No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But that's okay, some of us found your spirited defense of a
moderated newsgroup that receives one article every three weeks
rather entertaining.
I wrote:
>You accuse me of dishing out name-calling
>the way you do? As the saying goes,
>"Now you are getting nasty!" I don't suppose
>you would care to actually produce any examples
>from my previous notes.
Classic Trish writes:
>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But how did he arrive at this conclusion? One
quality of people who make a habit of name-
calling is that it is often hard to tell exactly
what they are saying. As best I can tell he
said I was spineless because he considers
me to be a member of the dish-it-out-but-
refuse-to-take-it sector. Can you see any
other interpretation of what Houghton posted?
I certainly agree that someone who dishes
out a certain style of criticism and can not
take it himself is defective in some way,
spineless if you like, but I'm sorry, you
simply will not find any Houghton-style comments
in MY notes.
Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
because I disapprove of name-calling. So be it.
I do prefer rational discussion, and I do not see
much role for name-calling. If you are trying to
convince people of the virtues of name-calling,
I am inclined to think that calling me spineless is
not going to win you many converts. What do you
think?
Classic Trish writes:
>But that's okay, some of us found your spirited
>defense of a moderated newsgroup that receives
>one article every three weeks rather entertaining.
Go back and look at my note again. I DID NOT
EVEN MENTION THE NEWSGROUP, much
less give a spirited defense of it. My note was
about name-calling and how it might effect people's
attitudes towards moderation. It's tempting to make
some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
mistake was quite understandable and does not
reflect in any way on your reading ability.
Yours spinelessly,
Louis Blair
Oh, probably because of what you wrote. On the other hand, per-
haps you and he have clashed on some other issue in the past and
he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>Go back and look at my note again. I DID NOT
>EVEN MENTION THE NEWSGROUP, much
>less give a spirited defense of it.
You're right -- you gave a spineless defense of it. Pardon me.
> It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing.
And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous self-righteous little
twit but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in for that sort
of thing either.
Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging by your postings,
probably not, so I'll spell it out for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
Louis, you're out of your depth...
Hamish
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Oh, probably because of
>what you wrote.
I hope you realize that that is not much of
an explanation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>On the other hand, per-
>haps you and he have clashed on some other
>issue in the past and
>he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
As far as I know, we have not clashed in the past.
I wrote:
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
talked about name-calling.
I wrote:
>It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either.
Hamish writes:
>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging
>by your postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out
>for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
your attention. I clearly indicated my disapproval
of things like, "Why don't you learn how to read?",
by calling it a smart-ass remark. Also, I added
a second sentence to make sure it was absolutely
clear that I did NOT think the remark was appropriate.
I chose a remark that was on the surface so
obviously ridiculous that I hoped nobody would
seriously believe that I was trying to convince
anyone that it was true.
Yours spinelessly,
pompously,
self-righteously,
disingenuously,
and dishonestly
the little twit
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
like that is an old, old stupid.net.trick, it's in the same class
as spelling flames or PMS flames.
> I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch your
> attention. I clearly indicated my disapproval of things
> like, "Why don't you learn how to read?", by calling it a
> smart-ass remark. Also, I added a second sentence to make
> sure it was absolutely clear that I did NOT think the remark
> was appropriate.
Kid, are you really as dense as all this?
Let me try my hand at explaining to you just what the problem is:
When you say "I could insult you by saying 'such and such'
but I won't stoop to it," or words to that effect, you are
trying in an extremely pathetic and transparent way to do
both. You desperately want to deliver your precious insult
(how long did it take you to think that one up?) but at the
same time you want to show everyone just how far you are above
the level of 'smart-ass remarks.'
The catch, of course, is that you can never have both. If you
had *really* thought that the comment was out of line, you
wouldn't have included it at all. You wouldn't have had a
reason.
What you did instead, including a flame while saying that you
don't flame, shows that you are a incredible hypocrite.
The difficulty that you seem to be having in seeing that
hypocrisy, even after the attempts that have been made to
explain it to you, shows that you are a hopeless fool.
-- Dave Alexander
--
"If someone pukes watching one of my films, it's like
getting a standing ovation."
-- Pedro Almodovar
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Oh, probably because of
>what you wrote.
I wrote:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
Come on! Wouldn't you say that it was rather
incomplete. Wouldn't it be appropriate to explain
how my spinelessness can be deduced from
what I wrote?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>we all understood what you were doing.
>Backtracking like that is an old, old stupid.net.trick,
>it's in the same class as spelling flames or PMS flames.
I gather you choose to believe that I really was trying
to convince people that Classic Trish needs to learn
how to read. Well, I don't know what makes you
think that you can see into my soul that way, but
here is a question or two that you might answer:
(1) Let us suppose, hypothetically that a person
wants to write a note complaining about name-
calling. Suppose that the person wants to show
the name-caller that he or she is him or herself
vulnerable to name-calling. Is it possible to do
this without being accused of "Backtracking"?
(2) Can you give ANY examples of name-calling
from ANY of my notes?
Is there any chance that you are going to
answer the question:
"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup?"
Name-callers often seem to be desperate to believe
that everyone else is just as bad as they are. Also,
name-callers rarely answer questions. The usual
trick is act as though the answer is obvious. Will
this exchange be any different? It doesn't look
that way so far.
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
You flatter yourself.
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
And she flattered you, from what I can tell.
>Nor could she
>bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
>was obviously inappropriate as I did.
It was?
>I just wanted to come up with something
>that was obviously stupid.
No comment.
Except that I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
and such' but I won't stoop to it". I clearly identified the
quoted statement as a "smart-ass remark". Did you notice
that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
self-righteous little twit" in a similar way. Nor could she
bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
was obviously inappropriate as I did. In her reproduction
of a portion of my note she chose to leave out the sentence,
where I said the smart-ass remark was inappropriate. You
are even less able to deal with what I actually wrote, insisting
on replacing it with something that comes closer to justifying
your views. There is nothing in YOUR quote to indicate
that the insult is clearly wrong.
Dave Alexander writes:
>You desperately want to deliver your precious insult
Exactly what method do you have for seeing into my
soul this way? Do you honestly believe that the insult
is "precious" to me? How do you know this?
Dave Alexander writes:
>how long did it take you to think that one up?
Not very long. I just wanted to come up with something
that was obviously stupid. It appears you feel that I
succeeded.
Dave Alexander writes:
>at the same time you want to show everyone just how
>far you are above the level of 'smart-ass remarks.'
