Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Gene- >Except in this case there was no such behavior at all, and there was >simply no need for you to publicly castigate me for it. I didn't publicly castigate you, though I understand why it seemed that way. >The ONLY transgressions that have taken place here are JCs totally >inappropriate, lengthy diatribe here. Yes, that's true. >You still talk as if I reacted so angrily to him off list that it has >traumatized him forever. Traumatized him forever? I granted him the politeness of taking him at face value, but the idea that he's permanently traumatized is ludicrous, and if he is, it's his problem. As I believe I've said before, while I've objected to your past losses of temper (do you find that phrasing more acceptable?) I also think people overreact to them. >and you winked knowingly in response. It seems to me that that's how you tend to read things -- negatively and personally. But I wasn't winking knowingly. I was crediting the possibility that you'd lost your temper with him, yes, but I was also telling him that he was overreacting to whatever you might have said. That's it. >I'll stop now unless you feel the need to comment further on my character >deficiencies. I suppose you'll consider the above more of that, but once again, that's not my point. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Deanna- > generally uses cuss words more than I do. " Crap " is officially a cuss word, then? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, anyone uncomfortable or put into compromising place with any > offlist > > email please feel free to mail me anytime. > > Yes - I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. I received unsolicited emails. I did not > respond to them with an emotional outburst but tried to defend my points of > view. I finally asked JC to stop and he would not. Finally he emailed the > list. > T > > IMO, Gene may seem harsh in contrast to my tries at diplomacy for > example, > > which could use a dumping from time to time. In order to call a spade a > > spade, you need to be able to see it and dare say it. If criticizers > would > > look back on this list and see what Gene really stands up for, they'll > see > > it can be uglier than his manner of making it evident is. > > Wanita > > > > Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I may > stand up for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is even > uglier. If this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said yet in > this whole affair. > > this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have > complained to the list moderators about unsolicited emails. > > I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100% > absolutely should not be about me. > > Gene, You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle, because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the issue represented. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > On 9/6/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, anyone uncomfortable or put into compromising place with any > > offlist > > > email please feel free to mail me anytime. > > > > Yes - I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. I received unsolicited emails. I did not > > respond to them with an emotional outburst but tried to defend my points of > > view. I finally asked JC to stop and he would not. Finally he emailed the > > list. > > T > > > IMO, Gene may seem harsh in contrast to my tries at diplomacy for > > example, > > > which could use a dumping from time to time. In order to call a spade a > > > spade, you need to be able to see it and dare say it. If criticizers > > would > > > look back on this list and see what Gene really stands up for, they'll > > see > > > it can be uglier than his manner of making it evident is. > > > Wanita > > > > > > > Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I may > > stand up for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is even > > uglier. If this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said yet in > > this whole affair. > > > > this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have > > complained to the list moderators about unsolicited emails. > > > > I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100% > > absolutely should not be about me. > > > > Gene, > > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle, > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > issue represented. > Wanita > ok - as I replied to , I wasn't sure what your post was actually saying. That's fine. I didn't complain because I never thought that he would escalate like he did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > > > > Yes, anyone uncomfortable or put into compromising place with any > > > offlist > > > > email please feel free to mail me anytime. > > > > > > Yes - I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. I received unsolicited emails. I did > not > > > respond to them with an emotional outburst but tried to defend my > points of > > > view. I finally asked JC to stop and he would not. Finally he emailed > the > > > list. > > > T > > > > IMO, Gene may seem harsh in contrast to my tries at diplomacy for > > > example, > > > > which could use a dumping from time to time. In order to call a > spade a > > > > spade, you need to be able to see it and dare say it. If criticizers > > > would > > > > look back on this list and see what Gene really stands up for, > they'll > > > see > > > > it can be uglier than his manner of making it evident is. > > > > Wanita > > > > > > > > > > Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I > may > > > stand up for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is > even > > > uglier. If this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said > yet in > > > this whole affair. > > > > > > this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have > > > complained to the list moderators about unsolicited emails. > > > > > > I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100% > > > absolutely should not be about me. > > > > > > Gene, > > > > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of > you > > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all > the > > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's > ugly > > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can > handle, > > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no > matter > > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > > issue represented. > > Wanita > > > > ok - as I replied to , I wasn't sure what your post was actually > saying. That's fine. I didn't complain because I never thought that he would > escalate like he did... Gene, Thanks for the proacting this issue. