Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2 Nov 2003 12:13:11 -0800:
> > Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>  
> > 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.  

I doubt that I was, since I was being careful. I think it is at least
equally likely that you were being hypersensitive.

> > 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.

I'm not talking about you this time.

> >> 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.

I don't understand. Why is it my job to make your points? I thought
that is what you were paid to do. I did paraphrase you occasionally
and made very earnest efforts to represent your statements accurately.
If I didn't succeed, I apologize. See above- I believe that if you
feel that I misrepresented you, it is at least equally likely that
that perception reflects your hypersentivity as me being careless.

Since that last point was a repetition, I will be sure not to address
it again if I see it below. Nothing personal.

> 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.

Is that an implication that I haven't? If not, why say that?

> >> 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?
>  

> 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 know that I entered into a raging debate of not very impressive
quality between warring camps. I haven't seen anything to make me
believe that Heather, Cele and a couple of the others are better than
SK. SK had little to say to me, but Heather and Cele and a couple of
their fans piled on me with personal slurs while offering no visible
evidence that they are capable of useful dialog.

Given what I've actually seen here, were you me, who would *you* side
with, if anyone?

Right. I haven't actually sided with anyone, but at some level the old
saying is true: the enemy of a super-rude idiot is my friend. At some
level, anyway.

> 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!

What if it happens to be true? It is true, actually. Are you saying
that you're not interested in who posts what and why?

(Note: not a misrepresentation of your point. Just a question. Is this
an example of "misrepresenting" you?)

> 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?
> 
This is where you go wrong, and repeatedly (thanks for the reminder).
You've once again attempted to "read between the lines" regarding
something I've said to divine something that I didn't write. You've
decided whether I am "syrupy" or "sincere" based not upon what I
wrote, but what you think I am thinking. That's nonsense.

Big mistake.

To protest this, I will hereby refrain from engaging in any more
discussions with you ending today for ~2 weeks (I'll just say that
applies until at least mid-November).

I don't "pick fights" but I do defend myself. If you bother to look
through the history you'll find that I've never (at least for many,
many months past) ever started the slurs and insults. Quite the
contrary. No matter *how* idiotic I happen to think a post might be, I
never jump in de novo with an insult. I do react (sometimes) when
someone attacks me, the exception being if someone is a complete
cretin, I will simply ignore them.

That said, I couldn't care less if I get in a "fight" with everyone on
t.r. or any other ng. Guaranteed there is no one on earth who holds
the exact opinions that I hold to a tee, so why try to agree with
everyone?

> 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.

You must have some super-sensitive definition of "trolling". I will do
the following: make strong, aggressive statements regarding my
opinions about subjects, even some statements that might be expected
to provoke a response. Some, but by no means all of these opinions put
me in a decidedly minority position, sometimes especially so for a
woman.

My opinion follows: If you're not going to do at least that, why
bother posting? If you have "me too" opinions about everything, other
people are already covering that which you believe, so why bother
joining them?

What distinguishes me from a troll is that I'll back up what I say at
length. I don't believe that digging up a mountain of meaningless WWW
"support" for one's opinions gives one greater credibility, but I will
dig up facts that could be in dispute if I don't "prove" them.

Very un-troll like activities. At least to my definition. 

And in the end, I'm satisfied only when I satisfy myself.