Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 3 Nov 2003 16:37:12 -0800:
> 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've noticed the care you take for some time now.

> I think it is at least equally likely that you were being
> hypersensitive.

I don't think so, somehow.  Otherwise I'd not have been posting here for
over four years.

[ .... ]

>> >> 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.

This last paragraph of yours is a prime example of your tactics.  It's a
distortion and an evasion.  You'll be aware that I never suggested you
should make my points for me.  Only that you should _address_ my points,
discuss them, disagree (or even agree) with them, counter them.  But
_NOT_ use rhetorical tricks to evade and distort them.

>> 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.

Hmmm.  Who's being hypersensitive now?  The two posters you mention are
capable of excellent dialogue, and you don't have to search at all far to
find it.  Both have responded in kind to Sky's continual vulgarity,
something I question the wisdom of.  But it was most assuredly Sky who
initiated the unpleasantness.

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

Well, I'm not quite sure exactly how much you have seen, but making
reasonable assumptions, if I were to side with anybody, it'd be with
Laurie, Neil, Cele, Heather, John and the other intelligent regulars.

[ .... ]

>> 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?

Should it happen to be true (which is likely enough), you could have had
the decency to phrase it in a way unlike Dr. Goodall talking about
chimpanzees.  She is not herself a chimpanzee.  You, however, are just
Yet Another Usenet poster.

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

No, not this one.  See above for such an example.

>> 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.

No, I'm reporting my impressions.  About those, I'm absolutely correct.
These are based on analysing what you wrote.  What you wrote seems
inconsistent with the words of an intelligent and sincere poster.

It's noticeable that you've made no effort to point out why my
impressions are mistaken, by analyzing your own writing.  Even more
noticeable is the absence of your saying "I'm not a troll", or anything
equivalent.

> 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).

Hee!  That brought a sardonic smile to my face.  ;-)

> 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. 

Hmmm.  The following, your first post in this thread, is more than a
little inflammatory.  It seems to me more than a little insulting, and is
certainly slurring:

> The MO among the regulars seems, often enough, to be to first throw out
> some cheap shot blowoff response to a newer poster. Then when they get
> the same in return, they all rally together and declare other to be
> "compassionate", "caring", "loving", "honest" in an extremely
> saccharine manner that resembles the utterances of people whose
> friendships goes well beyond those of strangers who post like-minded
> thoughts on USENET.

> It is a very strange lot indeed. I haven't figured it out, but perhaps
> it is engendered by common horrific rape experiences or something like
> that. I'm speculating here.

[ .... ]

> 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?

You know, my dear, there is a happy medium between the two extremes of
agreeing with "everyone" and fighting with everyone.  It's known as
courteous discussion, and is that, alongside mutual respect, which binds
this group together.  Were you to engage in such courteous respectful
discussion, you would be accepted by the regulars here, regardless of
what views you might express.

[ .... ]

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

Myself, I prefer to meet up with my girlfriend.  But, each to her own.

Have a happy and satisying fortnight's holiday!

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