I do think that smart-ass remarks such as
"Kid, are you really as dense as all this?"
are rather rare in my notes, and I am proud of
that, so I suppose that this portion of what you
say is true.
Dave Alexander writes:
>The catch, of course, is that you can never have both.
But I did not try to have both. I clearly identified the
remark as stupid and incorrect. (Something that you
can not bring yourself to do in your paraphrase.)
Dave Alexander writes:
>If you
>had *really* thought that the comment was out of line,
>you wouldn't have included it at all. You wouldn't have
>had a reason.
My reason was to try to make the original poster aware
of the difference between reasoned discussion and
insults by illustrative examples. Examples often make
things clearer.
Dave Alexander writes:
>What you did instead, including a flame while saying that you
>don't flame, shows that you are a incredible hypocrite.
I said EXACTLY what I meant and believe. You claim
to know the true meaning of my words, but it is interesting
to see how you need to rig the evidence in order to make
your case more plausible. I said that the insult was a
"smart-ass remark" which is EXACTLY what I believe,
and I also said that the remark was not true which is
also exactly what I believe. The only conflict is between
your version of what I said and what you think is in my
mind.
Dave Alexander writes:
>The difficulty that you seem to be having in seeing that
>hypocrisy, even after the attempts that have been made to
>explain it to you, shows that you are a hopeless fool.
I have no trouble understanding what you are saying.
I am just letting you know that you are basing your
remarks on a false assumption. I merely
wanted to illustrate the difference between sensible
discussion and senseless discussion.
By the way, I notice that you refrain from commenting
on the issue of whether or not I was really defending
the newsgroup. Too bad. This would be a good way to
let people see how objective you are.
Eric Holeman writes:
>You flatter yourself.
I suppose you do not see any similarity
between:
>It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
and
>I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either.
Anybody can see that she was trying to mirror
what I wrote, but she left out certain key elements
of the original. You don't really believe
that the matching phrases is a coincidence, do
you?
Eric Holeman writes:
>And she flattered you, from what I can tell.
Well, I guess I can hardly expect to be popular
with the fans of name-calling.
I wrote:
>Nor could she
>bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
>was obviously inappropriate as I did.
Eric Holeman writes:
>It was?
I guess you are saying that her remark was appropriate and
she meant it, which is exactly my point. Her note was
superficially like mine, but she could not make her note
exactly like mine because she MEANT her insult, and wanted
everyone to know that she meant it. The wording in my
note could not be used in full and still serve that purpose.
I point this out in the hope that you will realize that I did
not mean to convince people that Trish needed to learn
how to read. My wording does not serve that purpose.
I wrote:
>I just wanted to come up with something
>that was obviously stupid.
Eric Holeman writes:
>No comment.
Well, at least we apparently agree on something!
lb> Did you notice that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I
lb> wrote,
eh> You flatter yourself.
lb> I suppose you do not see any similarity between:
lb> It's tempting to make some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't
lb> you learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in
lb> for that sort of thing. I think your mistake was quite understandable
lb> and does not reflect in any way on your reading ability.
lb> and
rissa> I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous self-righteous little twit
rissa> but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in for that sort of
rissa> thing either.
Actually, I see one major difference:
You were being a hypocrite about it, and she wasn't.
She will admit it when she's flaming people. You seem to need to hide
behind "It's tempting to say something like..." Very simple.
lb> [...] she could not make her note exactly like mine because she MEANT
lb> her insult, and wanted everyone to know that she meant it. [...]
Ah, so you *do* see the difference!
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <c...@bu-pub.bu.edu> <...!bu.edu!bu-pub!ckd>
"Dammit, we're all going to die, let's die doing something *useful*!"
--Hal Clement on comments that space exploration is dangerous
> Sorry. I really thought that this would be over by now.
> Foolish of me, I suppose. My responses to Classic Trish,
> Patricia O Tuama,
Classic Trish *and* Patricia O Tuama? You must feel special,
Louis, having so many people to flame you.
> Hamish, and anybody else who decides to get in on this will
> be confined to netnews.alt.flame. Perhaps they will behave
> similarly.
You mean you're afraid that people might not show you the
courtesy that you wouldn't extend to Trish when you responded
to <1990Apr11....@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>?
Well, folks, we have another gold medal performance by Louis
Blair in the Hypocrisy-Stupidity Biathlon here at the Usenet
Olympics. Once again we hear the CMU Alma Mater as Louis
ascends the stand to receive his medal...
> D I S H O N E S T Y.
I forget who said double space caps were annoying, but they were right.
-Tom Hopkins <hop...@bu-pub.bu.edu>
I was tempted to make a useful comment, but why bother?
You fucking little hypocrite. This discussion stayed in r.a.m
for as long as it did because -you- refused to move to alt.flame.
s
No, dear, no one thought that you were trying to convince people
that I need to learn how to read. What everyone did think, how-
ever, is that you were attempting to flame me by implying this
and then backtracking in a hypocritical attempt to pretend that
you were above that sort of thing.
And you can kick and scream about this as much as you wish and
make up all this nonsense about examples and mirror postings but
nothing will change the fact that you got caught in the middle
of a stupid.net.trick with your pants down.
>(1) Let us suppose, hypothetically that a person
>wants to write a note complaining about name-
>calling. Suppose that the person wants to show
>the name-caller that he or she is him or herself
>vulnerable to name-calling. Is it possible to do
>this without being accused of "Backtracking"?
Sure. Write a posting saying you don't like name-calling. It's
the fact that you went a step further and decided to illustrate
your posting by doing the same thing to me that you were accusing
Blair Houghton of doing that makes you a hypocrite.
Now I have a question for you -- if you wanted to show the name-
caller (ie, Blair) that he is vulnerable to name-calling, then
why did you flame me? Wouldn't it have been more productive for
you to call Blair names and then pretend that you didn't mean it?
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
I already did.
>Name-callers often seem to be desperate to believe
>that everyone else is just as bad as they are.
Louis, what the fuck is it with you and name-calling? You write
flames and then jump up and down screaming that because you don't
call anyone names that you're somehow better than someone who does.
This is complete nonsense. You're not only a pompous, self-right-
eous little twit, you're a hypocritical, pompous, self-righteous
little twit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <Ea9F8Vy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>Except that I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
>and such' but I won't stoop to it".
Yes, you did.
> Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said and, unlike,
you, I was willing to take responsibility for it. You, on the
other hand, backtracked all over your posting in a pathetic
attempt to make yourself look like you were above name-calling
and other insults.
>I said EXACTLY what I meant and believe. You claim
>to know the true meaning of my words, but it is interesting
>to see how you need to rig the evidence in order to make
>your case more plausible.
No one has rigged anything, Louis. You fucked up, hon.
I gather that these two are the same person.
Thank you for calling this to my attention. I
must admit that I did not pay much attention
to this.
Dave Alexander writes:
>You mean you're afraid that people might
>not show you the courtesy that you wouldn't
>extend to Trish when you responded to
><1990Apr11....@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>?
If Trish wanted to take the discussion out of
rec.arts.movies, why did she keep on posting
notes there? The fact is that there was a
sequence of notes from both of us on rec.arts.movies
and I was the first one to call a halt by refraining
from posting a rec.arts.movies response to any
of her rec.arts.movies criticisms of me.
Dave Alexander writes:
>Well, folks, we have another gold medal
>performance by Louis Blair in the Hypocrisy-Stupidity
>Biathlon here at the Usenet Olympics. Once again we
>hear the CMU Alma Mater as Louis
>ascends the stand to receive his medal...
When you write this sort of thing, are you angry,
having a good time, or what? Just wondering.
Hon (it *is* hon, isn't it?), the ">" is for her quotes,
and the "> >" is for yours. There is no need to keep inserting
"I wrote" and "Patricia O Tuama writes" every other paragraph.
Please rest assured that we're all intelligent enough to
keep track of this, and that barring the not too remote
possiblility that you yourself need to post this way to keep
things straight in your own feeble mind, note that your use of
the normal Usenet notation in the future would serve to make
your postings much less tedious to wade through, with the
fringe benefit (to you) of making you appear a little less wet
behind the ears (although, admittedly, it's a little late bit
for that).
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
csnet, arpa: ken...@asuvax.asu.edu
Like I said to Dave Alexander:
If you wanted to take the discussion
out of rec.arts.movies, why did you
keep on posting contributions to the
discussion over there? I was the one
to bring a halt to things by refraining
from posting a rec.arts.movies response
to your last batch of rec.arts.movies
criticisms of me. It appeared to me
that you were determined to have
the last word in rec.arts.movies about
your criticisms of me, and I decided
to let you rather than have the readers
of rec.arts.movies suffer any more.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, dear, no one thought that you were
>trying to convince people that I need to
>learn how to read. What everyone did
>think, how-ever, is that you were attempting
>to flame me by implying this
What is the point of implying something if
you do not want people to be convinced?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>and then
>backtracking in a hypocritical attempt to
>pretend that you were above that sort of thing.
>And you can kick and scream about this as much
>as you wish and make up all this nonsense about
>examples and mirror postings but nothing will
>change the fact that you got caught in the middle
>of a stupid.net.trick with your pants down.
Were you or were you not trying to say that
I was "a pompous self-righteous little twit"?
Were you or were you not trying to imitate
the style of my note?
Why did you leave out the part about a "smart-ass
remark"?
Why did you leave out anything analogous to the
sentence that clearly indicated that there was
nothing wrong with your ability to read?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Write a posting saying you don't like name-calling.
>It's the fact that you went a step further and decided
>to illustrate your posting by doing the same thing to
>me that you were accusing Blair Houghton of doing
>that makes you a hypocrite.
I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
give an example of foolish name-calling without being
a foolish name-caller. This attitude precludes the
giving of examples. I hoped that by giving you an
example that could have been directed at you, it
would help you to realize the foolishness of such
things. Apparently you simply choose not to believe
this, believing instead that I really did want to "imply"
that you need to learn how to read. Although you
agree that I did not want to convince anyone. At
least that is some progress.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Now I have a question for you -- if you wanted to
>show the name-caller (ie, Blair) that he is vulnerable
>to name-calling, then why did you flame me? Wouldn't
>it have been more productive for you to call Blair names
>and then pretend that you didn't mean it?
I had the impression that you were expressing your
approval of Houghton's conclusion that I am spineless, and
therefore, that you were an enthusiastic name-caller
yourself. If you will publicly say that you had
no intention of indicating support for Houghton's conclusion,
then I will apologize for assuming that you did.
I wrote:
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
>
>"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup?"
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I already did.
At the end I will reproduce a copy of
portions of the note where I asked this
question and a complete
copy of your response. As you will quickly
see, you ignored the question.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Louis, what the fuck is it with you and
>name-calling?
It has various unpleasant consequences.
For example, it makes people want to
escape to a moderated newsgroup. I
agree with Mr. Houghton about many
of the undesirable aspects of moderation.
Name-calling makes it more likely that
people will feel that such an evil is
necessary.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You write flames
I write criticism based on reason.
>and then jump up and down screaming
I don't know how you came to this conclusion.
If someone looked objectively at all of our
notes, my guess is that I would not be chosen
as the person who is most likely to be jumping
up and down screaming.
>that because you don't
>call anyone names that you're somehow
>better than someone who does.
Absolutely false. I have never said that I
am better than anyone. I have never met
any of you, and I have no way of knowing
what you are like. I know from experience
that many of you are perfectly normal away
from the terminal. Why do some people indulge
in behavior here that they would never use
anywhere else? I DO think that name-calling
is a bad habit for reasons like the one above.
In a place like netnews.alt.flame where
apparently everyone is expecting that sort
of thing, I suppose that it does not matter,
but in a place like rec.arts.cinema where
people want to use reason, it would be
nice if people could be confident that
the urge to call names will be restrained.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>This is complete nonsense. You're not only
>a pompous, self-righteous little twit, you're a
>hypocritical, pompous, self-righteous little twit.
You have already notified me that you consider
me to be hypocritical. Thank you for the reminder.
12 Apr 90 16:15:40 GMT
(Excerpts from my note.)
I hope you realize that that is not much of
an explanation.
I wrote:
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
talked about name-calling.
I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
your attention.
12 Apr 90 17:27:06 GMT
(Patricia O Tuama's complete response)
In article <oa9_ag600...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu
(Louis Blair) writes:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
Christopher Davis writes:
>Actually, I see one major difference:
I also think that there is a major
difference. Eric Holeman seemed
to be saying that Patricia O Tuama
was not imitating me. I was claiming
that she DID imitate me with some
important differences. Are we
agreed on at least that? If so, it
might be a good idea for you to
tell Eric. I don't think that he will
listen to me.
