
> >
> > Perhaps. That's what happens in the heat of the moment.
>
> Have you ever seen that t-shirt that ties in to the PBS television
> show "This Old House"? It says, "Measure Twice, Cut Once." Maybe
> our motto should be "Write Once, Read Twice, Edit Three Times, Post
> Once. And Then Duck!"
Bahahahahhaaaaa. I love it. Frighteningly true. Well Karmen did say
this place was better then WWF at times. I still think everybody
should get into a big tub of jello and just wiggle around for a
while. It'd do wonders, in my opinion.
hafital
*****
Age isn't important, unless you're a cheese.
--Helen Hayes
*****
Visit Hafital's Smutty Fanfic Paradise
http://www.geocities.com/hafital2/
hafital
> > I'm afraid I don't see how using the precise term
> > for what was meant,
> > and which you understood as it was meant, can be
> > construed as such a
> > bad thing.
> >
> I thought and still think it was a smokescreen for
> ME's shrill and misguided post on Greywolf's use of
> this language. I think, if one reads the post before
> one looks up the word, then one might have a soupçon
> (is that a cool enough word for ya, jat? and for the
> rest of us, we can go here http://dictionary.msn.com/
> where we can cut and paste those hard to understand
> words [I certainly have it bookmarked]<g>) of
> suspicion that there might be some reason, truth,
> justice and/or beauty in it. And there wasn't. ME
> elided (http://dictionary.msn.com/) the why of what GW
> was doing and only damned the how of it.
>
> You know, I seem to recall that this is a slash
> writers list, not a sunday school. I can't quite
> remember so much preaching here before. It's
> interesting but, frankly, I prefer the wrestling and
> other plebeian (http://dictionary.msn.com/) stuff like
> dat.
Lordy, landmine central.
Ok, I'm staying away from this dictionary stuff since I think both Jat
and Anita are right and so that plants me squarely in the middle.
But Karmen, sweetheart, I would like to gently remind you that this is
not a slash list. :-)
hafital, running and hiding.
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
hafital
> <elided verbage>
>
> > Ok, I'm staying away from this dictionary stuff since I think both
> Jat
> > and Anita are right and so that plants me squarely in the middle.
> >
> > But Karmen, sweetheart, I would like to gently remind you that
this
> is
> > not a slash list. :-)
> >
> You're right! I looked at the description again and it's a
discussion
> and writing group for Star Trek fan fiction and ideas. Adult
> material, both het and slash themes, is included. And not a sunday
> school.
No, not a sunday school. That's for sure. I hope we don't sound like
we're preaching. I really don't think that's what's intended, Karmen
dear.
>
> Thanks for bringing that to my attention, hafital.<g>
Ain't no thing, sweetcheeks. ;-)
>
> > hafital, running and hiding.
> >
> Don't be silly.
Don't you like me silly?
hafital
Greywolf the Wanderer
> >> But Karmen, sweetheart, I would like to gently remind you
>
> to boldly split infinitives no man has split before!!!!!!!!
Ah-ha!! Allow me: to quote the late great Winston Churchill, a man whom I
greatly admire: (note, quote is from memory so the beginning may be slightly
different from his exact words; the end I guarantee is his, cos it stuck in
my mind!)
"Harrassment regarding the splitting of infinitives is a foolish tyranny, up
with which I will not put!"
Yowza!! ;-)>
As far as I know, splitting infinitives is one of those things they all wank
at us about in school, but *in fact*, in and of itself, it is not
necessarily gramatically incorrect. Or so I've been told, by some folks
here with far better technical grammar skills than I.
Besides, it gave me a chance to repeat one of my many favourite Winnie
quotes. Gotta love that man. Boo-yah!
> saavant, running and hiding
Greywolf, grinning and laughing
Greywolf the Wanderer
> --- In ASC...@egroups.com, StarryEyed919044@a... wrote:
> > --- In ASC...@egroups.com, <mgtrek@j...> wrote:
> > > I was somewhat surprised by the form Mary Ellen's comments took. Yes,
> her words were hard - I winced when I read them. I knew that the response
> to them would be largely negative. Yet she was polite.
> >> She backed up her assertions with evidence. She quoted Greywolf
> verbatim, rather than paraphrasing inaccurately. She expressed her
> admiration and respect for Greywolf. She acknowledged her own prior
> participation in the behavior that she now recognizes is wrong.
