Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

"Ellen Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Please do not react.