Request to Censure C.Karhl
Craig
As some of you may be aware, Chris Karl has a problem
with me. The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
my posts. I've tried to limit my interaction with him
by not reading his posts unless it was a thread I was
involved in, and not to respond unless he was commenting
on my material.
That hasn't worked, and it seems there aren't many options
for dealing well with this, but it hit me that I could ask
the group to censure Kahrl in relation to my posts. Obviously
this cannot be done in a literal fashion, but it is possible
for folks to refrain from reading his responses to what I
post, and then I could care less about correcting him.
So, I am asking for pledges for that censure, either posted
(sign in here) or by E-Mail.
For those who wonder if this would be appropriate, these
are examples of the problem -- and my responses -- from just
part of his most recent post.
>>>> [Kahrl]: Of course, if you were indeed interested in
>>>> discussing "the type of decision (you were) addressing,"
>>>> you never did get to discussing that type of decision ...
>> [Craig]: Have you been following this thread? I was under
>> the impression that I'd been quite involved in this
>> thread's discussion about the decisions to demote or not
>> to demote a struggling first-year player rushed to the
>> majors, addressing both theoretical questions and the
>> specific cases made about Delgado and Ventura. (By
>> "rushed" I don't mean to imply that they weren't possibly
>> ready for the majors, but were simply skipping over AAA.)
> [Kahrl]: In the course of discussing Delgado, Ventura, and
> Arias, you failed to point out anything that wasn't already
> known (for instance, accruing service time during the early
> period of a "rushed" player's career, and why that can be
> considered a bad thing from an organization's perspective).
So how does this prove your point that I "... never did get to
discussing that type of decision"? Despite your opinion of what
I had to say, this demonstrates that the charge I disputed is,
indeed, false.
> [Kahrl]: Your point on bringing Ventura up "too soon" admittedly
> fizzled when you acknowledged that the White Sox had no better option
> at the time. Certainly, as a semi-regular Comiskey attendee, I was
> sick of having to watch Steve Lyons or Carlos Martinez.
What the heck? I wrote: "I respect that the White Sox did what
they thought was best, but all things considered it is impossible
to put a positive face on the results. And it does seem to me,
from a distance, that they were really pushing the envelope in
creating that high-risk situation."
I also pointed out that the year before -- which I assume is when
you were getting sick -- the ChiSox 3rd baseman were far, far better
offensively than Ventura in 1990, and were also far better than
the rookie Ventura when he finally started to hit for some average,
though with less power and walks.
Relative to AL Avg
BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1989 ChiSox 3rd Basemen .303 .359 .410 +39 +30 +32
1990 Robin Ventura, Overall .249 .324 .318 -9 -8 -51
1990 Robin Ventura, June-Oct .272 .333 .327
> [Kahrl]: You ignored questions about Gaston's role in extending
> Delgado's slump ...
Did I? I don't remember such question(s), and I would also point out
that most posters -- including yourself -- for one reason or another
do not answer every question directed at them. I took the time to
use the Deja Vu service to do a search of this thread using "Delgado,"
"Gaston," and "manager" and didn't find anything to match your
charge. I challenge you to show the basis for your claim.
> [Kahrl]: When serious questions were asked, you ducked them or turned
> to Tuffy Rhodes.
Oh, give me a break! JHB asked for such a case study. I expressed my
reluctance and my doubt that it would have value, but I went ahead to
honor his request.
> [Kahrl]: ... from a developmental perspective, I was under the
> impression that in reviewing players' careers it is generally
> indicated that the earlier players break into the majors, even
> with hard "learning" periods, they wind up having both longer
> and more productive careers (to an extent, a self-fulfilling
> prophecy considering the samples - usually younger-than-average
> players). In Arias' case, would the investment of that early,
> hard struggle have potentially yielded dividends in-season, or
> over the course of his career? The expectation of many here in
> the group is that it would be so; as an "expert," your opinion
> was to have been valued or interesting, but instead, you
> regurgitated a generalized throwaway comment about the virtues
> of experts, ...
Well, then you should have no problem producing that comment, and
I would like to see what it is that you are so sure you are talking
about. As far as your actual question goes, after a fairly careful
search of the thread, I can't find anyone raising it until now. I
don't know what relevant expertise I would have to this question.
