My apology to Leo
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
My apology to Leo
Dear Leo ~
I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim Weber
and Hal Bradley's databases.
Again, you have my apology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim Weber
and Hal Bradley's databases.
Again, you have my apology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: My apology to Leo
In message of 25 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
And what about all the other trenchant and offending remarks, many
cross-posted to other newsgroups?
I regret that I am deeply cynical about the sincerity of this sudden
and partial apology from someone who has been pouring out abuse over the
last few weeks.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Leo ~
I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim
Weber and Hal Bradley's databases.
And what about all the other trenchant and offending remarks, many
cross-posted to other newsgroups?
I regret that I am deeply cynical about the sincerity of this sudden
and partial apology from someone who has been pouring out abuse over the
last few weeks.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: My apology to Leo
Dear Douglas,
Many thanks for this remark. You have no idea how much I welcome criticism
of my database. I made a remark that _exposure_ of data can only improve it
for all, when I said this to someone, the reply was _make sure no minors are
around_
I wish more people would show information as you never know what kind of
additional information can be found. By joining our own information/sources
with those of others we all benefit.
We all have to have a thick skin at times, but sadly I have been approached
many times by people reluctant to go public with questions, fearful for
ridicule. I always try to convince them to ask the question and ignore
useless snipers. And when I couldn't I would ask the question for them.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: My apology to Leo
Many thanks for this remark. You have no idea how much I welcome criticism
of my database. I made a remark that _exposure_ of data can only improve it
for all, when I said this to someone, the reply was _make sure no minors are
around_
I wish more people would show information as you never know what kind of
additional information can be found. By joining our own information/sources
with those of others we all benefit.
We all have to have a thick skin at times, but sadly I have been approached
many times by people reluctant to go public with questions, fearful for
ridicule. I always try to convince them to ask the question and ignore
useless snipers. And when I couldn't I would ask the question for them.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: My apology to Leo
Dear Leo ~
I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim Weber
and Hal Bradley's databases.
Again, you have my apology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: My Apology To Leo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3adFe.254$qq6.1527@eagle.america.net...
And what has Peter Stewart to do with one limited apology to Leo?
A general public apology for Richardson's manifold lies, deliberate
misrepresentations of his own skills and of other people's meanings, and his
unprovoked insults to me and many other newsgroup members would be
acceptable from my point of view, along with no further offenses - but
certainly nothing less than this.
His apology to Leo is appropriate, but still MUCH less than required by any
measure.
Richardson's incompetence would of course remain a matter for discussion,
unless he takes steps to remedy this by learning his craft properly and then
using his brain honestly.
And in all of this the blatherings of Hines are not even broached....
Peter Stewart
news:3adFe.254$qq6.1527@eagle.america.net...
Hmmmmmmmm...
Does this now mean that Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart will cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson as well as his
genealogical talents, knowledge of languages, honesty, probity, moral
character and productive output?
If so, fine.
And what has Peter Stewart to do with one limited apology to Leo?
A general public apology for Richardson's manifold lies, deliberate
misrepresentations of his own skills and of other people's meanings, and his
unprovoked insults to me and many other newsgroup members would be
acceptable from my point of view, along with no further offenses - but
certainly nothing less than this.
His apology to Leo is appropriate, but still MUCH less than required by any
measure.
Richardson's incompetence would of course remain a matter for discussion,
unless he takes steps to remedy this by learning his craft properly and then
using his brain honestly.
And in all of this the blatherings of Hines are not even broached....
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
Hmmmmmmmm...
Does this now mean that Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart will cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson as well as his
genealogical talents, knowledge of languages, honesty, probity, moral
character and productive output?
If so, fine.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122326547.020386.19590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Leo ~
|
| I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
| http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
| errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
| correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
| anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim
| Weber and Hal Bradley's databases.
|
| Again, you have my apology.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Does this now mean that Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart will cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson as well as his
genealogical talents, knowledge of languages, honesty, probity, moral
character and productive output?
If so, fine.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122326547.020386.19590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Leo ~
|
| I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
| http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
| errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
| correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
| anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim
| Weber and Hal Bradley's databases.
|
| Again, you have my apology.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: My apology to Leo
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Tim:
If you read Mr. Richardson's apology, you will note that it extends
only to Leo's database. There is almost nothing personal to it. The
insults remain forever in the archives.
If you examine the archives, you may well find that some apologies
differ both in intent and significance from that which meets the eye.
Ask yourself why it is that, at this particular moment, Mr. Richardson
would make a gesture toward concilation with Leo?
Are the cross-posts to be cleaned up?
CED
Tim:
If you read Mr. Richardson's apology, you will note that it extends
only to Leo's database. There is almost nothing personal to it. The
insults remain forever in the archives.
If you examine the archives, you may well find that some apologies
differ both in intent and significance from that which meets the eye.
Ask yourself why it is that, at this particular moment, Mr. Richardson
would make a gesture toward concilation with Leo?
Are the cross-posts to be cleaned up?
CED
Dear Leo ~
I apologize for my recent comments about your fine database,
http://www.genealogics.org. It was inappropriate for me to refer to minor
errors in your database as "bloopers." In the future, if I have a
correction for you, I will send it to you first before I discuss
anything on the newsgroup. I will employ the same policy for Jim
Weber and Hal Bradley's databases.
And what about all the other trenchant and offending remarks, many
cross-posted to other newsgroups?
I regret that I am deeply cynical about the sincerity of this sudden
and partial apology from someone who has been pouring out abuse over the
last few weeks.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: My apology to Leo
CED and Tim
Let's stop this bickering. If you can't post a apology than it is
better to say nothing. It seems you want to keep the newsgroup
bickering is that your purpose. Maybe you two need to apologize to the
newsgroup. This bickering has to stop at least the gesture by Doug says
more than your bashing. So when can we expect your apology's.
Mike
Let's stop this bickering. If you can't post a apology than it is
better to say nothing. It seems you want to keep the newsgroup
bickering is that your purpose. Maybe you two need to apologize to the
newsgroup. This bickering has to stop at least the gesture by Doug says
more than your bashing. So when can we expect your apology's.
Mike
-
CED
Re: My apology to Leo
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Mike:
A carefully worded apology merits a careful reading.
I have written nothing to or about Mr. Richardson for which an apology
is due.
CED
CED and Tim
Mike:
A carefully worded apology merits a careful reading.
I have written nothing to or about Mr. Richardson for which an apology
is due.
CED
Let's stop this bickering. If you can't post a apology than it is
better to say nothing. It seems you want to keep the newsgroup
bickering is that your purpose. Maybe you two need to apologize to the
newsgroup. This bickering has to stop at least the gesture by Doug says
more than your bashing. So when can we expect your apology's.
Mike
-
Gjest
Re: My apology to Leo
CED
It's time to move forward. Post genealogy this is what this group is
suppose to be about. We don't have to like everyone that post on this
group. But we can try to get along. Enough said about it. Let's just
get back to genealogy.