Christopher Davis writes:
>You were being a hypocrite about it,
>and she wasn't. She will admit it
>when she's flaming people.
She DID write, "I don't go in for that sort of
thing either." That does not sound like much
of an admission to me.
Christopher Davis writes:
>You seem to need to hide
>behind "It's tempting to say something like..."
There is a difference between what I wrote
and what she wrote, but this is not it. SHE
was the one who wrote "I'm tempted to say...".
Like the others, you apparently can not bring
yourself to deal with what I actually wrote,
"It's tempting to make some sort of smart-ass
remark like...". This is completely honest.
I admit to the temptation and say what I think
of it in no uncertain terms.
>Very simple.
I agree.
>Ah, so you *do* see the difference!
I have said all along that there was a difference.
My original remark was:
>I clearly identified the
>quoted statement as a "smart-ass remark".
>Did you notice that Patricia O Tuama, in her
>attempt to imitate what I wrote, could not bring
>herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way. Nor
Here we have an example of irony in which our protagonist
meets the conflicting element and refuses to accept its
validity, even though it is that refusal which forms the
crux of the conflict. The director has foreshadowed this
scene with earlier shots of the protagonist's having his
head handed to him in an almost identical manner; however,
in that earlier scene it served merely as exposition; here,
because it is repeated, the irony appears.
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>On the other hand, per-
>>haps you and he have clashed on some other
>>issue in the past and
>>he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
>
>As far as I know, we have not clashed in the past.
Tabula rasa. We have no prejudices to cloud the issues.
This is intellectually directed evidence for our
conclusions that it is the protagonist who incited his own
conflicts in the earlier scenes. The director is
confirming expositorily what before we only felt
viscerally.
>I wrote:
>>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>>because I disapprove of name-calling.
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
>
>How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
>talked about name-calling.
Here we have an anti-confessional speech; a lie so utterly
boldfaced as to make seasoned liars wince in embarrassment.
Yet, there is the rotting gristle of a shred of truth left
on this compromised bone, as our protagonist may actually
have forgotten his inciting remarks. Here we see the
raison d'cinema of the tabula rasa cleared for us earlier.
>I wrote:
>>It's tempting to make
>>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>>of thing either.
>
>Hamish writes:
>>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging
>>by your postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out
>>for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
>
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
Irony again. Our protagonist's disingenuity chases its own
tail. We laugh. (Comedy and irony are similar, almost
twinned; while true, this is, apparently, digressive. But
like Dr. Miller always used to tell me: "never trust a mirror"
in a movie; it's too powerful a symbol and only the lowliest
story-illustrating director would use it irrelevantly.)
>I clearly indicated my disapproval
>of things like, "Why don't you learn how to read?",
>by calling it a smart-ass remark. Also, I added
>a second sentence to make sure it was absolutely
>clear that I did NOT think the remark was appropriate.
>I chose a remark that was on the surface so
>obviously ridiculous that I hoped nobody would
>seriously believe that I was trying to convince
>anyone that it was true.
>
> Yours spinelessly,
> pompously,
> self-righteously,
> disingenuously,
> and dishonestly
>
> the little twit
Reversal, confession, resolution: all is proven, all is
confirmed, all is closed, the principals live "happily ever
after." Our digressive feelings are given fruition and
reward. We do indeed have in this art a comedy. It is all
to unsettling that, like the drama in "The Thin Blue Line,"
this comedy is built entirely in a documentary ouvre.
--Blair
"You mispelled 'fin.'"
I like to hold down the number of arrows.
Surely this is just a matter of taste. Let's
not make a big deal out of this, too.
In article <Qa9WOwC00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Louis writes:
>I also think that there is a major
>difference. Eric Holeman seemed
>to be saying that Patricia O Tuama
>was not imitating me.
No, I can't really imagine her being so desperate.
>(I said) that she DID imitate me with some
>important differences.
Not imitating, Louis; she was mocking you. Check it in your
Funk and Wagnalls.
>Are we
>agreed on at least that? If so, it
>might be a good idea for you to
>tell Eric. I don't think that he will
>listen to me.
Oh, sure I will. One never knows what patently obvious point you'll
miss next.
Why does your standing in alt.flame and saying that
remind me of General Custer standing at Little Big Horn?
> Surely this is just a matter of taste.
"Just" a matter of taste? My dear fellow, nothing
is "just" a matter of taste. I'm not even going to attempt
to explain to you all of the nuances of this concept; I'm
sure I would never get anywhere, and I'd just annoy you
besides.
> Let's not make a big deal out of this, too.
I already have. You just don't get it, do you, hon?
Everything in alt.flame is a big deal.
>I gather that these two are the same person.
>Thank you for calling this to my attention. I
>must admit that I did not pay much attention
>to this.
You didn't pay attention because you have
nothing with which to do it. You made an
ass of yourself, which any sixth-grader
could see, and you *insist* on your stupidity.
Why? Why? Why? Why? you babble incessantly
like a small child, and when the extremely
elementary answer is given you, you start
your why? why? why? why? babbling all over.
I thought surely John Paul Jones was the
stupidest moron I'd seen in some time. I
was wrong.
Hey you, yeah you, WhizzBoob, your neural
apparatus is so simple that it is incapable
of processing confusion. You are a drooling,
blathering moron.
And you whine too much.
>When you write this sort of thing, are you angry,
>having a good time, or what? Just wondering.
He's doing you a favor, WhizzBoob. He's giving
you something you've never experienced, he's
giving you some useful niche in the world by
making you a source of entertainment. Without
that, WhizzBoob, you'd be what you have always
been, a worthless slobbering mass of blubber
whose only salvation would be quick suicide.
Thank him. Lick his boots. You owe him your life.
--
"Ti soffoca il sangue? Muori, dannato! Muori! Muori!"
^------------More Philistine bait
>Were you or were you not trying to say that
>I was "a pompous self-righteous little twit"?
Idiot.
>Were you or were you not trying to imitate
>the style of my note?
Idiot.
>Why did you leave out the part about a "smart-ass
>remark"?
Idiot.
>Why did you leave out anything analogous to the
>sentence that clearly indicated that there was
>nothing wrong with your ability to read?
Idiot.
>>Louis, what the fuck is it with you and
>>name-calling?
>It has various unpleasant consequences.
>For example, it makes people want to
>escape to a moderated newsgroup.
Wrong, WhizzBoob. It makes spineless, snivelling
little bozos want to "escape."