My logical answer would be that in general the more talented players
reach the point of possible major league readiness faster than the
less talented, and whether they struggle or not does not change the
correlation of that early readiness with being unusually talented.
You charge me so many times with boring you with obvious points, but
it is hard to know what is obvious to you and what is not. I would
have guessed this logic was obvious and was surprised by the question.
> [Kahrl]: You entered the strand with a pointless attack on Nelson's
> legitimate gripe that the Angels had wasted their time with Tim Wallach
> (something that was abundantly clear, and the subject of much derision
> all winter), and that George Arias would have served them better,
> defending your attack with the trite observation that the experts know
> better (the utility of which there are many reasons to be dubious).
What Lu or other posters said about Wallach over the winter is hardly
relevant. Lu did not make that gripe in the thread I responded to, and
as I correctly did not interpret his words as that gripe, it is a gross
misrepresentation to suggest I attacked such a thought.
I took his comment as his belief that it was a given that the Angels
were wrong to demote Arias earlier in the year, and I addressed it as
such. In the course of this thread, including Lu's own involvement, no
one has questioned or corrected that interpretation of his comment,
which was:
"[The Angels] finally realized that George Arias' first 90 MLB at bats
told about his abilities as much as Tim Salmon's first 90 MLB at bats
did..."
(PS: that was his entire comment. The "..." was his own ending.)
My expressed point was and remains that it is far from clear that
the Angels were wrong, and rather than assuming that, I suggested
consideration that they may have done exactly the right thing. And
I pointed out that for this type of decision, the team is generally
in a better position to make this call than those more at distance
who may not know, or are not in a position to know, some of the
factors that could go into making this kind of decision.
(Of course, as this group realizes quite well, taking full or good
advantage of that better position -- and their other decision-making
resources -- is not a given. And that even if they used them well
and made the best "decision," that is not a guarantee of the best
"result.")
In this thread, I was extremely careful to over and over reiterate
that the focus of my argument was on this type of decision and the
advantages of position and the likelihood of certain types of
knowledge being available.
> [Kahrl]: ... while tarring much of what this group is about as
> "armchair analysis."
As I've said before, I didn't reference that comment to the group
but as part of a theoretical argument with JHB, I wrote: "I've also
made the point that the team itself is generally in a much better
position to evaluate all of these factors [referenced earlier in the
discussion] rather than armchair critics who lack the knowledge of
the rules that affect player decisions, and who have no first-hand
knowledge of how a player is handling his present situation."
It seems many of the armchair critics in this group see themselves
outside that group, as I do, in that I am quite familiar with the
business rules of business and the ramifications it has on this
type of decision. And some of those also do *not* see themselves
as I do -- that I see myself as an armchair critic who is at a
disadvantage because I am not in a good position to evaluate what
I think are potentially highly relevant factors to this type of
decision, such as how the youngster is handling his struggles in
his introduction to the majors. Now I don't mind that disagreement,
but I sure do mind the false charge that making this point is a
tarring of the group. In fact, it strikes me that this charge in
itself an insult to the group.
> [Kahrl]: ... you didn't say much of value while needlessly attacking
> Jon and Nelson (and Gary when he chose to point out your silliness,
> let alone your hypocritical whining for apologies), nor did you choose
> to engage in a baseball discussion about development issues in any
> depth.
Well, depth is in the eye of the beholder, as are "attacks" needless
or otherwise, and as far as your constant carping that my complaint
to Gary was without substance, I've tried to stay away from bringing
this up because he had done so privately, but the fact is that he did
very manfully and honorably own up and apologize.
> [Kahrl]: [Arguing at this point I don't say enough to suit to him.]
> No, but you chose not to expand on it, preferring to regurgitate
> widely known details ... That's all well and good, but when dealing
> with a gentleman who compares himself to ex-Presidents or brags about
> his fan mail, who happens to be a well-regarded author and sabermetrician
> (for good reason), I think I speak for the group when I say expectations
> are a bit higher. Simply, if you're going to pose as an expert, you get
> to suffer the expectations as well as the fan mail.