Mike
It's time to move forward. Post genealogy this is what this group is
suppose to be about. We don't have to like everyone that post on this
group. But we can try to get along. Enough said about it. Let's just
get back to genealogy.
Mike
-
Peter Stewart
Re: My Apology To Leo
Hines wrote:
I haven't been shown any reason to do this, despite asking several
times.
However, I do agree with Mike that Richardson's apology to Leo deserves
credit, as far as it goes.
Last heard from Hines, all my "grenades" have gone off in my "lap" (an
odd place to keep these). If so, surely I would owe any apology to
myself first.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart doesn't seem to be willing to apologize to Douglas
Richardson either.
I haven't been shown any reason to do this, despite asking several
times.
However, I do agree with Mike that Richardson's apology to Leo deserves
credit, as far as it goes.
Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart don't appear to desire to cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson
Last heard from Hines, all my "grenades" have gone off in my "lap" (an
odd place to keep these). If so, surely I would owe any apology to
myself first.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
Peter Stewart doesn't seem to be willing to apologize to Douglas
Richardson either.
Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart don't appear to desire to cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson as well as his
genealogical talents, knowledge of languages, honesty, probity, moral
character, social life, including bars frequented, and productive
output.
This all seems to be a very one-sided apology from Douglas so far.
DSH
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122343279.097836.20120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
|
| > CED and Tim
|
| Mike:
|
| A carefully worded apology merits a careful reading.
|
| I have written nothing to or about Mr. Richardson for which an apology
| is due.
|
| CED
| >
| > Let's stop this bickering. If you can't post an apology then it is
| > better to say nothing. It seems you want to keep the newsgroup
| > bickering, is that your purpose? Maybe you two need to apologize to
| > the newsgroup. This bickering has to stop; at least the gesture by
| > Doug says more than your bashing. So when can we expect
| > your apologies?
| >
| > Mike
Richardson either.
Leo van de Pas and Peter Stewart don't appear to desire to cease and
desist from ridiculing and excoriating Douglas Richardson as well as his
genealogical talents, knowledge of languages, honesty, probity, moral
character, social life, including bars frequented, and productive
output.
This all seems to be a very one-sided apology from Douglas so far.
DSH
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122343279.097836.20120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
|
| > CED and Tim
|
| Mike:
|
| A carefully worded apology merits a careful reading.
|
| I have written nothing to or about Mr. Richardson for which an apology
| is due.
|
| CED
| >
| > Let's stop this bickering. If you can't post an apology then it is
| > better to say nothing. It seems you want to keep the newsgroup
| > bickering, is that your purpose? Maybe you two need to apologize to
| > the newsgroup. This bickering has to stop; at least the gesture by
| > Doug says more than your bashing. So when can we expect
| > your apologies?
| >
| > Mike
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: My Apology To Leo
In message of 26 Jul, mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
But what if the apologies leave out by far the worst bunch of insults
and which therefore remain unwithdrawn and on the table?
If I was to say that I apologised profusely to everyone that I unjustly
insulted, would that do? Or would it be some humbug because I did not
think that I had insulted anyone unjustly? Similarly for other
jesuitical apologies by other people.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I do believe apologize's are due by everyone.
Mike
But what if the apologies leave out by far the worst bunch of insults
and which therefore remain unwithdrawn and on the table?
If I was to say that I apologised profusely to everyone that I unjustly
insulted, would that do? Or would it be some humbug because I did not
think that I had insulted anyone unjustly? Similarly for other
jesuitical apologies by other people.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: My Apology To Leo
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:db1c71904d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
You are right, Tim, as regards the generalised "sorry if I have caused any
offense" type of humbug - but the recent apologies by Richardson, Mike and
myself were all specific and direct.
I don't consider that everyone is owed or should give apologies. There is a
sense, of course, in which I am always sorry for insults given or received,
since I would prefer that this should not be necessary in the first place -
that is, neither cause nor opportunity should be available to anyone. I
expect Richardson could say the same: he would no doubt prefer that I wasn't
here or didn't criticise him.
Anyway, there have been far too many contretemps for a set of specific
apologies even if one or other felt inclined. I don't.
Richardson can behave more collegially if he wishes, and accept initial
criticisms graciously or argue against these rationally if he can; then
there would still be vigorous exchanges, perhaps, but no more futile, bitter
rows between him and me.
Peter Stewart
news:db1c71904d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 26 Jul, mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
I do believe apologize's are due by everyone.
Mike
But what if the apologies leave out by far the worst bunch of insults
and which therefore remain unwithdrawn and on the table?
If I was to say that I apologised profusely to everyone that I unjustly
insulted, would that do? Or would it be some humbug because I did not
think that I had insulted anyone unjustly? Similarly for other
jesuitical apologies by other people.
You are right, Tim, as regards the generalised "sorry if I have caused any
offense" type of humbug - but the recent apologies by Richardson, Mike and
myself were all specific and direct.
I don't consider that everyone is owed or should give apologies. There is a
sense, of course, in which I am always sorry for insults given or received,
since I would prefer that this should not be necessary in the first place -
that is, neither cause nor opportunity should be available to anyone. I
expect Richardson could say the same: he would no doubt prefer that I wasn't
here or didn't criticise him.
Anyway, there have been far too many contretemps for a set of specific
apologies even if one or other felt inclined. I don't.
Richardson can behave more collegially if he wishes, and accept initial
criticisms graciously or argue against these rationally if he can; then
there would still be vigorous exchanges, perhaps, but no more futile, bitter
rows between him and me.
Peter Stewart
-
Hal S.
Re: My Apology To Leo
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BLnFe.63204$oJ.15894@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
-------------------------------
Hasn't the tap run dry on this subject? I guess it's killfile time.
Hal S.
>
news:BLnFe.63204$oJ.15894@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:db1c71904d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 26 Jul, mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
I do believe apologize's are due by everyone.
Mike
But what if the apologies leave out by far the worst bunch of insults
and which therefore remain unwithdrawn and on the table?
If I was to say that I apologised profusely to everyone that I unjustly
insulted, would that do? Or would it be some humbug because I did not
think that I had insulted anyone unjustly? Similarly for other
jesuitical apologies by other people.
You are right, Tim, as regards the generalised "sorry if I have caused any
offense" type of humbug - but the recent apologies by Richardson, Mike and
myself were all specific and direct.
I don't consider that everyone is owed or should give apologies. There is
a sense, of course, in which I am always sorry for insults given or
received, since I would prefer that this should not be necessary in the
first place - that is, neither cause nor opportunity should be available
to anyone. I expect Richardson could say the same: he would no doubt
prefer that I wasn't here or didn't criticise him.
Anyway, there have been far too many contretemps for a set of specific
apologies even if one or other felt inclined. I don't.