> >
> > EmGee, I'm afraid I can't agree with this. <snip> The
> best thing to do would have been to wait until someone acted in a manner
> that was harsh, adhonimem, and attempting to silence (alas I doubt that
> would take long!) and use that as an example if it was felt such was
> needed to hammer home a point.
>
> But that's exactly what she did. GW's comments *have* been harsh, and ad
> hominem, and in least one instance silencing (though I cannot speak to
> GW's *intent*, but only the result).
Actually, the remark in question, my rant at Helen Karidi, was made in the
white-hot heat of anger, rather than with any particular intent in mind. I
lost my temper, blew up, and went after a mosquito with a cannon. I still
think she was way out of line in the actions that prompted my anger -- but
in no way did she deserve what actually happened. In that, I was wrong.
I ain't perfect. Not even close. But even so, ME *was* playing coy little
games with my words, quoting the bad stuff and leaving all the context out.
At that point, calling it verbatim is a nice little word game, since a true
verbatim quote would have included the rest of the statement, fore and aft.
Which ME very carefully and IMHO with malice aforethought, did *not*.
And some of this comes from history between she and I that took place
off-list, which is where I plan to leave it. Egroups has archives; them who
like can go read all the past NG stuff and make up their own minds. I know
my feelings about the lady in question, but they are mine, not anyone
else's. Others will have to decide for themselves. She was once my
friend. But that was then, and this is now. I don't like what's going on
-- but it's real. Kaiidth. I'm not about to roll over and spread 'em, not
for her nor anyone else. <rueful grin>
Well, okay. For Spock, yeah, I probably would. <leer, drool, so lucky we
all should be, nu?>
> >> Alternatively, Mary Ellen could have chosen to choose examples from
> both sides of an argument--say Laura Goodwin AND Greywolf. Or the more
> egregious examples from several posters. Instead the effect was to gang
> up on one person out of the blue and I think that's why so many of us are
> upset by it.
>
> I agree that it would have been more appropriate, if one is using a
> particular member's comments to illustrate a general point, to say so up
> front.
>
> On the other hand, I am thoroughly fascinated and bemused by the overall
> difference in response to comments directed at Greywolf as opposed to
> comments directed at Helen S.K. (and, at various times, others). I would
> feel ever so much more comfortable if I thought that this was as a result
> of an increased sensitivity to the feelings of others, or a recognition
> that earlier behaviors were inappropriate. Greywolf's feelings are being
> defended very vigorously, and that is great. But regarding others who
> have been attacked, where were their supporters? And though you and
> others may say that all that is past history and that therefore there is
> no point in mounting that defense now, I would say -- but it is not too
> late to say that one is sorry. Sorry for having "piled on," in the cases
> where that may have happened, or simply sorry that a list member should
> have felt so badly abused.
Which I believe I did, above. And although ME very carefully snipped that
part of my remarks, I *did* defend Laura Goodwin, except for her re-write of
one member's story and claim that her version was better. I could see where
she bugged some folks, but did not see the malice that others perceived.
As, with ME, some do not see the malice that *I* perceive. So be it; we all
look thru different eyes.
I don't know why that difference exists, MG. I'm delighted you've stuck
around and kept your temper -- more calm minds are definitely needed here.
I don't see the difference noted as wide as you -- but I don't diss your
differing perceptions. I trust you and believe you truly mean well.
> IMO, ME's comments decrying GW's actions, though perhaps harsh, are in no
> way comparable to the hate-filled comments that GW and others have posted
> in the past. Yes, GW has admitted publicly that some of those earlier
> comments have been, at the least, unwise. I applaud GW for that
> admission. I am similarly grateful to him for his private correspondence
> with me, none of which shall become fodder for this discussion.
<grin> Thanks!! I do, unfortunately, have one helluva temper. I am Irish
and Romany, a combustible mixture at the best of times. I grew up in a
house where screaming raging fist-waving arguments were the normal course,
though we loved each other and our making-up sessions were equally
hot-blooded. So, maybe I'm not real house-broken, by civilized standards.
Might could be. I yam what I yam, and I calls 'em as I sees 'em. But I do
intend to try and keep my temper on a shorter leash, if that's worth
anything.
> Prior to ME's post, my own comments had received no public response
> whatsoever, and only two private messages. I had thought that I was doing
> everything I could, short of jumping up and down and throwing a temper
> tantrum, to generate a response. Based on the evidence, I cannot disagree
> with her observation that it takes something as "shocking" as what she
> posted to provoke a response.