>Name-calling makes it more likely that
>people will feel that such an evil is
>necessary.
Wrong again, WhizzBoob. It makes it more likely
that spineless, snivelling little bozos will feel
that such an evil is necessary.
>Why do some people indulge
>in behavior here that they would never use
>anywhere else?
What the hell makes you think that we behave any
differently here than elsewhere, WhizzBoob?
>I DO think
Wrong, WhizzBoob. You are incapable of thought.
>You have already notified me that you consider
>me to be hypocritical. Thank you for the reminder.
You need more than a reminder, WhizzBoob. You need
a good, long ass whipping.
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
It makes little difference, WhizzBoob, as you cannot
process an explanation.
Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>Here we have an anti-confessional speech; a lie
>so utterly boldfaced as to make seasoned liars
>wince in embarrassment. Yet, there is the rotting
>gristle of a shred of truth left on this compromised
>bone, as our protagonist may actually have forgotten
>his inciting remarks.
Think how devastating it would be if you could quote
a single sentence from my note that backed up what
you say. Of course, I gather that you think I am
already devastated. Then why are you posting all
this stuff?
Eric Holeman writes:
>Louis; she was mocking you.
Okay, she was mocking me if you prefer.
It does not change the fact that her
mockery was not accurate.
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>Why does your standing in alt.flame and saying
>that remind me of General Custer standing at
>Little Big Horn?
An interesting comparison. People keep on
telling me that I have been caught with my
pants down, that my head has been handed to me,
etc. Yet, the Indians keep on attacking. Why
is that?
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>"Just" a matter of taste? My dear fellow, nothing
>is "just" a matter of taste. I'm not even going to
>attempt to explain to you all of the nuances of this
>concept; I'm sure I would never get anywhere, and
>I'd just annoy you besides.
There are always these rational arguments hiding in
the wings, too bashful to come out.
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>Everything in alt.flame is a big deal.
Not to me it isn't. I respectfully reject your suggestion
and as far as I am concerned that is that. By the way,
thank you for the concern about the appearance of my
ears, but I don't think there is anything to worry about.
I've been posting notes like this for years and nobody
has complained about the way I use ">" before you.
Asmodeus writes:
>He's doing you a favor, WhizzBoob. He's giving
>you something you've never experienced, he's
>giving you some useful niche in the world by
>making you a source of entertainment. Without
>that, WhizzBoob, you'd be what you have always
>been, a worthless slobbering mass of blubber
>whose only salvation would be quick suicide.
>Thank him. Lick his boots. You owe him your life.
Is that why all the attacks keep coming?
How touching!
I wrote:
>I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
>and such' but I won't stoop to it".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, you did.
Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
details left out by Dave Alexander and you.
I wrote:
> Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said
There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
are things that you do not say if you "mean what
you say".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>and, unlike,
>you, I was willing to take responsibility for it.
Then why did you say, "I don't go in for that sort
of thing either"?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You, on the
>other hand, backtracked all over your posting in
>a pathetic attempt to make yourself look like you
>were above name-calling and other insults.
While, in reality, according to you I was trying to
imply something without trying to convince anybody.
That makes a lot of sense.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No one has rigged anything, Louis. You fucked
>up, hon.
You think misquoting a person and quoting him out
of context is not rigging the evidence? I guess
you think that the omitted details don't change
anything, and yet it is a funny coincidence that
now THREE different people have tried to prove
the same point by leaving out the exact same
details. It sure looks as though some people
find those details to be awfully inconvenient.
Thanks for all the informative
answers. Really I do understand
what you mean. Patricia O Tuama
put this comment in the middle of
her note:
>You're not only a pompous, self-right-
>eous little twit, you're a hypocritical,
>pompous, self-righteous little twit.
To me, that sounded like the conclusion
and I didn't notice the stuff that came
after it, dealing to some extent with
what was covered by my questions.
Now I have gone back and responded
to the rest of her note. Sorry about
the mix-up.
I wrote:
>[name-calling] makes people want to
>escape to a moderated newsgroup.
Asmodeus writes:
>Wrong, WhizzBoob. It makes spineless, snivelling
>little bozos want to "escape."
I wrote:
>Name-calling makes it more likely that
>people will feel that such an evil is
>necessary.
Asmodeus writes:
>Wrong again, WhizzBoob. It makes it more likely
>that spineless, snivelling little bozos will feel
>that such an evil is necessary.
This is the usual view that name-callers have
of non-name-callers. How do you feel about
the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
voted the others on the question of moderation
for rec.arts.cinema?
Asmodeus writes:
>What the hell makes you think that we behave any
>differently here than elsewhere, WhizzBoob?
I've met a number of computer name-callers
who behave quite differently away
from the terminal.
Asmodeus writes:
>You are incapable of thought.
Why do you keep on addressing notes to
someone that you consider to be
"incapable of thought"? I mean, if I
can't think then how am I going to
understand what you say.
Asmodeus writes:
>You need a good, long ass whipping.
And what else would you like to do?
I wrote:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Asmodeus writes:
>It makes little difference, WhizzBoob, as
>you cannot process an explanation.
Are you actually admitting that it wasn't
an explanation? If so, could you let
Patricia O Tuama know?
Asmodeus writes:
>Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
Well okay. If you insist:
WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
>Think how devastating it would be if you could quote
>a single sentence from my note that backed up what
>you say. Of course, I gather that you think I am
>already devastated. Then why are you posting all
>this stuff?
Idiot.
>Okay, she was mocking me if you prefer.
Preference has nothing to do with it, WhizzBoob.
You, however, were the only one too stupid to
figure that out.
>It does not change the fact that her
>mockery was not accurate.
The Goddess Trish's mockery of you was not only
accurate, it was a gem of side-splitting humor.
Tell us, WhizzBoob, when you look in a mirror do
you snarl and growl at the other person looking
back at you and babble why? why? why? why? with
the drool frothing down your chin?
>An interesting comparison. People keep on
>telling me that I have been caught with my
>pants down, that my head has been handed to me,
>etc. Yet, the Indians keep on attacking. Why
>is that?
Because you are so damned brain-dead that not
only are you the only mammal (?) incapable of
seeing just how stupid you are, but you keep
coming back being stupider every time, BEGGING
for more.
Idiot.
And I tell you to whine, WhizzBoob, and you are
so fucking stupid that you do it:
>Asmodeus writes:
>How touching!