Richardson can behave more collegially if he wishes, and accept initial
criticisms graciously or argue against these rationally if he can; then
there would still be vigorous exchanges, perhaps, but no more futile,
bitter rows between him and me.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
Hasn't the tap run dry on this subject? I guess it's killfile time.
Hal S.
>
-
Gordon Banks
Just and unjust insults
I don't want to direct this at Tim, whom I like a lot, but mention this
as something for all parties who have been squabbling here to consider:
Wouldn't we be better off if we didn't insult at all? Is it ever just
to insult someone, even if they insulted you first? Is it something
mature adults should be proud of doing? Amazingly, most of the insulting
is being done by people old enough to be grandparents!
Criticism of someone's scholarly work should not be seen as an insult,
although it can be rendered in a manner that is insulting (and common
has been here). Responding to criticism can be done without flinging
insults at the critic, even if the critic has been insulting. It is the
tit-for-tat philosophy that just keeps things unpleasantly going. I
realize that there are those here that probably find the one-upsmanship
insults very entertaining, but I'll bet if we took a poll most would
find it obnoxious. I apologize in advance if anyone feels offended by
this posting, it wasn't intended that way.
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 10:15 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
as something for all parties who have been squabbling here to consider:
Wouldn't we be better off if we didn't insult at all? Is it ever just
to insult someone, even if they insulted you first? Is it something
mature adults should be proud of doing? Amazingly, most of the insulting
is being done by people old enough to be grandparents!
Criticism of someone's scholarly work should not be seen as an insult,
although it can be rendered in a manner that is insulting (and common
has been here). Responding to criticism can be done without flinging
insults at the critic, even if the critic has been insulting. It is the
tit-for-tat philosophy that just keeps things unpleasantly going. I
realize that there are those here that probably find the one-upsmanship
insults very entertaining, but I'll bet if we took a poll most would
find it obnoxious. I apologize in advance if anyone feels offended by
this posting, it wasn't intended that way.
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 10:15 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
If I was to say that I apologised profusely to everyone that I unjustly
insulted, would that do? Or would it be some humbug because I did not
think that I had insulted anyone unjustly? Similarly for other
jesuitical apologies by other people.
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
This guy told us he was until recently the news editor of a large
metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
"Hal S." <h.sanders@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cbOdnYO2eNVW8nvfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
<baldersnip>
metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
"Hal S." <h.sanders@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cbOdnYO2eNVW8nvfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
<baldersnip>
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Just and unjust insults
Comments interspersed:
Gordon Banks wrote:
Yes.
Of course it is - on your own view of justification you do this
yourself below. You also have a history and literature that are full of
memorable insults, some gross and some grand. Look into any dictionary
of quotations to seee how effective these can be.
In this case several people have been chastened into apologies, that
would never have been necessary without insults in the first place but
would never have been achieved without more of the same. If all of us
applied saccharine to our tongues and swallowed them, would SGM readers
be any better informed? Any more entertained? No, they would just be
not as much challenged & inconvenienced, on the whole getting less for
less.
So here we have it: you can reflect rhetorically & insultingly on the
maturity of others with impunity, because you are complaining that they
insult each other and it goes without saying you are better than
them....
It never ceases to amaze me that when a thread full of vituperation
about hypocrisy and stupidity is in its last throes, someone will bob
up to advertise that he or she has a share of these too, and needs to
put it on the record.
Hal S. has finally twigged that he doesn't have to read every message,
and since he very much dislikes off-topic posts he makes one of his own
to tell us this. Gordon wants us all to know that he is above juvenile
insults, so he settles for the most facile one of all.
Now you are implying that everyone should either hold everyone else in
respect, or pretend that they do. I am not a dissembler, and I don't
wish any opponent of my views to be so.
Again the assumption that there must be moral and/or intellectual
equivalence in the to-and-fro, which you haven't substantiated. Just
because you tune into some nasty exchanges & the tone upsets your own
equilibrium, this doesn't meant that both sides are identically at
fault.
Does it not occur to you that the participants might also find it
obnoxious? Only perhaps a little more so to be told by someone who
doesn't even know you that you have, for instance, "criminally
defrauded" your mother, that you are posting dishonestly under an
alias, or that you are a "charlatan and a fraud" for looking up the
standard dictionary for possible definitions of a word?
Not much thought seems to have gone into it at all.
If you, Todd Farmerie and others wish to project bland, bourgeois
values onto the newsgroup's discussions, on the basis of facile and
sanctimonious judgements, by all means continue to do so - though you
might be better off forming a moderated forum for yourselves elsewhere.
Even Hines and Brandon are capable of performing a real service for
SGM, by attempting to prick bubbles of pomposity and absurdity where
they perceive these. I don't often agree with their opinions, though
occasionally both of them make points that I was thinking too or that
strike me as right. When I am not interested in whatever they are
pursuing, I switch off and don't read their posts. This is not at all
difficult to manage.
Richardson doesn't have much sense of humour, but he can & does plod
his way to some useful results by going over material that has been
neglected by others. When he stumbles into the vastness of unknown
territory, when he makes some forced or unforced error and refuses to
accept any correction, the problems start again & soon escalate.
Sometimes even he is doing his best to maintain a position that he
genuinely believes in. The extent of his work and the persistence he
shows in sticking to it have earned him some indulgence from this group
for the problems that he causes or exacerbates. Only not for
falsehoods, ever.
Peter Stewart
Gordon Banks wrote:
I don't want to direct this at Tim, whom I like a lot, but mention
this as something for all parties who have been squabbling here
to consider: Wouldn't we be better off if we didn't insult at all?
Yes.
Is it ever just to insult someone, even if they insulted you first?
Of course it is - on your own view of justification you do this
yourself below. You also have a history and literature that are full of
memorable insults, some gross and some grand. Look into any dictionary
of quotations to seee how effective these can be.
In this case several people have been chastened into apologies, that
would never have been necessary without insults in the first place but
would never have been achieved without more of the same. If all of us
applied saccharine to our tongues and swallowed them, would SGM readers
be any better informed? Any more entertained? No, they would just be
not as much challenged & inconvenienced, on the whole getting less for
less.
Is it something mature adults should be proud of doing? Amazingly,
most of the insulting is being done by people old enough to be
grandparents!
So here we have it: you can reflect rhetorically & insultingly on the
maturity of others with impunity, because you are complaining that they
insult each other and it goes without saying you are better than
them....
It never ceases to amaze me that when a thread full of vituperation
about hypocrisy and stupidity is in its last throes, someone will bob
up to advertise that he or she has a share of these too, and needs to
put it on the record.
Hal S. has finally twigged that he doesn't have to read every message,
and since he very much dislikes off-topic posts he makes one of his own
to tell us this. Gordon wants us all to know that he is above juvenile
insults, so he settles for the most facile one of all.
Criticism of someone's scholarly work should not be seen as an
insult, although it can be rendered in a manner that is insulting
(and common has been here).
