Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:16:38 +0000, Alan
Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>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. 


Typical condescending response....insuating that she need forgiving or
understanding from you or anyone here.