Touching? No, not touching. Such a level of
stupidity as you have sunk toward can only be
seen in two ways: as pathetic, or entertaining.
You tell us which you are, WhizzBoob. Entertain
us, keep begging us to kick your sory ass all over
alt.flame and back.
Beg, WhizzBoob, beg.
Because you refused to move. Louis, you escalated this exchange
to a flamefest when you attacked me with that nonsense about my
reading ability. There was nothing in my original posting that
even begins to justify your response. I suggested you move to
a.f when it became obvious that you were only interested in writ-
ing personal attacks but you refused to go.
Futhermore, despite all your self-righteous talk about moving this
discussion to a.f and out of rec.arts.movies, as of yesterday you
were -still- posting your flames to r.a.m (<Ma9aqz600WI_41yEZX@
andrew.cmu.edu>). You are such a hypocrite, Louis.
>Were you or were you not trying to imitate
No, of course not, it was a parody of your posting, a mockery of
what you wrote, imitation had nothing to do with it and contrary
to what you seem to think, I am not obligated to use the same
wording you did or to include everything you put in your posting.
Understand this now, Louis? Here, I'll go over it for you again
just to be sure: It was not an imitation and nowhere is it writ-
ten that I have to use your exact wording in order to parody what
you wrote. Have you got it now, dear?
Look, you cranked out one of the stupidest types of flame that
exists. I replied in kind on the theory that you might be bright
enough to figure out for yourself why this type of flame is always
a mistake. Clearly you are much too stupid to understand the con-
nection.
>I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
>give an example of foolish namecalpling without being
>a foolish name-caller.
No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent enough to
accomplish this.
I hoped that by giving you an
>example that could have been directed at you, it
>would help you to realize the foolishness of such
>things.
Gee, and instead all you did was help me and thousands of other
netters realize what a complete and utter twit you are. Does
everything you post backfire on you as badly as this did?
And what's this shit about "could have been directed at me?"
Obviously it was directed at me, you were responding to my post-
ing. Or is this just another example of you trying to weasel
out of what you wrote?
>I had the impression that you were expressing your
>approval of Houghton's conclusion that I am spineless, and
I see, so you had the "impression" that I was expressing approval
despite the fact that I didn't actually write anything indicating
that. Ummm, what is it you say whenever anyone writes something
based on their impressions of you?
Oh, yes, I remember now: Louis, exactly what method do you have
that lets you see into my soul that way, hmmm?? You can take your
impressions and your assumptions and shove 'em, hon, not only have
you've gotten every single one of them wrong so far but it's hypo-
critical of you to rationalize your attack on me this way while you
flame Dave Alexander for doing the same thing to you.
>copy of your response. As you will quickly
>see, you ignored the question.
Nope, wrong again, Louis. I didn't ignore anything.
[namecalling....]
>It has various unpleasant consequences.
Sigh, as usual, you completely missed the point. I didn't ask you
why you think name-calling is wrong, I asked you why you think your
flames are somehow holier that those that engage in name-calling.
>I write criticism based on reason.
Really? And do you think you might post one of these enlightened
bits of reasoned criticism sometime soon so we can judge the qual-
ity of your writing for ourselves? Or do you prefer that we judge
you based on the garbage you've posted so far?
You're not really as stupid as you sound are you, Louis? I mean,
nobody is this dumb, right? Not even Jeff Daiell is this stupid.
Pay attention here, dear, and I'll explain it to you again: it's
precisely -because- you clearly identified the insult as smart-ass
and incorrect that makes what you did dishonest and hypocritical.
We are talking about a type of flame here, one in which the poster
writes something insulting and then backtracks over it in an effort
to pretend that it wasn't really a flame. Usually it's done by
someone such as yourself who wants to flame other people for writ-
ing flames but who also wants to pretend that he or she is above
that sort of thing. In your case, you wanted to fight with Blair
but since he hadn't yet responded to you and I had, you decided to
pull this trick on me instead.
You wrote the insult, you identified it as smart-ass and incorrect
and mumbled something about how you could have written that sort
of thing but as everyone should know, you aren't the type of per-
son who writes things like that. It was a classic example of back-
tracking, Louis, and as such it was dishonest and hypocritical.
>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to say, I don't
even begin to think that it's true for you.
>Then why did you say, "I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either"?
Because it was a -parody- of your posting. Obviously.
>You think misquoting a person and quoting him out
>of context is not rigging the evidence?
Is that why you do so much of it yourself? And is this why you
have repeatedly drawn conclusions about me and my postings based
on your "impressions" and then flamed me for them? Because you
knew that unless you "rigged" the evidence that you didn't have
any justification whatsoever for all the things you've been writ-
ing here?
Just curious.
Yes, it was. It was right on target, hon. Now this is your cue to
start babbling that I didn't use your entire posting nor did I use
the exact same wording as you did. But I have a suggestion for you
instead: why don't you try doing a little research first -- if you
can find one, just one, written authority on the English language
that states that all parodies must be written exactly as the object
parodied, no sentences left out or words changed, then I will apolo-
gize and withdraw from this discussion. Think you're brave enough
to do this, Louis? Or is it more your habit to flail about like a
fish out of water, insisting that everyone else must be wrong, that
it can't possibly be you who has made a mistake?
>I've been posting notes like this for years and nobody
>has complained about the way I use ">" before you.
So? Your posting style is terrible, it's difficult to read and it
makes you look even more like an idiot than your words reveal you to
be. I strongly suggest you adapt current Usenet convention if for
no other reason than that you need all the help you can get, dear.
This has got to be the most blatant example of net.stupidity I have
ever seen. You didn't bother to read the rest of my posting because
something I put in the middle "sounded like the conclusion"??? Louis,
how did you get into college?? How do you manage to stay there? Or
are you somebody's pet rat or AI program?
>This is the usual view that name-callers have
>of non-name-callers.
No, dear, this is the usual view intelligent, educated netters have
of persons such as yourself, who repeatedly demonstrate that they
have the sentient qualities of a paper bag.
> How do you feel about
>the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
>voted the others on the question of moferation
>for rec.arts.cinma?
And how do yhou feel about the fact that in seven weeks this news.group
has produced exactly two articles that fit its charter?
>WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
Well, at least you're honest some of the time.
.
A whole bunch of stuff which might have
made perfectly good sense except for
the fact that he obviously uses a
Commodore 64 and therefore feels the
need to impress us all with his ability
to type in 40 columns like this.
Only half-wits use half-lines, and he's not even a half-wit.