Now you are implying that everyone should either hold everyone else in
respect, or pretend that they do. I am not a dissembler, and I don't
wish any opponent of my views to be so.
Responding to criticism can be done without flinging insults at
the critic, even if the critic has been insulting. It is the
tit-for-tat philosophy that just keeps things unpleasantly going.
Again the assumption that there must be moral and/or intellectual
equivalence in the to-and-fro, which you haven't substantiated. Just
because you tune into some nasty exchanges & the tone upsets your own
equilibrium, this doesn't meant that both sides are identically at
fault.
I realize that there are those here that probably find the one-upsmanship
insults very entertaining, but I'll bet if we took a poll most would find it
obnoxious.
Does it not occur to you that the participants might also find it
obnoxious? Only perhaps a little more so to be told by someone who
doesn't even know you that you have, for instance, "criminally
defrauded" your mother, that you are posting dishonestly under an
alias, or that you are a "charlatan and a fraud" for looking up the
standard dictionary for possible definitions of a word?
I apologize in advance if anyone feels offended by this posting,
it wasn't intended that way.
Not much thought seems to have gone into it at all.
If you, Todd Farmerie and others wish to project bland, bourgeois
values onto the newsgroup's discussions, on the basis of facile and
sanctimonious judgements, by all means continue to do so - though you
might be better off forming a moderated forum for yourselves elsewhere.
Even Hines and Brandon are capable of performing a real service for
SGM, by attempting to prick bubbles of pomposity and absurdity where
they perceive these. I don't often agree with their opinions, though
occasionally both of them make points that I was thinking too or that
strike me as right. When I am not interested in whatever they are
pursuing, I switch off and don't read their posts. This is not at all
difficult to manage.
Richardson doesn't have much sense of humour, but he can & does plod
his way to some useful results by going over material that has been
neglected by others. When he stumbles into the vastness of unknown
territory, when he makes some forced or unforced error and refuses to
accept any correction, the problems start again & soon escalate.
Sometimes even he is doing his best to maintain a position that he
genuinely believes in. The extent of his work and the persistence he
shows in sticking to it have earned him some indulgence from this group
for the problems that he causes or exacerbates. Only not for
falsehoods, ever.
Peter Stewart
-
Hal S.
Re: My Apology To Leo
Really Mr. Hines: With your track record and your foolish droolings spread
from one end of the Net to the other, why should I give you any more
information? You asked for info, and that is all I'm going to give you.
Who said anything about "respect?" I couldn't care less if you respect me
or not. Call me a fraud if you want, but coming from you, I'll wear it as a
badge of honor.
Hal S.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4EwFe.22$_d1.328@eagle.america.net...
from one end of the Net to the other, why should I give you any more
information? You asked for info, and that is all I'm going to give you.
Who said anything about "respect?" I couldn't care less if you respect me
or not. Call me a fraud if you want, but coming from you, I'll wear it as a
badge of honor.
Hal S.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4EwFe.22$_d1.328@eagle.america.net...
This guy told us he was until recently the news editor of a large
metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
"Hal S." <h.sanders@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cbOdnYO2eNVW8nvfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
baldersnip
-
Gjest
Re: My Apology To Leo
Whereas, I guess, posting as "The Duke of Argyll" is just good fun?
Adrian
DHS wrote,
This guy told us he was until recently the news editor of a large
metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
"Hal S." <h.sanders@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cbOdnYO2eNVW8nvfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
<baldersnip>
Adrian
DHS wrote,
This guy told us he was until recently the news editor of a large
metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
"Hal S." <h.sanders@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cbOdnYO2eNVW8nvfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
<baldersnip>
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
This guy "Hal S." told us he was until recently the news editor of a
large metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
| Whereas, I guess, posting as "The Duke of Argyll" is just good fun?
|
| Adrian Channing
-----------------------------
Not in the least.
I don't approve of that either.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
large metropolitan newspaper.
He wants us to RESPECT him because of that -- with no further
information.
Yet he won't tell us the NAME of the newspaper -- so he appears to be
just another fraud, looking to strike a pose on USENET.
Any competent newspaperman should know you can't get away with that.
Be Advised.
DSH
| Whereas, I guess, posting as "The Duke of Argyll" is just good fun?
|
| Adrian Channing
-----------------------------
Not in the least.
I don't approve of that either.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
Hilarious!
Our provincial "news editor"-- "Hal S." has come a cropper.
He's frustrated because he can't keep up with the traffic here.
He also wants to spike stories [threads] -- but they don't STAY spiked.
That frustrates the hell out of him too.
Another fraudulent, two-bit journalist bites the dust. America has
thousands of them.
Many of them are bigger frauds than even Dan Rather -- which is why the
circulation of many newspapers keeps falling off across the Nation --
except for the Really Good Ones -- such as the Wall Street Journal.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Our provincial "news editor"-- "Hal S." has come a cropper.
He's frustrated because he can't keep up with the traffic here.
He also wants to spike stories [threads] -- but they don't STAY spiked.
That frustrates the hell out of him too.
Another fraudulent, two-bit journalist bites the dust. America has
thousands of them.
Many of them are bigger frauds than even Dan Rather -- which is why the
circulation of many newspapers keeps falling off across the Nation --
except for the Really Good Ones -- such as the Wall Street Journal.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Hal S.
Re: My Apology To Leo
Mr. Hines:
First of all I'n not "our" anything. Also, as far as keeping up with the
traffic is concerned, that is a crock. You were run over long ago and have
been fetid road kill on the internet highway for many years. You asked me
where I worked. I didn't tell you since it is none of your business, and it
has nothing to do with gen med. You also asked if it was a left-wing or
right-wing paper, a question that is standard to your particular mindset.
Now please tell us the particulars of your "stellar" career in the U.S.
Navy -- years of service, highest rank attained, DoR, reason for separation,
etc.
If you want to strain that pea-sized brain of yours, you can go back to
several years ago when I did post once in a while. I caught flak from
others on the site because I foolishly defended your right to express your
opinions. That was before I realized you were merely a breying jack ass.
You mentioned newspaper criculation woes. The paper for which I worked as a
news editor is one of the handful in the largest 15 papers that have posted
gains in recent years.
Hal S.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xZBFe.51$_d1.398@eagle.america.net...
First of all I'n not "our" anything. Also, as far as keeping up with the
traffic is concerned, that is a crock. You were run over long ago and have
been fetid road kill on the internet highway for many years. You asked me
where I worked. I didn't tell you since it is none of your business, and it
has nothing to do with gen med. You also asked if it was a left-wing or
right-wing paper, a question that is standard to your particular mindset.
Now please tell us the particulars of your "stellar" career in the U.S.
Navy -- years of service, highest rank attained, DoR, reason for separation,
etc.
