Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2 Nov 2003 12:13:11 -0800:
> Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 1 Nov 2003 20:41:03
>> -0800:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DEDHeather94) wrote in message
>> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>> > I don't care what you think of me, to be honest. But all you've
>> > shown me is one-liner snideness and rudeness, and it doesn't help
>> > when you and the other regulars jump on and say "good one!", and "I
>> > told you so".

>> Ellen, I think you've been trolling, too.  Your technique is to get
>> into an argument with somebody and then wind them up by pretending to
>> address their points whilst actually evading them.  One or two posts
>> on, you then start feigning exasperation, attributing views to your
>> opponent which they've never propounded, and grossly distorting those
>> they have.  These techniques are in evidence in the quotes I've not
>> snipped.

> This is a particularly strange charge coming from you Alan. I had very
> lengthy and to-the-point discussions with you concerning FRAs,
> anonymity of rape accusers/accused, and the semantic question about
> what to call accusers vs alleged victims. Granted, we didn't agree, but
> I was very careful to refrain from misrepresenting what you said.

If so, you were a long way from being entirely successful.  

> Of course, short of poring endlessly over prior posts and quoting
> everything exactly as said, one is inevitably forced to paraphrase but
> I never intentionally reinterpreted what you said in a bad light. I
> never tried to turn you into an ogre, in contrast to the likes of
> Kolberg who routinely put highly offensive words in my mouth.

> I think that you are taking disagreements and innocent attempts to
> succinctly paraphrase your comments and turning them into something
> malicious. And to talk of someone who wrote very lengthy discussions
> about the topics into being a "troll" is a particularly odd charge.
> Are you just caught up in the "pile on" mentality that permeates the
> regulars on t.r.?

"Pile on" mentality?  That's not the way t.r. is.  Again, search google
to find out how newcomers are typically welcomed here.  You'll note how
I'm addressing you individually, not as part of a gang, and with
considerable courtesy, despite the topic.

>> The real give-away was admiting you were a scientific writer, which
>> implies you normally write clearly and accurately.  Yet you don't do
>> so here.

> I agree that you didn't like what I said. But I challenge you to read
> our discussions and still claim that I didn't make my points clearly.

Yes.  You made your own points with crystal clarity.  However, _my_
points you deluged with evasion, vagueness and distortion.  You're
intelligent and lucid enough that that can't've been accidental.  I do
actually believe you're a professional scientific writer - you write very
well.

There have been many occasions in this group where I've disliked and
disagreed with what people have written, and ended up in discussions.
But these people (look up "Misty" on google) have always argued sincerely
and honestly.

>> Actually, I think you troll very well indeed.  You manage to do so
>> without using swear words, which puts you a long way above the likes
>> of Bob and Sky King.  But why do you troll at all, rather than
>> engaging in sincere discussion?  What do you get out of it?

> .... By repeating the same charges over and over and over, we found
> ourselves readressing the exact same points over and over.  This is not
> only tedious for all, but it tends to make things more charged toward
> the end as we tire. I'm going to try to be better about deleting
> repeated assertions rather than just re-address them over and over.

Indeed so.  I could do with a touch more restraint myself on that point.

But Ellen, my dear, you've disappointed me by getting into bed with Sky
King.  You surely know that he has been consistently vulgar, inane, and
openly offensive in this group over the last couple of years.  Not all
his posts have been so, but a great proportion of them, certainly.  And
he can't even keep track of who's posted what.  [Notice in his reply to
me (which you followed up on), how he answers both Heather and me
indiscriminately.]  Is this really somebody you want as a running mate?

I'm actually surprised (or maybe I'm not) that SK has fallen for it.  He
and his mates from soc.men are continually going on about being cynically
used by women, yet doesn't seem to suspect that that's you're up to.

And all this patronising stuff about "being interested in the sociology
of the group".  Give us a break!

I've had another look at our previous exchanges, and all your outrage and
exasperation looks syrupy, not sincere.  I've done enough light trolling
myself to know what it's about.  You've managed to pick fights with just
about every regular here.  Why?

I've now no doubt at all that you were trolling me.  No hard feelings, no
harm done.  But why?  I suspect you won't get much of a rise out of
talk.rape any more, so you'd do better looking for a different group if
you want to carry on.  On the other hand, why not talk to us sincerely
instead?  We're a pretty forgiving and understanding lot, really. 

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").