I don't agree, but admit that your interpretation is just as likely to be
valid. ;-)> So it goes. I'm still glad yer here.
> Others have excused the lack of comments to my more general posts by
> claiming that not everyone reads everything, that the time for commentary
> was past, etc. I would find that easier to believe if other comments
> within the same thread were not receiving enthusiastic and frequent
> response at the same time that mine were receiving none.
>
> > The effect is a "poor me" I'm so kind and sensitive and you should feel
> guilty about upsetting me--look how noble I am to take on the big bully.
>
> That was not the effect on me.
It was on me, and then some. But again, that comes from stuff that did not
happen here, which I will not introduce into the record. Not pertinent, and
we got enuff bad shit here already.
> > I can't agree because she has done exactly the opposite of what you have
> done here. She has defended, she has excused. What she has not done is
> admitted guilt in "responding immediately, defensively, and not always
> politely to criticism" and apologized.
>
> And here, I think, is where we'd have to agree to disagree.
Indeed so. And at least in regard to you, with no hard feelings whatever.
ME and I have serious history and issues in which none of you here played a
part. What appears online gives one impression, perhaps, which I do not see
because of that very history. I can dig that. Everyone has to go with what
seems to them to be true. But for me, I do not accept ME's dictats nor will
I roll over and let her trash this group, or me, or my time online. But
that's my issue. If it's not yours, then so be it. Doesn't make anyone who
disagrees with me a bad guy, just means, we see thru different eyes.
Even though I have failed as badly as any, at times, to adhere to it, I do
continue to aspire to the ideal of IDIC. MG, bless you, and I hope you
stick around here for a good long time to come.
> EmGee
Greywolf the Wanderer, bloodied but unbowed
Invicta
From: "hafital" <haf...@usa.net>
> Bahahahahhaaaaa. I love it. Frighteningly true. Well Karmen did say
> this place was better then WWF at times. I still think everybody
> should get into a big tub of jello and just wiggle around for a
> while. It'd do wonders, in my opinion.
>
> hafital
What a wonderful suggestion!
Invicta, she of busy imagination and luscious mental imagery :o)
Greywolf the Wanderer
> --- In ASC...@egroups.com, "hafital" <hafital@u...> wrote:
> <regarding applying different standards of behavior to different list
> members>
> > Hm. Well that shouldn't be the case. I'm not quite sure how to
> respond to this without seeming like I'm defending someone's rude comment
> because of whatever reason. The fact of the matter is Greywolf is my
> friend and I'll defend him tooth and nail against what seems to me
> injustice, as he did for Karmen. Notice, I'm not defending him in regards
> to his posts; that's really between him and Helen SK and perhaps Karmen.
> As this recent business is between him and Mary Ellen.
>
> When we - and I most definitely include myself - can defend those who we
> do *not* consider our friends (indeed, those who perhaps we don't like
> very much at all) against cruelty and injustice, then I'll know we have
> arrived. I certainly have a long way to go myself on this one.
As do I. Defending Laura G might qualify as that, I dunno. I'll be the
first one to admit that RL stuff has got me seriously stressed right now. I
have just watched the election for president stolen by some of the worst
banana republic tactics I've ever seen. As a queer man and a determined
liberal, the prospect of having that drunken Texas frat boy lead us is not
comforting.
But I agree with the basic priciple here, that of justice for all. I agree
with it, even when I fuck up sometimes and fail to uphold it. To quote
Oscar Wilde: "We're all in the gutter. But some of us have our eyes on the
stars." That sums it up nicely for me.
> <regarding extreme reaction to a comment>
>
> > > Well, neither can I imagine making such a comment, but it *was* a
> single comment, and the response to it put me in mind of someone using a
> hammer to dispatch a mosquito.
> >
> > Perhaps. That's what happens in the heat of the moment.
>
> Have you ever seen that t-shirt that ties in to the PBS television
> show "This Old House"? It says, "Measure Twice, Cut Once." Maybe our
> motto should be "Write Once, Read Twice, Edit Three Times, Post Once. And
> Then Duck!"
ROFLMAO!! Yah, sure, you betcha, works for me. ;-)>
> EmGee
Greywolf
hafital
> >> >> But Karmen, sweetheart, I would like to gently remind you
> >>
> >> to boldly split infinitives no man has split before!!!!!!!!