If you want to strain that pea-sized brain of yours, you can go back to
several years ago when I did post once in a while. I caught flak from
others on the site because I foolishly defended your right to express your
opinions. That was before I realized you were merely a breying jack ass.
You mentioned newspaper criculation woes. The paper for which I worked as a
news editor is one of the handful in the largest 15 papers that have posted
gains in recent years.
Hal S.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xZBFe.51$_d1.398@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Our provincial "news editor"-- "Hal S." has come a cropper.
He's frustrated because he can't keep up with the traffic here.
He also wants to spike stories [threads] -- but they don't STAY spiked.
That frustrates the hell out of him too.
Another fraudulent, two-bit journalist bites the dust. America has
thousands of them.
Many of them are bigger frauds than even Dan Rather -- which is why the
circulation of many newspapers keeps falling off across the Nation --
except for the Really Good Ones -- such as the Wall Street Journal.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
John Brandon
Re: My Apology To Leo
Get that man a copy editor -- someone who can write and spell standard
English!
He probably leaves all that to lowly sub-editors (shades of Peter "let
them eat cake" Stewart) ---
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My Apology To Leo
Hilarious!
So "Hal S." [Sanders] may well have been forced out as the "news editor"
at his newspaper.
Not surprising in the least....
The poor, ignorant, stultified bloke can't even spell BRAYING....or
JACKASS -- two words of self description for him.
"breying [sic] jack ass. [sic]
"Hal S."
------------------------
Get that man a copy editor -- someone who can write and spell standard
English!
Hilarious!
Yep, "Hal S." is a jackass indeed.
Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
KAWHOMP!!!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
So "Hal S." [Sanders] may well have been forced out as the "news editor"
at his newspaper.
Not surprising in the least....
The poor, ignorant, stultified bloke can't even spell BRAYING....or
JACKASS -- two words of self description for him.
"breying [sic] jack ass. [sic]
"Hal S."
------------------------
Get that man a copy editor -- someone who can write and spell standard
English!
Hilarious!
Yep, "Hal S." is a jackass indeed.
Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
KAWHOMP!!!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: My Apology To Leo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n3RFe.97$_d1.413@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
<snip>
Get that man a Latin teacher - somone who can teach him why commas do NOT
belong between verb and object in the simplest phrase, as well as the
conventional order of the parts of speech, and who can impress on him that
"et" is NOT repeated as above in literate usage.
Peter Stewart
news:n3RFe.97$_d1.413@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Get that man a copy editor -- someone who can write and spell standard
English!
<snip>
Hoist With His Own Petar!
KAWHOMP!!!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi, Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Get that man a Latin teacher - somone who can teach him why commas do NOT
belong between verb and object in the simplest phrase, as well as the
conventional order of the parts of speech, and who can impress on him that
"et" is NOT repeated as above in literate usage.
Peter Stewart
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Just and unjust insults
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:54 -0700, Peter Stewart wrote:
Effective to what end? Causing wars, fatwahs, fighting of duels? In
the era under discussion here, getting Richard I held for ransom that
almost ruined England financially was an effect. Maybe it's effective
in making for a clever quotation, but what good came out of it? Maybe
you could provide me with an example or two where it really did some
good.
You seem to think it is phony and saccharine to try to be civil. What
good has come out of applying nasty names to people like "charlatan" and
"sock puppet?" What good has it done to bring up someone's head injury,
interest in UFOs, losing money on horses, health problems, "low"
academic status, etc? Did people apologize because they were chastened
by their opponent's insults or because they finally felt guilty for
taking part in the mudfest?
<ad hominems snipped>
I don't agree with your views, but I do hold you in respect, which I
think is important if we are to be civilized. So if I disagree with
you, I need to think up some clever way to insult your character in
order to argue with you?
<snip>
It has occurred to me, although I think there are certain people here
who make gratuitous insults with almost every post, and are enjoying it
immensely. But, no, you often don't seem to be enjoying it. But, as I
said before, I think you would enjoy this group more if you didn't give
them the pleasure of seeing you getting riled up, but you have already
told me you reject that advice.
Gosh, you are good at packing in the maximum number of insulting terms
into one sentence. I don't consider myself very qualified to moderate
such a group. Were I retired, I might still consider it. Todd is
certainly very qualified, but I doubt he has time either. Also, this
group has momentum. Starting a new group from scratch when there is
already one is hard, although I think if we did, we'd have a chance at
getting people like Paul Reed back into it. And if this group continues
to drive out people like him or make people like Nat Taylor, David
Greene, or John Parsons feel less inclined to participate because of the
nastiness, then eventually perhaps it would be better to try to start
over. But would you participate, given the possibility of having one of
your posts rejected? I kinda doubt it.
You may not value the loss of those participants who would be posting
here were the atmosphere more congenial. There have been studies on
Internet groups that show that frequent aggressive flame wars inhibit
many people from taking part in Internet discussions, especially women.
Of course, we can't see what exactly we are losing, because those people
aren't here, or just lurk.
<snip>
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
You also have a history and literature that are full of
memorable insults, some gross and some grand. Look into any dictionary
of quotations to seee how effective these can be.
Effective to what end? Causing wars, fatwahs, fighting of duels? In
the era under discussion here, getting Richard I held for ransom that
almost ruined England financially was an effect. Maybe it's effective
in making for a clever quotation, but what good came out of it? Maybe
you could provide me with an example or two where it really did some
good.
In this case several people have been chastened into apologies, that
would never have been necessary without insults in the first place but
would never have been achieved without more of the same. If all of us
applied saccharine to our tongues and swallowed them, would SGM readers
be any better informed? Any more entertained? No, they would just be
not as much challenged & inconvenienced, on the whole getting less for
less.
You seem to think it is phony and saccharine to try to be civil. What
good has come out of applying nasty names to people like "charlatan" and
"sock puppet?" What good has it done to bring up someone's head injury,
interest in UFOs, losing money on horses, health problems, "low"
academic status, etc? Did people apologize because they were chastened
by their opponent's insults or because they finally felt guilty for
taking part in the mudfest?
<ad hominems snipped>
Now you are implying that everyone should either hold everyone else in
respect, or pretend that they do. I am not a dissembler, and I don't
wish any opponent of my views to be so.
I don't agree with your views, but I do hold you in respect, which I
think is important if we are to be civilized. So if I disagree with
you, I need to think up some clever way to insult your character in
order to argue with you?
<snip>
I realize that there are those here that probably find the one-upsmanship
insults very entertaining, but I'll bet if we took a poll most would find it
obnoxious.
Does it not occur to you that the participants might also find it
obnoxious? Only perhaps a little more so to be told by someone who
doesn't even know you that you have, for instance, "criminally
defrauded" your mother, that you are posting dishonestly under an
alias, or that you are a "charlatan and a fraud" for looking up the
standard dictionary for possible definitions of a word?