Think how funny this would be were it not so sad. Our
"hero" (the antihero as icon; our director is developing a
genre before our eyes and there is little for us to do
about it) continues to deny the invalidity of his denials,
in this case by invoking cliche'-ancient argumentative
techniques that would require us, as viewers, to force the
projectionist to rewind the film in order to show us
something we all saw clearly in the first place. Bacteria
remove the last proteinous flesh from the bone. We cry,
the irony is so painful; thus irony and comedy do not equal.
--Blair
"Ob. r.a.m lowbrow: What do Rex Reed,
Raquel Welch, and Tom Selleck have
in common?"
Apparently, the only reason you need is that someone
called someone else a "name."
First of all, where do you suppose one finds the right
"name" to call someone else? Do you think it's some sort
of scatological free-verse? You obviously don't see it
as a form of sapient criticism, nor as an accurate description.
So you insult my intelligence by assuming that I am simply
spouting epithets without concern for their validity.
Not only do you write flames, not only do you base them
on insufficient reason, but you do so poorly and with a
prodigious naivety. Your arguments are disingenuous and
irrelevant. Your aim is poor, your comprehension is worse.
The only gain from this spate of Louis-bashing is that you
may just become housetrained, you pathetic puppy.
--Blair
"A rose by any other name would
smell as sweet, but once you
shove it up Louis' ass, he's
allowed to call it a spade."
Louis, can I ask you one question? Just one? I'll put it in
all caps so you can find it really easy later on:
JUST WHAT THE fuck ARE YOU DOING IN REC.ARTS.MOVIES AND,
OSTENSIBLY, REC.ARTS.CINEMA EVALUATING ARTISTIC EXPRESSION
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF APTITUDE IN THE
AREAS OF COMPREHENSION, DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, OR CRITICISM?
The final clue comes from your admission that you didn't
even stay to see the end of Trish's posting.
I guess I never actually noticed it before because I haven't
seen most of the movies you've been writing about and I don't
read articles about movies I have yet to see.
But watching your efforts at comprehending the things other
people are saying about YOU, YOURSELF, merely incites, frames,
fills-in, and glazes (with a hardshell finish) my opinion that
you have more to say than you actually have to think.
I really begin to doubt that what others are taking for
hypocrisy is actually that. I think you're simply jumping
from reception to conclusion without the interposed bother
of comprehension that the rest of us seem to perform
without question. There's no word for that, but it can be
described as the "movie reviewer's syndrome," best contrasted
with the "film critic's talent." It's not really hypocrisy
so much as it's an ignorance of yourself and the things only
you think you're doing correctly.
--Blair
"Poor kid. Where do we
mail the postcards?"
> In article <1990Apr13.1...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>
ri...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Patricia O Tuama) wrote:
>> In article <Ea9F8Vy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>>> I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such and
>>> such' but I won't stoop to it".
>> Yes, you did.
> Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
> clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
> details left out by Dave Alexander and you.
Louis, you keep coming back again and again to this deleted
sentence of yours as if it was somehow going to make it clear
that you haven't done any of the boneheaded things that we've
seen you do (and which *just* *keep* *coming*). It won't.
That sentence couldn't possibly convince anyone who profited
from a sixth grade education that you didn't stand behind your
precious 'Learn to read.' It was quite plain that you meant
it all along. You loved that insult. You believed in that
insult. You whacked off fondling the staple in the navel of
that insult.
That sentence wasn't put there to reassure Trish that you
really do believe that she can read. All that that sentence
did was to show that, on top of all else, you delight in being
a condescending little shit. You aren't just stupid and
hypocritical. You are condescending, stupid, and hypocritical
and I find simultaneous stupidity and condescension to be a
particularly revolting combination.
I wouldn't keep bringing up that particular sentence if you
have any interest in damage control.
-- Dave Alexander
--
"If someone pukes watching one of my films, it's like
getting a standing ovation."
-- Pedro Almodovar
Classic Trish writes:
>No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to
>say, I don't even begin to think that it's true for you.
There it is, a clear double standard. If you use the
words, then they are sincere. If I use the words,
then they are not sincere. The only reason you
have for believing that my words were not
sincere is that that is what you want to believe.
I wrote:
>I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
>give an example of foolish name-calling without being
>a foolish name-caller.
Classic Trish writes:
>No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent
>enough to accomplish this.
Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
the insult was genuinely intended.
I wrote:
>If you wanted to take the discussion
>out of rec.arts.movies, why did you
>keep on posting contributions to the
>discussion over there?
Classic Trish writes:
>Because you refused to move.
So, as long as I continued to post contributions
to the exchange on rec.arts.movies you were
determined to answer me on rec.arts.movies.
In other words, you wanted to have the last
word in rec.arts.movies, and because of the
way you decided to behave, the only way
for the discussion between you and me
to leave rec.arts.movies was for me to allow
you to have the last word by not responding
on rec.arts.movies to your last batch of
rec.arts.movies criticisms of me.
Classic Trish writes:
>I suggested you move to a.f when it became
>obvious that you were only interested in writ-
>ing personal attacks but you refused to go.
And would you have us believe that you were
not doing any personal attacking at the time
yourself?
Classic Trish writes:
>Louis, you escalated this exchange
>to a flamefest when you attacked me with
>that nonsense about my reading ability.
I suppose you think the spineless stuff had
nothing to do with it. How could I attack
you with something that you yourself have
admitted was not intended to convince
anyone? It appears to me that what
REALLY bothers you was that I caught
you making a mistake, saying that I was
defending rec.arts.movies when, in reality,
I was doing no such thing. Come on,
admit it. That's what really bothered
you, not my (as you yourself admit and
as I also said at the time) unconvincing
sample insult. Even now you can't bring
yourself to deal with that issue:
I wrote:
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
>
>"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup?"
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I already did.
And in your latest batch of notes you
continue to insist on this. Once again
I have included below a complete copy
of your note that responded to my note with
the above question. Do you claim that your
response is there? If not, where is it?
Classic Trish writes:
>There was nothing in my original posting that
>even begins to justify your response.
My response contained:
(1) A question.
(2) Some general comments about name-calling.
(3) A denial that I do the sort of name-calling
that Houghton does.
(4) A correction of your statement that I was
defending rec.arts.cinema.
(5) A sample insult that you agree was obviously
not intended to convince anyone.
How much justification do I need for such a note?
The tone was not friendly, but lets look at the
tone of the note that I was responding to.
