Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

Good- I'm glad that you have made more of an effort to be objective. I
respect that.

> > 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.

I've posted on USENET, albeit not always continuously, since the mid
1980s- back in the day when those of us who were not ourselves
computer geeks could count on the fingers of one hand the number of
persons to whom we could send an email. In my opinion, you are being
hypersensitive. You don't have to agree. We can agree to disagree.

> >> 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.

I felt that I *had* addressed your points. Why don't you tell me one
substantive (non personal) point, one example that I did not address
that you felt I should have? If you do so I promise to address it
here.

You're upset that I said that you claimed that I should "make your
points for you". Now you know what I've been going through with you
all along. I spent a huge amount of effort addressing your points not
once but up to 5 times in a single post, slogging through your
endlessly-restated questions and statements over and over. Sometimes I
would inevitably get a little short after addressing the same,
minimally-reworked question from you over and over, but I did respond
to all of them to the best of my ability. In the end, we didn't agree
on much. I believe at the core that that is what bothers you so, and
that you may be unintentionally couching our disagreement as my being
"unwilling to address your points".

Now you just blithely claim, after I invested all that work, that I'm
a "troll" who "never addressed your points". I reject that charge- and
I'm again saying that you are being hypersensitive.

But the biggest problem I've had with you by far is your incessant
need to "read between the lines" of my posts to divine that which I
"really think". The real purpose of this behavior, in my opinion, is
this: it gives you permission to rewrite the points that I do make
into the form of ultra-weak, easily-attacked strawman and simpleton
positions. You then can proceed to beating up not me but a caricature.

The only reason that I still engage you at all is that you haven't
taken this latter behavior (of putting words in my mouth to "defeat"
me in effigy) to nearly the level shown by those I ultimately have to
take off the list of people to whom I will respond.

> > 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.

Laurie is a very respectable poster- she stays above the fray more
effectively than anyone in memory. My only beef with her, a small one,
is her selective memory of interactions that occur between her friends
and others. She repeatedly characterizes such interactions in favor of
her friends, even if that means dramatically mischaracterizing the
nature of the interactions. I believe that those errors are 100%
honest on her part and I don't hold them against her. The evidence in
favor of Laurie as a sweet, nice person who is also smart and
open-minded is overwhelming.

That's Laurie. Now you've just joined or rejoined the list of those
who assert that Neil, Cele, Heather, John et al are "intelligent
regulars" who engage in "excellent dialog" (in addition to their many
abuses, I must add). I continue to believe that this characterization
("excellent dialog") must be true, even as my own experience
consistently tells me otherwise. I don't have time to google them and
wade through what would have to be vast mountains of personal abuse in
order to smoke out the occasional "gem" that these people have
written- so I prefer to go by empirical evidence.

It's been written that one judges a society or country by how it
treats its weakest citizens. The analogy here would be how the
regulars on ngs treat newcomers. I'll accept that newcomers might be
treated well here, but only if they come in, perhaps, asking for help
after experiencing trauma, or groveling in some deferential way to the
TRIS*. That they treat a newcomer who intelligently and cogently
challenges their orthodoxy with disrespect and personal abuse tells me
all that I really need to know of them.

*TRIS = t.r. Inner Sanctum

> [ .... ]
> 
> >> 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.

I don't believe that I said anything other than that I was interested
in the sociology of ngs- who posts and why. Nowhere did I allude to a
"Goodall-chimp" relationship or to anything remotely like that. You
have herein reached a new level of hypersensitivity. Note that that is
not a personal slur, it is a comment about the behavior that you have
directly displayed in your post.

BTW, I'm anything but "Yet Another Usenet poster". Was that supposed
to be a slur?

> > (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.

The level of "misrepresentation" that you cited above shows your
extreme hypersensitivity. I will refer to the discussion above so as
to avoid getting into the trap of addressing points that you bring up
again and again. Except this: a reminder to please post an example of
an *issue* (as opposed to a personal point of some kind) that you
assert that I did not address, so that I can address it now. See
above.
> 
> >> 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.

Got it! Are you not aware that a term like "my impressions" is
180-degrees opposed to the term "I'm absolutely correct"? In fact, the
latter statement could be an important hint that you might, in the
end, be irredeemable. No thoughtful poster would report that some
slanderous "impression" (that the other person is "not sincere"- which
is 100% wrong in my case) is "absolutely correct". I know that I never
would write such a thing except in jest. Do you really believe that
your "impression", divined by reading not what I wrote but your
self-conviction about what I am "really thinking" is infallible? Your
honest response in the affirmative here could save both of us a lot of
time in the future.

> These are based on analysing what you wrote.  What you wrote seems
> inconsistent with the words of an intelligent and sincere poster.

Petty personal slur... The evidence in favor of the theory of Alan as
insincere buffoon builds as the evidence in favor of Alan as decent
human who wants honest discussion badly falters... For you to assert
that my words are inconsistent with those of an intelligent poster is
profoundly powerful evidence that you are insincere. No one with an
objective bone in their body could write that except in jest. I would
never write such a thing about you.

> 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.

Why would I lie about a thing like that? I'll acknowledge that I write
things that are designed to provoke responses on substantive issues.
By some hypersensitive definitions that might constitute "trolling"
but not by any definition that I find satisfactory. Again, I note that
I back up that which I write extensively rather than moving on to some
other provocation. Also, my provocations are never (intentionally)
petty or personal, unless they are in kind responses to attacks from
others.

> > 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.  ;-)

Mid-November is here. That said, I believe that in the last few
paragraphs you've built up impressive evidence in favor of the idea
that you're not sincere and quite possibly not worthy of further
engagement. If so, I wish that you would just out with it instead of
seeming at times to be honest and reasonable and dragging me along for
the ride. That is quite tedious for both of us.

> > 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 was, and is, my honest read of how I've been treated here- and
let's face it, I'm the expert on how I've been treated because I alone
know all that I write and most that I've received in response.

>Were you to engage in such courteous respectful
> discussion, you would be accepted by the regulars here, regardless of
> what views you might express.

In the post to which I am now responding, you started with courteous
discussions, and even though I disagree firmly with your statements, I
was and am willing to continue the discussion. My responses, as usual
with you, were completely respectful. However, toward the end you
resorted to personal slurs and several attempts to marginalize or
demean me. I have continued, as usual, to respond in a pleasant and
respectful manner and with all of the courtesy that I show to anyone
who is not merely outlandishly dismissive or nasty. I believe that we
will know very soon, possibly with your response to this post, whether
there is any point in any further engagement between us. I'm happy
either way. I just want you to declare yourself.

________________________________
"A lot of right wing-nuts believe Rush Limburger is a 'political
analyst', when in reality he's nothing more than Jerry Springer in a
fat suit."
-Graham Payne, 8/03