It has occurred to me, although I think there are certain people here
who make gratuitous insults with almost every post, and are enjoying it
immensely. But, no, you often don't seem to be enjoying it. But, as I
said before, I think you would enjoy this group more if you didn't give
them the pleasure of seeing you getting riled up, but you have already
told me you reject that advice.
If you, Todd Farmerie and others wish to project bland, bourgeois
values onto the newsgroup's discussions, on the basis of facile and
sanctimonious judgements, by all means continue to do so - though you
might be better off forming a moderated forum for yourselves elsewhere.
Gosh, you are good at packing in the maximum number of insulting terms
into one sentence. I don't consider myself very qualified to moderate
such a group. Were I retired, I might still consider it. Todd is
certainly very qualified, but I doubt he has time either. Also, this
group has momentum. Starting a new group from scratch when there is
already one is hard, although I think if we did, we'd have a chance at
getting people like Paul Reed back into it. And if this group continues
to drive out people like him or make people like Nat Taylor, David
Greene, or John Parsons feel less inclined to participate because of the
nastiness, then eventually perhaps it would be better to try to start
over. But would you participate, given the possibility of having one of
your posts rejected? I kinda doubt it.
You may not value the loss of those participants who would be posting
here were the atmosphere more congenial. There have been studies on
Internet groups that show that frequent aggressive flame wars inhibit
many people from taking part in Internet discussions, especially women.
Of course, we can't see what exactly we are losing, because those people
aren't here, or just lurk.
<snip>
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Just and unjust insults
Comments interspersed:
Gordon Banks wrote:
Effective in pointing out humbug, in saving others from being suckered
by deceit.
Try some of the insults directed by Abolitionists against the living
lie of people who maintained slavery in a nation constituted on the
"self-evident" truth that all were created equal. Or try some of the
resounding insults deliverd by Mark Twain against hypocrites in the
literary world & in public life.
If you want to go straight to the top, try the sublime insults in
Samuel Johnson's preface to his dictionary.
No, I didn't say that - there are plenty of civil exchanges between me
and Richardson, for instance, if you care to look for these. I am
saying that it is phoney to present a thin veneer of respect when the
interlocutor has treated you with contempt and/or has deserved this in
some other way.
Exposure of the truth.
As for the interest in UFOs, this is harmless nonsense and since
Richardson is the one who always starts demanding information about
people's activities off-list, his own are fair game.
The apologies that came were for specific past offenses and responses
to these, not for the insults actually happening in the threads under
discussion.
NO, what you snipped were NOT "ad hominem" at all. This precisely
underlines my point about the sanctimonious - and now false - nature of
your comments.
The remarks of mine that you are wrongly characterising were directed
squarely at what you and Hal S. had posted - "ad hominem" is well
defined in wikpedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) where
you can learn its meaning, as follows: "a logical fallacy that involves
replying to an argument by addressing the person presenting the
argument as a basis for the argument being incorrect, as opposed to
pointing out a flaw in the argument." I pointed out a flaw in your
argument.
If you wish to maintain that I have tried to counter an argument by
addressing the person presenting it rather than what was said, show us
examples. But think first. Todd Farmerie, for instance, inaccurately
tried to suggest that I was "shameless" in some recent comments that
were directed at exposing the HYPOCRISY of another poster, based
entirely on the inconsistency between what had been posted and what was
known or not known about the individuals concerned. The offense I was
objecting to was certainly "ad hominem", except that it didn't relate
in any way to the man on the receiving end of the accusation and was
rather a reflection of the accuser's hypocrisy.
If I had said "X is wrong about me because he pulls wings off insects",
that would be "ad hominem". If I say X is a liar because he is making
false assertions about me, and a damned fool for trying this becasue
the boot is on the other foot, that is NOT "ad hominem" unless X has
NOT said anything of the kind and I am wrong about his hypocrisy. Have
you, or has someone else, established this about my comments on recent
posts, including yours?
Of course not - if you disagree with me, you have only to say so. If
you do this cogently, I will respond in kind. One of us may be wrong,
or we may simply hold incompatible opinions that can't be classified as
either right or wrong, but only personal.
If however someone chooses to make false insinuations about a
"criminal" past on my part, or about my alleged sexuality and imagined
pretense about this, or about the supposed dishonesty of my procedure
in checking a dictionary for the meaning of a word, I am entitled to
opine that that someone is a fool, and I am entitled to say so without
a further false assumption that I am arguing "ad hominem".
These people are so vapid and dumb that Brandon thinks it witty to
suggest there is a medication to improve spelling, or that someone else
can (& would bother to) imitate my writing! And calling this kind of
insipid squibbing for what it is must be regarded as "ad hominem"?
[I wrote:]
Gordon repiied:
You are making the same mistake that Richardson, Brandon and Hines fall
into, of supposing that I have to be "riled" in order to insult them
for stupid posts. I have been angry a few times at their low behaviour
to others, especially to Leo, and at least twice to myself - but apart
from that they are incapable of riling me with nonsense. I reply when I
choose and how I choose in order to register a protest on behalf of
truth and sense, not usually anger.
[I wrote:]
Gordon replied:
Four here, if you want to count them all: bland, bourgeois, facile and
sanctimonious. These terms directly address the content of posts made
by Todd Farmerie and yourself, in an argument against the
self-satisfied prejudice represented in these as I see it. If you
disagree, you might tell us why your views are not fairly assessed by
me - but simply deflecting this by a comment about my writing ability
or otherwise is perilously close to "ad hominem".
Why not, if all that is needed is to recognise incivility and bar it?
You are kinda wrong. I would be willing to participate in a moderated
group, if this were done impartially, as then I and other readers would
not be subjected to the abuse that provokes insults in the first place.
Annie was an inveterate flamer, if you remember her. People have
nothing to fear from unjust flaming if they come here with genuine
enquiries and thoughtful opinions that they are ready to substantiate.
For every unjust flamer there is a defender too - the lesson that needs
to be understood from recent threads is that the offenders WILL NOT get
away with their insolence to the newsgroup, their misrepresentations of
their own skills or their lies about other participants.
Complaints from the bleachers won't stop that.
Peter Stewart
Gordon Banks wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:54 -0700, Peter Stewart wrote:
You also have a history and literature that are full of
memorable insults, some gross and some grand. Look
into any dictionary of quotations to seee how effective
these can be.
Effective to what end? Causing wars, fatwahs, fighting of duels? In
the era under discussion here, getting Richard I held for ransom that
almost ruined England financially was an effect. Maybe it's effective
in making for a clever quotation, but what good came out of it?
Effective in pointing out humbug, in saving others from being suckered
by deceit.
Maybe you could provide me with an example or two where it really
did some good.
Try some of the insults directed by Abolitionists against the living
lie of people who maintained slavery in a nation constituted on the
"self-evident" truth that all were created equal. Or try some of the
resounding insults deliverd by Mark Twain against hypocrites in the
literary world & in public life.