Let's be a little more revealing here, Kahrl. Truth is, I've made no
comparison between myself and Presidents or ex-Presidents. All these
mocking references to Truman, ex-Presidents, etc, come from your childish
reaction to a single accurate quote of Harry Truman at a time when he
was a failing dirt farmer with no call to fame of any kind, and trying
to express to his fiance that he was simply was what he was and that's
all he cared to be. The quote was highly appropriate to the thought I
was expressing at the time. And I've done a pretty decent job of living
up to the point I was making. It takes a very small man to use that the
way you have.
This "bragging about fan mail" manure is a new one and comes from an
exchange where you were lecturing me about my tone, and my response was
I didn't see why that was a concern in regard to the group, because if
it was and I had such a lousy tone, that logic would not mesh with "all
these messages from folks saying how much they enjoyed this or that post
and how glad they are to have me in the group." You are stretching what
was an accurate, well-made response into "bragging," and much worse,
trivializing the decent, well-meaning notes and posts from the people
in this very group as "fan mail."
As for my posing as an "expert," you have many times tried to manipulate
me by urging me to think about my position, how such and such looks to
the group, and what they may think of me. I have always made it clear
that I have no interest in that and in only being seen as myself. I
even expressed relief that some might think less of me as I felt they
were trying to put me on a horse that I have no interest or intention
of riding.
I still don't accept that I have any obligation to the expectations of
the group, and while I have my doubts that you can speak for the group
on this, your logic about the higher expectations because of my being
some sort of "expert" did give me a chuckle. Given the anti-expert
emotions common to this kind of gathering, I think what that really
entitles me to is *lower* expectations! :>
Craig
PS I no longer identify myself as a sabermetrician and haven't for
years. As I covered in the THE DIAMOND APPRAISED in 1987, the meaning
of sabermetrics was shifting and narrowing and I was less comfortable
with the term. It got to a point where I didn't feel it described my
work or my approach, so we went our separate ways.
NawrockiT
Craig Wright writes:
<<Bunch of somewhat legitimate criticism of Chris Kahrl>>
In the larger sense, I would never want to censure someone based on what
they've posted here. Even when someone descends to Maynardian levels, I
think we're better served by ignoring them rather than calling attention
to how much they irritate us.
In this specific instance, I've been reading this newsgroup for about two
years, and by and large I've enjoyed Chris's posts. R.s.bb. would be less
fun to read without him. Yes, he can be thin-skinned, pedantic, and
manipulative of what other people write, but so can you, Craig, and so can
everybody here given the right circumstances.
The most annoying posts Chris has written are those in which he's gotten
into an extended pissing match with you, Craig. If you think anybody's
reading these with your jesuitical precision after the first three or four
posts, you're mistaken. You wrote:
: it is possible
: for folks to refrain from reading his responses to what I
: post, and then I could care less about correcting him.
...which hits the nail on the head. Nobody cares, guys. If the two of you
could just let these arguments over civility, semantics, and Robert's
Rules of Order drop without feeling the need to declare a winner, we'd all
be better off.
I don't want to be seen as taking sides on this; I hope Craig continues
posting, too. But the matter at hand is just silly. It's not about
baseball anymore. The most proper medium would be E-mail, but I'd hate to
think of the two of you cheesing each other off for months on end without
any hope of someone intervening.
Let it drop, guys.
Tom Nawrocki
Author of "Ballpark Figures," a column on sports business available on
Worth Online (www.worth.com). Free balloons for the kids!
Keith Law
Craig wrote:
>
> As some of you may be aware, Chris Karl has a problem
> with me. The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
> that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
> is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
> in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
> my posts. I've tried to limit my interaction with him
> by not reading his posts unless it was a thread I was
> involved in, and not to respond unless he was commenting
> on my material.
Sounds to me like you've confused the fact that Chris disagrees with a
lot of things you say - and backs up his contentions with some pretty
well-defended arguments - with "ill will" and "lack of civility." IMHO -
from snippets you've produced and from reading many of Chris' other
posts - he's stayed well within the boundaries of netiquette while
engaging in standard USENET debate.
Carry on, Chris.