Your first sentence was:
>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
People have been addressing me as
"dear", "hon", etc. for awhile now, and it
is pretty obvious that this is not intended to
be friendly. This alone is a pretty good
indication of where your sympathies were.
Then you went on with:
>But that's okay,
Now what exactly does "that" refer to? The
obvious candidate is my so-called spinelessness.
Then you added:
>some of us found your spirited defense of a
>moderated newsgroup that receives one article
>every three weeks rather entertaining.
So it certainly appears that you were saying
that my spinelessness was okay since it
entertained you. That is pretty condescending
if you ask me. Typical name-caller stuff.
You dismiss my arguments as entertainment
(while incorrectly describing the purpose of
those arguments), and neglect to point out
anything wrong with them.
Classic Trish writes:
>I see, so you had the "impression" that I was
>expressing approval despite the fact that I didn't
>actually write anything indicating that. Ummm,
>what is it you say whenever anyone writes
>something based on their impressions of you?
>Oh, yes, I remember now: Louis, exactly what
>method do you have that lets you see into my
>soul that way, hmmm??
YOU do not talk about impressions. You talk as
though you somehow know for sure exactly what
was going on in my head. You say that I DID mean
this sentence, I did not mean that sentence, etc. It
appears that only I am willing to admit uncertainty.
If you will clearly and publicly indicate that your note
had no hostile intent then you will have my immediate
apology for over-reacting. Are you willing to
admit that YOU could have been wrong? Are
you willing to admit that you do NOT know what
I did and did not mean?
Classic Trish writes:
>it's hypocritical of you to rationalize your attack
>on me this way while you flame Dave Alexander
>for doing the same thing to you.
I criticized Dave Alexander for putting between
quotation marks something that was not a fair
description of what I had written. You may
argue, if you like, that Dave's quote really
was fair, but you will not be able to produce an
example where I have put an unfair description
of what you wrote between quotation marks.
I did say what my IMPRESSION of what you
wrote was, but I clearly admitted the possibility
of error. I can already guess what is coming
next. If the past is any indication, you will
say that my use of the word "impression"
was insincere, that my admission of possible
error was insincere, and that I was REALLY
saying beyond all doubt that you were calling
me spineless. Of course, if you insist on rewriting
my words this way, it will be clear that you can
arrive at any conclusion that you want.
Classic Trish writes:
>nowhere is it written that I have to use your
>exact wording in order to parody what
>you wrote.
But a parody
should be close to the original if you want
to be sure that the parody represents qualities
of the original and not qualities created by
the author of the parody. It appears that
you could not include certain aspects of
the original and still preserve the hypocritical
quality that you wanted to depict. Two others
seem to have had the same problem.
Classic Trish writes:
>I didn't ask you why you think name-calling
>is wrong, I asked you why you think your
>flames are somehow holier that those that
>engage in name-calling.
Either way, my answer is essentially the same,
except that I have to correct you on one point.
I do not think that my notes are "holier". I just
think it is better to do without name-calling for
the sorts of reasons that I have already described.
I wrote:
>I write criticism based on reason.
Classic Trish writes:
>Really? And do you think you might post one of
>these enlightened bits of reasoned criticism
>sometime soon so we can judge the qual-
>ity of your writing for ourselves? Or do you prefer
>that we judge you based on the garbage you've
>posted so far?
Of course, I don't expect you to agree that what
I say is reasonable, but I hope that you will at
least agree that I do my best to let you know
how I arrive at my conclusions. If I say something
about what you wrote, I am willing to provide
the exact quote of you that led me to my conclusion.
Name-callers often prefer to act as though the reasons
for their statements are obvious.
Classic Trish writes:
>how do yhou feel about the fact that in seven weeks
>this news.group has produced exactly two articles
>that fit its charter?
I don't have much feeling about that. As I keep on
telling you, I was not defending the newsgroup. I
think it is unfortunate that so many people felt that
moderation was necessary. You already know my
theory about why they felt that way.
Classic Trish writes:
>Blair's followup wasn't directed to alt.flame, it was
>directed to rec.arts.movies.
Then why did it appear in alt.flame?
Look at his message. It says:
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.flame
and it also says:
>Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Classic Trish writes:
>You, Louis Blair, added alt.flame to the News-
>groups: line, and therefore, you knew quite well that
>you were cross-posting to rec.arts.movies.
Houghton's note appeared in alt.flame. I gave
the reply command, wrote my response, and
gave the send command. With a note like
Houghton's, the system here will AUTOMATICALLY
send the response to both rec.arts.movies
and alt.flame. I did not anticipate this because
I had assumed that we were at least all agreed
to keep any further discussion of this subject
away from rec.arts.movies. It did not occur
to me that someone would not only send a
further comment to rec.arts.movies, but also
indicate that followup-ups should also go there.
I guess I should have anticipated that yet
another person would insist on having the
last word on the subject in rec.arts.movies.
Dave Alexander writes:
>It was quite plain that you meant it all along.
>You loved that insult. You believed in that
>insult. You whacked off fondling the staple in
>the navel of that insult.
How do you know this stuff? Divine inspiration
or what?
Dave Alexander writes:
>you delight in being a condescending little shit.
Did you see anything at all condescending in
Patricia O Tuama's note, the one that said,
"No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But that's okay, some of us found your spirited
defense of a moderated newsgroup that receives
one article every three weeks rather entertaining."?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>So you insult my intelligence by assuming that I
>am simply spouting epithets without concern for
>their validity.
I never said that (or assumed it). I have no doubt
that you choose what you believe to be valid names.
12 Apr 90 17:27:06 GMT
(Patricia O Tuama's complete response to the
note that asked how she came to the conclusion
that I was defending rec.arts.cinema.)
In article <oa9_ag600...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu
(Louis Blair) writes:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
Louis, *dearest*, no amount of pompous huffing and puffing or verbal
hand-waving is going to cover up the fact that you committed a rather
obvious, and very public, gaffe. You disingenuously ("who, *me*?")
tried to have it both ways - and got caught. Instead of digging
yourself deeper and deeper into this little hole, you might have the
grace to admit the mistake and get back to the original point. Not
bloody likely.
Now toddle off back to wherever you came from and spare us the
windiness.
Hamish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid Sybase Inc, 6475 Christie Ave, Emeryville CA 94608 USA
+1 415 596-3917 ham...@sybase.com ...!{mtxinu,sun}!sybase!hamish