If you want to go straight to the top, try the sublime insults in
Samuel Johnson's preface to his dictionary.
You seem to think it is phony and saccharine to try to be civil.
No, I didn't say that - there are plenty of civil exchanges between me
and Richardson, for instance, if you care to look for these. I am
saying that it is phoney to present a thin veneer of respect when the
interlocutor has treated you with contempt and/or has deserved this in
some other way.
What good has come out of applying nasty names to people like
"charlatan" and "sock puppet?"
Exposure of the truth.
What good has it done to bring up someone's head injury,
interest in UFOs, losing money on horses, health problems, "low"
academic status, etc? Did people apologize because they were
chastened by their opponent's insults or because they finally felt
guilty for taking part in the mudfest?
As for the interest in UFOs, this is harmless nonsense and since
Richardson is the one who always starts demanding information about
people's activities off-list, his own are fair game.
The apologies that came were for specific past offenses and responses
to these, not for the insults actually happening in the threads under
discussion.
ad hominems snipped
NO, what you snipped were NOT "ad hominem" at all. This precisely
underlines my point about the sanctimonious - and now false - nature of
your comments.
The remarks of mine that you are wrongly characterising were directed
squarely at what you and Hal S. had posted - "ad hominem" is well
defined in wikpedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) where
you can learn its meaning, as follows: "a logical fallacy that involves
replying to an argument by addressing the person presenting the
argument as a basis for the argument being incorrect, as opposed to
pointing out a flaw in the argument." I pointed out a flaw in your
argument.
If you wish to maintain that I have tried to counter an argument by
addressing the person presenting it rather than what was said, show us
examples. But think first. Todd Farmerie, for instance, inaccurately
tried to suggest that I was "shameless" in some recent comments that
were directed at exposing the HYPOCRISY of another poster, based
entirely on the inconsistency between what had been posted and what was
known or not known about the individuals concerned. The offense I was
objecting to was certainly "ad hominem", except that it didn't relate
in any way to the man on the receiving end of the accusation and was
rather a reflection of the accuser's hypocrisy.
If I had said "X is wrong about me because he pulls wings off insects",
that would be "ad hominem". If I say X is a liar because he is making
false assertions about me, and a damned fool for trying this becasue
the boot is on the other foot, that is NOT "ad hominem" unless X has
NOT said anything of the kind and I am wrong about his hypocrisy. Have
you, or has someone else, established this about my comments on recent
posts, including yours?
I don't agree with your views, but I do hold you in respect, which I
think is important if we are to be civilized. So if I disagree with
you, I need to think up some clever way to insult your character in
order to argue with you?
Of course not - if you disagree with me, you have only to say so. If
you do this cogently, I will respond in kind. One of us may be wrong,
or we may simply hold incompatible opinions that can't be classified as
either right or wrong, but only personal.
If however someone chooses to make false insinuations about a
"criminal" past on my part, or about my alleged sexuality and imagined
pretense about this, or about the supposed dishonesty of my procedure
in checking a dictionary for the meaning of a word, I am entitled to
opine that that someone is a fool, and I am entitled to say so without
a further false assumption that I am arguing "ad hominem".
These people are so vapid and dumb that Brandon thinks it witty to
suggest there is a medication to improve spelling, or that someone else
can (& would bother to) imitate my writing! And calling this kind of
insipid squibbing for what it is must be regarded as "ad hominem"?
[I wrote:]
Does it not occur to you that the participants might also find it
obnoxious? Only perhaps a little more so to be told by someone who
doesn't even know you that you have, for instance, "criminally
defrauded" your mother, that you are posting dishonestly under an
alias, or that you are a "charlatan and a fraud" for looking up the
standard dictionary for possible definitions of a word?
Gordon repiied:
It has occurred to me, although I think there are certain people here
who make gratuitous insults with almost every post, and are enjoying it
immensely. But, no, you often don't seem to be enjoying it. But, as I
said before, I think you would enjoy this group more if you didn't give
them the pleasure of seeing you getting riled up, but you have already
told me you reject that advice.
You are making the same mistake that Richardson, Brandon and Hines fall
into, of supposing that I have to be "riled" in order to insult them
for stupid posts. I have been angry a few times at their low behaviour
to others, especially to Leo, and at least twice to myself - but apart
from that they are incapable of riling me with nonsense. I reply when I
choose and how I choose in order to register a protest on behalf of
truth and sense, not usually anger.
[I wrote:]
If you, Todd Farmerie and others wish to project bland, bourgeois
values onto the newsgroup's discussions, on the basis of facile and
sanctimonious judgements, by all means continue to do so - though you
might be better off forming a moderated forum for yourselves elsewhere.
Gordon replied:
Gosh, you are good at packing in the maximum number of insulting terms
into one sentence.
Four here, if you want to count them all: bland, bourgeois, facile and
sanctimonious. These terms directly address the content of posts made
by Todd Farmerie and yourself, in an argument against the
self-satisfied prejudice represented in these as I see it. If you
disagree, you might tell us why your views are not fairly assessed by
me - but simply deflecting this by a comment about my writing ability
or otherwise is perilously close to "ad hominem".
I don't consider myself very qualified to moderate
such a group.
Why not, if all that is needed is to recognise incivility and bar it?
Were I retired, I might still consider it. Todd is certainly very
qualified, but I doubt he has time either. Also, this group has
momentum. Starting a new group from scratch when there is
already one is hard, although I think if we did, we'd have a chance
at getting people like Paul Reed back into it. And if this group
continues to drive out people like him or make people like Nat
Taylor, David Greene, or John Parsons feel less inclined to
participate because of the nastiness, then eventually perhaps it
would be better to try to start over. But would you participate,
given the possibility of having one of your posts rejected? I kinda
doubt it.
You are kinda wrong. I would be willing to participate in a moderated
group, if this were done impartially, as then I and other readers would
not be subjected to the abuse that provokes insults in the first place.
You may not value the loss of those participants who would be posting
here were the atmosphere more congenial. There have been studies on
Internet groups that show that frequent aggressive flame wars inhibit
many people from taking part in Internet discussions, especially women.
Of course, we can't see what exactly we are losing, because those people
aren't here, or just lurk.
Annie was an inveterate flamer, if you remember her. People have
nothing to fear from unjust flaming if they come here with genuine
enquiries and thoughtful opinions that they are ready to substantiate.
For every unjust flamer there is a defender too - the lesson that needs
to be understood from recent threads is that the offenders WILL NOT get
away with their insolence to the newsgroup, their misrepresentations of
their own skills or their lies about other participants.
Complaints from the bleachers won't stop that.