--
Keith Law } Commissioner, EARL (http://www.parthenon.com/klaw/) &
YARL
Sr. Associate } Owner, Law Norders and Brookline Dodgers
The Parthenon } "In Detroit, the first 9 fans to show up get to start."
- from
Group } Letterman's Top 10 surprises of the baseball season so
far.
Craig
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
> In article <4tsace$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >As some of you may be aware, Chris Karl has a problem
> >with me. The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
> >that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
> >is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
> >in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
> >my posts. I've tried to limit my interaction with him
> >by not reading his posts unless it was a thread I was
> >involved in, and not to respond unless he was commenting
> >on my material.
>
> others is hypocritical. Indeed, in his most "uncivil" comment, Chris was
> still quite a bit more civil than you were.
>
I'm surprised by your comment as I was quite clear
my concern is not with the civility issue.
Craig
Ted Frank
In article <4tt78o$h...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
steven m geswein <sges...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>NawrockiT (nawr...@aol.com) wrote:
>> Let it drop, guys.
>
>Hear, hear.
Agreed (and I'm glad someone spelled "hear, hear" right). Craig and Chris
are two of the best posters here, they're both in my auto-select file, and
it bothers me that so much of their effort is wasted on this flamewar. I
don't know who's right in this particular battle, but neither of you are
doing anyone a service by insisting upon a last word.
Let's all go back to picking on Cecil Fielder fans, shall we?
--
m...@radix.net
"I still can't decide whether or not I'd hand my daughter over to a
biker gang called 'The Sodomists' or Bela Karolyi. It's probably
the bikers, but it's still too close to call." -- Dennis Cleary
a0...@lehigh.edu
In article <4tt399$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, nawr...@aol.com (NawrockiT) wri
tes:
>Craig Wright writes:
>
><<Bunch of somewhat legitimate criticism of Chris Kahrl>>
>In the larger sense, I would never want to censure someone based on what
>they've posted here. Even when someone descends to Maynardian levels, I
>think we're better served by ignoring them rather than calling attention
>to how much they irritate us.
I agree; the solution for *bad* speech is *more* speech. I am in favor of
expanding the marketplace of ideas, not contracting it.
--Raymond DiPerna--
steven m geswein
NawrockiT (nawr...@aol.com) wrote:
[an analysis of the situation with which I agree, ending with...]
> Let it drop, guys.
Hear, hear. Since somebody asked, I'll mention that it just seems odd to
me that two relatively high-content posters can willfully degenerate
their writing into a pissing contest so joyously.
If by "censure" you mean "kill threads after they stop saying interesting
things", let me reassure you that this is already going on every day,
worldwide. I'd write a second screenfull on this topic, but I'm well
aware it would be pointless: everyone's gone on to something else by now.
Please feel free to do the same...
--
Steve Geswein sges...@indyvax.iupui.edu
My four cents worth. (Ten cents, if it's totally mint.)
Nelson Lu
>with me. The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
>that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
>is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
>in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
>my posts. I've tried to limit my interaction with him
>by not reading his posts unless it was a thread I was
>involved in, and not to respond unless he was commenting
>on my material.
Given that you have never been civil in your comments, asking civility from
others is hypocritical. Indeed, in his most "uncivil" comment, Chris was
still quite a bit more civil than you were.
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA (Soon to be Anaheim) ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Jack Heraty
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>As some of you may be aware, Chris Karl has a problem
>with me. The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
>that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
>is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
>in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
>my posts. I've tried to limit my interaction with him
>by not reading his posts unless it was a thread I was
>involved in, and not to respond unless he was commenting
>on my material.
>
I'll continue to read Chris, I'll continue to read Craig. You both
have interesting things to say. Stop taking it personally.
I've gotten into similar tiffs with Roger Lustig, for example, but
I'll continue to read his posts. I don't take it personally. When
someone does get continually personal and doesn't back off even whan
asked, such as the late, unlamented "peterd", then and only then does
that person get plonked.
Returning from a short Olympic hiatus (I love the Olympics), and not
disappearing due to the White Sox slide, I remain
--
Jack Heraty
Don't take the world serious.
C Kahrl
> with me.