> >
> >Ah-ha!! Allow me: to quote the late great Winston Churchill, a
man whom I
> >greatly admire: (note, quote is from memory so the beginning may be
slightly
> >different from his exact words; the end I guarantee is his, cos it
stuck in
> >my mind!)
> >"Harrassment regarding the splitting of infinitives is a foolish
tyranny, up
> >with which I will not put!"
> >
>
least the
> 'up with which I will not put' part. But I agree, actually. It's
frowned upon
> in English because in LATIN the infinitive ("to go") is one word
("ire" or
> something like that) which obviously cannot be split. But English is
not Latin
> and one of my language profs says that the futures and conditionals
("will go"
> and "would go") are also single words in Latin, as I know they are
in Spanish
> ("ire'" and "iria") so I figure, why can we split THEM ("will boldly
go,"
> "would boldly go") when we can't do it to infinitives?
>
> I am all for not putting up with infinitive harrassment, and I
apologize to
> Hafital or whoever I thusly harrassed. I just couldn't resist.
Did you harrass me? I wasn't aware of it. Probably because I think I
just now figured out what a split infinitive is. My grammer skills are
largely governed by the force, you see. Or instinct. Take your pick.
I was joking on another list that I actually use a divining rod to
write my stories.
>
> Saavant, making like an infinitive and splitting
*snort*
Yer silly.
hafital
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
hafital
From: Invicta <yo...@clara.co.uk>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "hafital" <haf...@usa.net>
>
> > Bahahahahhaaaaa. I love it. Frighteningly true. Well Karmen did
say
> > this place was better then WWF at times. I still think everybody
> > should get into a big tub of jello and just wiggle around for a
> > while. It'd do wonders, in my opinion.
> >
> > hafital
>
> What a wonderful suggestion!
>
> Invicta, she of busy imagination and luscious mental imagery :o)
Yay! I've got Jat and Invicta wiggling with me. Whoowhoo. I call this
jello tub therapy,
hafital
*****
Age isn't important, unless you're a cheese.
--Helen Hayes
*****
Visit Hafital's Smutty Fanfic Paradise
http://www.geocities.com/hafital2/
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
T'Rhys
>
>Did you harrass me? I wasn't aware of it. Probably because I think I
>just now figured out what a split infinitive is.
Probably the most famous example (to us, anyway) of which is contained
within the opening credits of Star Trek itself:
"To boldly go where no man has gone before!"
I think it was emulation of President Kennedy's speech patterns, similar to
the way people later started to say 'nuculer' because President Carter
couldn't or wouldn't say 'nuCLEar'.
LL&P }:)
"T'Rhys" <tkn...@ix.netcom.com>
Greywolf the Wanderer
> In a message dated 00-12-12 19:51:20 EST, you write:
>
> > I'm not sure of the literal meaning myself. I took it as another example
> of Mary Ellen making herself look superior, and figured it meant personal
> attacks.
>
> Yo, Anita, am I to conclude that if I use a language in a story that isn't
> understood by a reader, I'm making myself look superior? Surely there's a
> better, kinder way to make yer point...
Perhaps. I certainly didn't take Anita's answer that way, and me, I *lurv*
different languages in a story. Hell, I've had zine editors ask me to take
"Ave, Hippocrates, nos morituri te salutant" <which accurate rendering your
talents self gave me to begin with ;-)>
Naturally I said no way -- but I did compromise and work a Standard translation
into the text. Hopefully not too awkwardly.
I dunno. Right now we're all pissed off and polarized, and lookin' for the
worst. Including me, though I'm trying to calm down. For me, finding out that
I do not live in a democracy after all has been a bit of a shock. So please
forgive me if my anger slops over now and then. I'm trying not to.
> raku, sorry after the fact for the many languages in "The Qute Rule," circa
> 1997
Greywolf, who staunchly refuses to believe that raku has one damn thing to
apologize for. And "The Qute Rule" was fucking *hilarious*!!!
Greywolf the Wanderer
> --- In ASC...@egroups.com, Greywolf the Wanderer <greywolf@s...> wrote:
> > EmGee wrote:
> <extensive snipping>
>
> > > I am thoroughly fascinated and bemused by the overall
> > > difference in response to comments directed at Greywolf as
> opposed to comments directed at Helen S.K. (and, at various times,
> others). I would feel ever so much more comfortable if I thought that
> this was as a result of an increased sensitivity to the feelings of
> others, or a recognition that earlier behaviors were inappropriate.
