A Letter to the Editors
Michael Zeleny
>In article <72...@blue.cis.pitt.edu>,
>Church Festschrift Account <zel...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
MZ:
>>Does the WSJ print letters to the editors?
MG:
>Yes. In fact, I'd be wonderfully pleased if you were to manage to
>convince the Journal to print your letter--especially if you recounted
>your side of the "challenge." Please instruct them to call me if they need
>any additional urging to print your response--I'd actually pay them
>to print your letter in the letter column, were such a thing possible.
>If there is a God, the Wall Street Journal will accept your letter and
>print every word.
>
>I believe that no one can have a full appreciation of your contribution to
>the quarrel without actually reading your very words.
[cut below for LaTeX source]
___________________________________________________________________________
\documentstyle{letter}
\begin{document}
{\bf Mikhail Zel\"eny\\
UCLA Philosophy Department\\
Los Angeles, CA 90025\\
email: zel...@math.ucla.edu}
November 28, 1993
\begin{flushright}
The Wall Street Journal\\
Editorial and Publication Headquarters\\
200 Liberty Street\\
New York, NY 10281
\end{flushright}
\vspace{8pt}
Greetings,
\vspace{8pt}
It has come to my attention that your journal has seriously
misrepresented the circumstances of my exchange with one Mike Godwin,
in a recent article entitled ``Keeping the Peace''. As a writer, I am
appalled by your evident willingness to pass on an unverified and
unattributed claim in indirect speech, as if it were a fact. This is
particularly inexcusable, since the facts of the matter are part of
public record, readily verifiable by any responsible journalist.
Setting aside your nugatory and gratuitous characterization of myself
as a ``network bully,'' I would like to disclaim your irresponsible
and mendacious charge that I ``regularly threatened people in a
philosophy discussion group.'' Since making a threat of physical
violence is clearly illegal, I must insist that you {\it either}
substantiate this accusation with an unambiguous attribution of any
instance of such putative threat made by myself, {\it or} withdraw it
forthwith. As regards the rest of Mr.\,Godwin's claim, the facts are
as follows. On October 15 of 1991, I proposed to arrange a {\it free}
and {\it consensual} lesson in civility for an Internet correspondent
from Edinburgh, who, having taken umbrage at my public expression of
belief that homosexual activity is immoral, had previously replied to
it in an openly insulting manner. Mr.\,Godwin, ignoring the first
part of my offer, which exempted my interlocutor from any financial
burden associated with our proposed encounter, fallaciously inferred
that the invitation was not made in earnest, but rather represented a
craven attempt to imitate his own trademark sort of self-serving
persiflage. Evidently feeling slighted by my failure to respond in a
similar fashion to his own insipid taunts, he proceeded to do his best
to elicit a like challenge, in full awareness of the stated rules by
which such an engagement must proceed. Having made enough of a
nuisance of himself, Mr.\,Godwin at length earned his own invitation,
whereupon he publicly refused to adhere to its rules by insisting on
settling the quarrel with a trivial board game. In the ensuing
exchange, I made it abundantly clear to Mr.\,Godwin that his choice of
``arms'' was utterly incompatible with the nature of the enterprise,
--- for one surely cannot excise a noxious boil with a feather duster.
Nevertheless, Mr.\,Godwin steadfastly refused to comply with the code
of honor, in spite of his earlier protestations of readiness to do so.
Thus your blithe assertion that I ``never showed up'' for the contest
is misleading, insofar as I had explained to my would-be opponent,
that the engagement will not happen, until and unless he agrees to
conduct it in the prescribed fashion. And this is where the challenge
now stands.
Finally, a note concerning the motivation behind these events. One of
the greatest scholars and publicists of our time set the standard of
discourse in the journal he edited, by articulating his belief that
the eighteenth-century custom of dueling should be reinstated for this
one thing, --- that a man who has been insulted in print should have
the right to challenge to a duel; [for] that would make the writers a
little more careful about trying to blow up their own ego by being
sarcastic. And yet it is an unfortunate aspect of our own time, that
many people who enjoy access to the most widely promulgated media in
the human history, should combine the incontinence that prompts them
to issue rash statements, with the irresponsibility that allows them
to disclaim the concomitant duty to account for their words in a
proper and adequate fashion. It must be remembered that an apologetic
retraction is always an option for one unwilling to stand up for his
opinions; but to persist in issuing bombastic communications without
assuming the responsibility for their consequences, is a clear mark of
moral rot. Thus by treating the gravamen of his habitual public
accusations as unworthy of his commitment to anything greater than the
stake of a board game, Mr.\,Godwin demonstrates the triviality of his
character in a more conclusive fashion than could be wished for by his
bitterest opponents. And yet, his spiritual redemption remains wholly
within his grasp. For even as the monopoly on the legitimate use of
violence is successfully maintained by the state, the responsibility
for maintaining one's dignity resides solely with the individual. And
inasmuch as this is bound to remain so in all foreseeable contexts of
social encounters, my moral purpose in issuing the challenge remains
legitimately sporting and therapeutic for everyone involved.
Consequently, it should be clear that in imputing to me a wish to
inflict harm upon himself, Mr.\,Godwin has egregiously misinterpreted
or misrepresented the point of the proposed exercise.
\vspace{8pt}
Cordially,
\vspace{8pt}
\begin{flushright}
Mikhail Zel\"eny
\end{flushright}
\end{document}
___________________________________________________________________________
[cut above for LaTeX source]
Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
Mike Godwin
Michael Zeleny <zel...@olympic.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <2ceega$g...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>In article <72...@blue.cis.pitt.edu>,
>>Church Festschrift Account <zel...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>MZ:
>>>Does the WSJ print letters to the editors?
>
>MG:
>>Yes. In fact, I'd be wonderfully pleased if you were to manage to
>>convince the Journal to print your letter--especially if you recounted
>>your side of the "challenge." Please instruct them to call me if they need
>>any additional urging to print your response--I'd actually pay them
>>to print your letter in the letter column, were such a thing possible.
>>If there is a God, the Wall Street Journal will accept your letter and
>>print every word.
<letter deleted>
Mikhail, I do hope they print your letter. I believe it conveys your views
with unusual clarity. Please contact me if there's anything I can do to
help ensure its publication. I can be reached, as always, at the phone
number below.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, (202) 347-5400 |"And walk among long dappled grass,
mnem...@eff.org | And pluck till time and times are done
Electronic Frontier | The silver apples of the moon,
Foundation | The golden apples of the sun."
Doug Moran
>
>It has come to my attention that your journal has seriously
>misrepresented the circumstances of my exchange with one Mike Godwin,
>in a recent article entitled ``Keeping the Peace''. As a writer, I am
>appalled by your evident willingness to pass on an unverified and
>unattributed claim in indirect speech, as if it were a fact. This is
>particularly inexcusable, since the facts of the matter are part of
>public record, readily verifiable by any responsible journalist.
That's strange; I thought you were a student, not a writer. In which
publications have you been published (for money, I mean)?
--
Douglas B. O'Morain | "Malingering is a subject upon which I have
do...@hal.com | sometimes thought of writing a monograph."
HaL Computer Systems | -- Sherlock Holmes