Not really; Craig's willingness to personalize my complaints about his lack
of content or civility is his problem, but even in Craig's case, I don't
believe I harbor any real malice.
> The lack of civility doesn't faze me and isn't
> that out of line from a lot I see in the group, but what
> is irksome is that his ill will also manifests itself
> in his making gross misrepresentations and lies about
> my posts.
I will enjoy seeing this demonstrated (the "gross misrepresentations"
part), since it couldn't be further from the truth.
I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to the group as a whole. In
my arrogance, I have decided to publicly take Craig to task on behalf of
others, as well as myself, on a number of issues, usually involving my
belief that he deliberately misrepresents the positions and ideas of almost
everyone he responds to. Considering his behavior to so many others in this
forum, people whom I consider friends after years of enjoyment here, I was
too willing to take offense at the way he treated others. I am also guilty
of having expectations of him that exceeded what he wound up contributing,
expectations many of us may or may not have, and in that, I was unfair and
probably too quick to criticize.
I'd like to thank the group for the overwhelmingly neutral or "grow up the
both of you" nature of the responses to Craig's odd request for censorship
that has followed his inability to reflect upon or apologize for his
actions, or his gratuitous flame-baiting. I think its telling that Craig
chose to tag on his response to another strand, to initiate yet another
flamewar, rather than let his complaints stand on their own "merits." He
apparently wishes to pick yet another fight. In response to that
provocation, I will respond as I will in the future, via email, so that I
cease to waste the rest of the group's time.
Now back to our regularly scheduled baseball hijinks...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected from
happening." -- Barbara Tober
Chris Kahrl, AotLB & SS, RobDeerFanClub (RDFC).
Co-author, _Baseball_Prospectus_, and armchair analyst
Ira K Blum
Craig, I've been ignoring this whole thread.
So far you've spent the last two weeks arguing with KGB Karhl and Gary
Huckabuy. never thought I'd see that.
Back to baseball: With one game left to the Rangers 2 week home and away
sets with New York and Chicago while Seattle plays Detroit and Milwaukee
and the Rangers still have a 1.5 game lead!!!! Now, watch while the
Rangers play Detroit and KC while Seattle plays NY. :)
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
- Jeff Foxworthy
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Craig
My thanks for the responses. It was interesting, instructive,
and helped bring a focus to the things I care about as I look
for my best solution. Let me first go through just a couple of
the posted thoughts that I wanted to respond to.
> [Nawrocki]: In this specific instance, I've been reading this
> newsgroup for about two years, and by and large I've enjoyed
> Chris's posts. R.s.bb. would be less fun to read without him.
> ... The most annoying posts Chris has written are those in which
> he's gotten into an extended pissing match with you, Craig.
I've no problem with any of that, which is why my request was only
in regard to his responses to me.
> Yes, he can be thin-skinned, pedantic, and manipulative of what other
> people write, but so can you, Craig, and so can everybody here given
> the right circumstances.
Yes, and by some standard we are all about the same height and weight.
My point is that Kahrl's "manipulation" -- as you put it -- of what
I write struck me as consistently going beyond the bounds of decency
in written debate where what has been actually said is a matter
of record and accuracy in dealing with it is a fair expectation.
To avoid putting continual effort into correcting his misinformation,
I was looking for other solutions, and this was one I wanted to explore
as a possibility.
> [Nawrocki]: If you think anybody's reading these with your jesuitical
> precision after the first three or four posts, you're mistaken.
Oh no, I do understand that quite clearly, and I suspect that is
partially why it is difficult to break a poster of this tactic
once he adapts it. If he twists and dodges for awhile, even when
the truth finally becomes unavoidable, it is less embarrassing as
hardly anyone would be reading, and he has had success in selling
his falsehoods in the first few posts. I had hopes of turning
this unfortunate reality into a positive, that because folks
don't care for how we handle this aspect of his posts and
ultimately stop reading those exchanges, we could speed up the
process and not have them read from the beginning. It seemed like
a good idea to explore at the time, but obviously is a bust.