> Greywolf's feelings are being defended very vigorously, and that is
> great. But regarding others who
> > > have been attacked, where were their supporters? And though you and
> others may say that all that is past history and that therefore there is
> no point in mounting that defense now, I would say -- but it is not too
> late to say that one is sorry. Sorry for having "piled on," in the cases
> where that may have happened, or simply sorry that a list member should
> > > have felt so badly abused.
> >
> > Which I believe I did, above.
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, you did, GW. And earlier as well. This comment was not
> directed specifically at you; it was broader based.
Indeed. I admit also, part of the reason for the sayings quoted above is
the very real fear that someone out there *will* dredge up a bunch of
ancient history and repost it. Since those who felt otherwise have mostly
left this group, to do so, IMHO, would only incite further flames. and I
believe we've all had *quite enough* flames right now, not so?
(OT for a moment, forgive me) I agreed with the folks who left. I stayed
because this is my home and where I come from, by the gods, you defend your
home. But some bad shit did happen, and some injustices were done -- but it
*was then* -- and as raku noted, this is now. I make my vote in favour of
letting sleeping historical dogs lie. ;-)>
> > I don't know why that difference exists, MG. I'm delighted you've stuck
> around and kept your temper -- more calm minds are definitely needed here.
>
> Maybe all those lessons my mother tried to drum into me for all those
> years have finally taken root!
good on you, then. Most of my mum's slid in one ear and out the other, I
guess. But it's been over 20 years since I actually swung a fist at someone
and *started it first*. So I guess I'm making progress. Now I try very
hard to fight only in defence.
> <brief snip>
>
> > <grin> Thanks!! I do, unfortunately, have one helluva temper. I am
> Irish and Romany, a combustible mixture at the best of times. I grew up
> in a house where screaming raging fist-waving arguments were the normal
> course, though we loved each other and our making-up sessions were equally
>
> > hot-blooded. So, maybe I'm not real house-broken, by civilized
> standards. Might could be. I yam what I yam, and I calls 'em as I sees
> 'em. But I do intend to try and keep my temper on a shorter leash, if
> that's worth anything.
>
> It's worth a lot, Wolfie. Really.
<grin>
> <snip>
>
> > I don't agree, but admit that your interpretation is just as likely
> to be valid. ;-)> So it goes. I'm still glad yer here.
>
> There have been times that I've wondered why I'm still here. But I figure
> that all this will be useful to me someday. Somewhere. Somehow.
Yeah, I reckon so, too.
> > > > The effect is a "poor me" I'm so kind and sensitive and you should
> feel guilty about upsetting me--look how noble I am to take on the big
> bully.
> > >
> > > That was not the effect on me.
> >
> > It was on me, and then some. But again, that comes from stuff that did
> not happen here, which I will not introduce into the record.
>
> Obviously, I can't base my comments or opinions on things that
> happened offlist. That way lies madness.
Smart call!! And I don't wanna go there, not here. This is between me and
one other, no reason y'all should get dragged in.
> <snip>
>
> > ME and I have serious history and issues in which none of you here
> played a part.
>
> So I guess what you're saying is that this latest altercation is
> actually the latest salvo in a longstanding series of brush wars, at
> least some of which took place privately. In an ideal world (well,
> we can dream, can't we?), that past history could be put aside and a new
> comment or criticism judged on its own merits, uncolored by prior
> disagreements. But I recognize that in practice that is very, very
> difficult - maybe impossible - to do. None of us can help evaluating
> comments in the context of past interactions.
Nope. Especially when the attack to which we respond was in turn based on
old stuff. Which I honestly believe this one was. <shrug> IMHO.
> <snip>
>
> > Even though I have failed as badly as any, at times, to adhere to it, I
> do continue to aspire to the ideal of IDIC. MG, bless you, and I hope you
> stick around here for a good long time to come.
>
> Thank you, Greywolf, for your kind comments. Your post was another
> illustration of the principle that it is possible for reasonable people to
> disagree without being disagreeable. Just as rudeness and anger spread as
> an epidemic, so can honest, spirited but polite debate. And *that* is one
> epidemic I'd be happy to help spread.
Me too, one my good days anyway. ;-)> I admit, RL has contributed greatly
to my stress level, of late.
> EmGee
Greywolf