Peter Stewart
-
R. Battle
Re: Just and unjust insults (OT)
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
My favorite insult in literature is rather earlier: one of Job's replies
to his would-be comforters - "Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom
will die with you" (Job 12:2)
-Robert Battle
<snip>
If you want to go straight to the top, try the sublime insults in
Samuel Johnson's preface to his dictionary.
snip
My favorite insult in literature is rather earlier: one of Job's replies
to his would-be comforters - "Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom
will die with you" (Job 12:2)
-Robert Battle
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Just and unjust insults (OT)
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0507282016330.168674@dante68.u.washington.edu...
Yes, Johnson is not alone at the top - there is some wonderful rudeness &
sarcasm in the Bible, human & divine, and some of the latter in the Koran
too.
Peter Stewart
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0507282016330.168674@dante68.u.washington.edu...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
snip
If you want to go straight to the top, try the sublime insults in
Samuel Johnson's preface to his dictionary.
snip
My favorite insult in literature is rather earlier: one of Job's replies
to his would-be comforters - "Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom
will die with you" (Job 12:2)
Yes, Johnson is not alone at the top - there is some wonderful rudeness &
sarcasm in the Bible, human & divine, and some of the latter in the Koran
too.
Peter Stewart
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Just and unjust insults
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 17:51 -0700, Peter Stewart wrote:
I'm not sure the Abolitionists' insults were what effected that change.
It took a bloody war.
I do appreciate Mark Twain, but his were not really done in a personal
manner, but more as a literary and social critic. Of course,
politicians, who were often the target, have to expect to get these
kinds of insults. I enjoy insulting politicians myself, but if I were
speaking to them directly in a newsgroup, I probably would still not do
it there.
I know you have had civil exchanges. Those have been more productive
than the shouting matches, in my view. Again, I'm not saying you've
been the only one here doing the insulting.
I think it makes people less likely to accept your arguments, believing
them to be prompted by the emotion of the feud.
You made some comments about my character as feeling superior to others
because I don't stoop to insults, etc., etc. I consider that ad hominem
or at least, irrelevant because you can't know my internal state and I
don't care to respond to arguments like that. I did respond to those
arguments you made about effects of insults.
You would only be arguing ad hominem if you attempted to counter their
arguments with similar insults. But in my view, ignoring such stupid
arguments is the best policy, as I have said before and you have
disagreed with. Save your time and energy for serious discussions with
people who will engage rationally, not just emotionally.
If you say so. I have also found it sad about how Leo has been
attacked. He seems to be a genuinely nice person and isn't really the
type of person capable of holding his own in an insult-fest.
That isn't the only thing that is needed.
Well, that makes me more likely to want to see such a group started.
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
Comments interspersed:
Gordon Banks wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:54 -0700, Peter Stewart wrote:
You also have a history and literature that are full of
memorable insults, some gross and some grand. Look
into any dictionary of quotations to seee how effective
these can be.
Effective to what end? Causing wars, fatwahs, fighting of duels? In
the era under discussion here, getting Richard I held for ransom that
almost ruined England financially was an effect. Maybe it's effective
in making for a clever quotation, but what good came out of it?
Effective in pointing out humbug, in saving others from being suckered
by deceit.
Maybe you could provide me with an example or two where it really
did some good.
Try some of the insults directed by Abolitionists against the living
lie of people who maintained slavery in a nation constituted on the
"self-evident" truth that all were created equal. Or try some of the
resounding insults deliverd by Mark Twain against hypocrites in the
literary world & in public life.
I'm not sure the Abolitionists' insults were what effected that change.
It took a bloody war.
I do appreciate Mark Twain, but his were not really done in a personal
manner, but more as a literary and social critic. Of course,
politicians, who were often the target, have to expect to get these
kinds of insults. I enjoy insulting politicians myself, but if I were
speaking to them directly in a newsgroup, I probably would still not do
it there.
You seem to think it is phony and saccharine to try to be civil.
No, I didn't say that - there are plenty of civil exchanges between me
and Richardson, for instance, if you care to look for these. I am
saying that it is phoney to present a thin veneer of respect when the
interlocutor has treated you with contempt and/or has deserved this in
some other way.
I know you have had civil exchanges. Those have been more productive
than the shouting matches, in my view. Again, I'm not saying you've
been the only one here doing the insulting.
What good has come out of applying nasty names to people like
"charlatan" and "sock puppet?"
Exposure of the truth.
I think it makes people less likely to accept your arguments, believing
them to be prompted by the emotion of the feud.
What good has it done to bring up someone's head injury,
interest in UFOs, losing money on horses, health problems, "low"
academic status, etc? Did people apologize because they were
chastened by their opponent's insults or because they finally felt
guilty for taking part in the mudfest?
As for the interest in UFOs, this is harmless nonsense and since
Richardson is the one who always starts demanding information about
people's activities off-list, his own are fair game.
The apologies that came were for specific past offenses and responses
to these, not for the insults actually happening in the threads under
discussion.
ad hominems snipped
You made some comments about my character as feeling superior to others
because I don't stoop to insults, etc., etc. I consider that ad hominem
or at least, irrelevant because you can't know my internal state and I
don't care to respond to arguments like that. I did respond to those
arguments you made about effects of insults.
If however someone chooses to make false insinuations about a
"criminal" past on my part, or about my alleged sexuality and imagined
pretense about this, or about the supposed dishonesty of my procedure
in checking a dictionary for the meaning of a word, I am entitled to
opine that that someone is a fool, and I am entitled to say so without
a further false assumption that I am arguing "ad hominem".
These people are so vapid and dumb that Brandon thinks it witty to
suggest there is a medication to improve spelling, or that someone else
can (& would bother to) imitate my writing! And calling this kind of
insipid squibbing for what it is must be regarded as "ad hominem"?
You would only be arguing ad hominem if you attempted to counter their
arguments with similar insults. But in my view, ignoring such stupid
arguments is the best policy, as I have said before and you have
disagreed with. Save your time and energy for serious discussions with
people who will engage rationally, not just emotionally.
You are making the same mistake that Richardson, Brandon and Hines fall
into, of supposing that I have to be "riled" in order to insult them
for stupid posts. I have been angry a few times at their low behaviour
to others, especially to Leo, and at least twice to myself - but apart
from that they are incapable of riling me with nonsense. I reply when I
choose and how I choose in order to register a protest on behalf of
truth and sense, not usually anger.
If you say so. I have also found it sad about how Leo has been
attacked. He seems to be a genuinely nice person and isn't really the
type of person capable of holding his own in an insult-fest.
[I wrote:]
If you, Todd Farmerie and others wish to project bland, bourgeois
values onto the newsgroup's discussions, on the basis of facile and
sanctimonious judgements, by all means continue to do so - though you
might be better off forming a moderated forum for yourselves elsewhere.
..
I don't consider myself very qualified to moderate
such a group.
Why not, if all that is needed is to recognise incivility and bar it?
That isn't the only thing that is needed.
I would be willing to participate in a moderated
group, if this were done impartially, as then I and other readers would
not be subjected to the abuse that provokes insults in the first place.
Well, that makes me more likely to want to see such a group started.
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>