> [Law]: Sounds to me like you've confused the fact that Chris
> disagrees with a lot of things you say - and backs up his
> contentions with some pretty well-defended arguments - with "ill
> will" and "lack of civility." IMHO - from snippets you've produced
> and from reading many of Chris' other posts - he's stayed well
> within the boundaries of netiquette while engaging in standard
> USENET debate.
I don't really remember many recent instances where Chris had a
disagreement with me that was reasonably based on content and
things I actually said, but I've never had a problem with those.
My problem is with Chris trying to make his points by attacking me
with things I didn't say. A problem, incidentally, that I have
with your comments as well, for I indicated quite clearly that
the "lack of civility" is not the issue for me, and I also said
that I don't consider that aspect "... that out of line from a
lot I see in the group."
With your reference to his other posts, please keep in mind that
I excluded them from my complaint and my request. With your
reference to the snippets I produced, I want to point out again
that this was not a selected collection over time or even from a
post selected as his worst. They are all from a single post,
which simply happened to be his latest.
Summation
As of 8/5/96, 9 AM PCT, Of the seven who posted in response to this
thread, none were willing to agree to my request to censor Karhl
to the extent of not reading his posts when he was responding
to me. Of the six pieces of E-mail on the subject, while the tone
was much kinder, not a single one felt this was the right
solution. That's 0 for 13.
The most eloquent message cited his participation in three newsgroups
and made a nice analogy that they are like frontier towns, and quite
accurately predicted there would be next to no interest in my suggested
solution, that a newsgroup has no interest in solving such problems,
and that most would see it as he did, that the solution has to come
from me alone, and he graciously expressed confidence that if I didn't
like my present solution, I could and probably would find a better one
on my own.
I also did receive a lot of advice along the line of Nawrocki's
"Even when someone descends to Maynardian levels, I think we're
better served by ignoring them ..." and an E-mailer's, "Even if
his lies and gross misrepresentations are out of line, that doesn't
obligate you to respond, and that may be the worst thing to do."
There is some wisdom there, and it is the solution I am used to
employing in oral debate. It is not my habit in written debate,
and I don't expect it to become one. This is due to what may be
largely unique personal values.
For as long as I can remember I've had little regard for oral
arguments, as they seemed so vulnerable to being manipulated with
emotion and misinformation, and were too easily turned into
debates focused on "winning the argument" or turning it into bad
guys and good guys rather than getting to the truth. I tended to
revere the argument made on record, which is primarily in the form
of written debate. While you still had some potential for
manipulation with emotion and misinformation, it was so much
harder to get away with that it was a whole other ballgame.
With written argument, you can take the time to strip out the
emotion and focus on the actual content, and when misinformation
was applied to something on record, there was a way to easily show
what was actually said and in what context. There would still be
reasonably differing interpretations of passages, but it was
much, much easier to deal with a tactic or false point based on
an unreasonable interpretation.
In my education I was taught that if we used well the ability
of recorded debate to hold us to a higher standard of truth, we
would both make and be met with more productive arguments. We
would learn to say more clearly what we meant, and we would learn
to hear/read more clearly the points of view of others.
I can't say enough how much I *like* the greater freedom under
written debates from misrepresentations of what has actually been
said. It is a life-long time habit of mine that in my various letter
debates with friends and colleagues, that when a manipulation of
a point gets out of hand, I stop and say, "No, here is what was
actually said." There are times I wonder if this more of an
interruption than an assist to the present discussion, but at
worst I do firmly believe that this helps raise the productivity of
our future debate.
And I may even have a bit of a phobia about this, in that it is
almost a crusade for me. There are few things in life that I am
more of a bulldog about. Thinking about it lately, I wonder how
much of that is related to a critical moment in establishing my
career. It isn't a story I intend to tell, but suffice to say
that if I do feel an obligation to defend this unique virtue of
written arguments dealing with the reality of what was actually
said, this may be where that sense of debt begins.
I might be able to handle it differently if I could treat the
group as an arena of oral debate, and it has started to hit me
that even though we write everything, that it is seen by most as
more of an oral than a written debate. Accuracy about what has
been said seems to be given about the same relevance as something
said verbally an hour ago. If it is a few posts ago and with
declining context from snipping along the way, memory and
interpretation are given rule as if it were an oral debate, and
what should be a simple correction for a written debate actually
ends up a debate itself with little and often no regard to
reality, and an interest to harness this is generally seen
as not something to be concerned about.
(It is not just my taking Kahrl to the wall on this that has
irritated some folks in the group. I got a similar complaint
of basically "Who cares?" about the time I invested in forcing
the Piazza critic to deal with what I had written rather than
what he claimed I had written.)
For me, the choices are starting to boil down to (1) get with
the program and treat it more like an oral debate, (2) live with
the extra time and frustration my approach to written debate
requires, and (3) stop participating if neither #1 or #2 is
sufficiently satisfying. I know that #1 just isn't going to
happen; that I have no interest in that. #2 has appeal in that
I have managed to enjoy the experience despite the headaches
that have come from that approach. But I am worn out by it, and
probably do need some of #3 -- a sabbatical from it.
I promised Pease I would get back to him on his last response,
and I'm commited to finish with Kahrl in demonstrating that I
did respond immediately and directly to Gary's point, and that
my trailing incidental comment that Van Poppel was not a good
example of Gary's written point is sound and reasonable, and
thus his host of charges around those few paragraphs are without
merit. When those are done, I'm done.
Craig
Wheat Thin
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960805...@apache.utdallas.edu>,
Ira K Blum <ib...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>Back to baseball: With one game left to the Rangers 2 week home and away
>sets with New York and Chicago while Seattle plays Detroit and Milwaukee
>and the Rangers still have a 1.5 game lead!!!! Now, watch while the
>Rangers play Detroit and KC while Seattle plays NY. :)
I wouldn't get too excited. The Mariners have a fine, if recent, history of
kicking the Yankees' butt.
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
stevet
Ira K Blum (ib...@utdallas.edu) wrote:
: Back to baseball: With one game left to the Rangers 2 week home and away
: sets with New York and Chicago while Seattle plays Detroit and Milwaukee
: and the Rangers still have a 1.5 game lead!!!! Now, watch while the
: Rangers play Detroit and KC while Seattle plays NY. :)
Only one game as of Tuesday morning. And the Tigers have been pretty hot
lately. The Rangers have also played ten more home than away games, while
Seattle is exactly even; they'll be making those up soon. Plus the famous
DFW August heat, and the fact that the M's have been without their best
hitter and (only) pitcher. I'd be worried if I was a Ranger fan.
Woof, woof! I could get used to this.....
--
| Steve Thornton | ste...@cnct.com | ste...@eskimo.com | New York |
| Send 'subscribe indiepop-list Your Name' to list...@eskimo.com |
| Tweenet US: http://www.eskimo.com/www/users/stevet/tweenet.html|
Michael O'brien
I wouldn't get too excited. The Mariners have a fine, if recent, history
of kicking the Yankees' butt.
> tst...@reed.edu
winning three games of a five game series in which the final three games
are in seattle is hardly kicking butt. the season series this year is
3-2 seattle (3 games in seattle, 2 in New York.) they really kicked our
butts in may when they couldn't manage one hit against Gooden.
Jon Avins
I think your request is complete chicken-hearted bullshit.
The only other person I've ever seen pull a thing like that in this ng is
none other than everybody's favorite Raving Looney ManiacalMoron, rlm. He
made his request in the form of .sig line aimed at me, you make yours in
the form of a thread aimed at Chris.
Usenet is not the place for censorship. You and rlm can both piss off.
Jon Avins
GO METS!!!!
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
In <4ttnpg$f...@saltmine.radix.net> m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <4tt78o$h...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>steven m geswein <sges...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>NawrockiT (nawr...@aol.com) wrote:
>>> Let it drop, guys.
>>
>>Hear, hear.
>Agreed (and I'm glad someone spelled "hear, hear" right). Craig and Chris
>are two of the best posters here, they're both in my auto-select file, and
>it bothers me that so much of their effort is wasted on this flamewar.
Let me second this. It makes me sick to see two people who have lots of
interesting things to say wasting their time and Usenet bandwidth on
petulant, childish nonsense.
Its obvious that the two of you just should not respond to each others'
posts.
Greg