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 , > " Crap " is officially a cuss word, then? > A few flavorful quotes from you, my dear (if any are misquotes, accept my apologies and bring me to task for them): " The very suggestion would be a straw man and a lame-ass ad hominem attack. " - message # 38581 " The problem is that Bush did a half-assed job of the invasion. (Strong on terrorism my ass.) " - # 58250 " Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued about awhile ago. " - # 73363 " Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I mean, WTF? How about some damn priorities! " - # 15783 I respect the way you run this list. I appreciate your emphasis on freedom of speech as long as it is not directed at a person (not in charge). I hope it continues and hope that you will see my chicken shit remark for what it was, which is a reaction to the " get the last word in an out of nowhere attack on Gene " tactics of good ol' JC. Whassup with that? Gene did NOTHING on list recently to deserve this pent up vomit. Last I read from Gene, he said something about the pope, which most folks probably agree with for all I know. knows exactly how I feel about it by reading this list and my personal off list remarks to him. I suppose it's difficult to let the past go and deal with posts on their merit, not by whom they are posted. I feel it is important try, though. " WTF " is a frequently used abbreviated foul language phrase, for the naive among you, btw. Respectfully, Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Deanna- > " The very suggestion would be a straw man and a lame-ass ad hominem >attack. " - message # 38581 Lame-ass is a cuss word? I suppose this is partly a matter of perspective and taste, but still... > " The problem is that Bush did a half-assed job of the invasion. (Strong >on terrorism my ass.) " - # 58250 Again, that's not cussing in my book, though I guess it would be in some people's. > " Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued >about awhile ago. " - # 73363 <chuckling> I guess you might have me there, except that I was using the expression literally -- that's in essence actually how the test is conducted. > " Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I mean, WTF? >How about some damn priorities! " - # 15783 OK, fair enough. >I hope it continues and hope that you will see my chicken shit >remark for what it was, which is a reaction to the " get the last word in >an out of nowhere attack on Gene " tactics of good ol' JC. Look, I _personally_ have no problem with it, but I personally have no problem with all sorts of " cuss " words that bother some people mightily. I also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon my French-Canadian, but the fact is that not everyone has the skin I have and not everybody grew up in the, shall we say, extremely emotionally intense fracas that I did, so I try to find a workable compromise. The point of my message to you, though, wasn't about the words used but about the arguably ad-hominem nature of the statement. (And no, I don't want to get into the angels-on-a-pin thing.) While I have no problem wading into an intense debate even when it becomes personal, it can rapidly turn a list or any kind of discussion forum into a war zone permanently scarred by rubble and corpses. It's a slippery-slope sort of problem. That's why in this case restrictions override free speech. I'd reluctantly censor or ban someone for personal attacks, whereas I'd never do it for personal viewpoints. And now I've got to fly. I was supposed to be way the frack downtown 3 minutes ago, and I haven't even brushed and showered yet. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > I also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon > my French-Canadian, LOL! I'm sorry but that was just hilarious. Chris -- Want the other side of the cholesterol story? Find out what your doctor isn't telling you: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle, > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > issue represented. > Wanita Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us know. The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is ALL we know. So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said, but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with is no different than taking at face value what said about his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and . I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist* So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason you state above. post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you and want to check it out with both sides. I don't think either of you do. -- " Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal' (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades! " Murray Rothbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > > > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you > > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the > > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly > > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle, > > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter > > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > > issue represented. > > Wanita > > Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist > from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is > not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us > KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his > story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be > talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us > know. > > The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance > in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless > Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is > ALL we know. > > So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said, > but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with > is no different than taking at face value what said about > his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and . > > I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can > handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when > made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in > a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist* > > So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason > you state above. > > post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has > acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's > story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you > and want to check it out with both sides. > > I don't think either of you do. > > In any case, I really agree with most of this, and, while the issue got sidetracked...this was my point. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for the substance of the private conversation. What I objected to was, seemingly, the assumption at first that I had somehow viciously attacked JC. I pointed out that this wasn't the case, because it seemed to be assumed that this must have taken place. I did think about posting the entire content of the private exchange, but I really don't think that it's necessary. Obviously its privacy wasn't respected, which kinds of voids the internet etiquette thing, but I think that the inappropriateness of his post should stand for itself. I do interpret Wanita as agreeing that I was the aggrieved party because of JC's post, not because of any assumption about what had taken place in the private conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 , > > >> " Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued >>about awhile ago. " - # 73363 >> >> > ><chuckling> I guess you might have me there, except that I was using the >expression literally -- that's in essence actually how the test is conducted. > > Yeah, that whole message is pretty damning <g>. >Look, I _personally_ have no problem with it, but I personally have no >problem with all sorts of " cuss " words that bother some people mightily. I >also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon >my French-Canadian, but the fact is that not everyone has the skin I have >and not everybody grew up in the, shall we say, extremely emotionally >intense fracas that I did, so I try to find a workable compromise. > I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr. Anton : " As a linguist, I have to jump in and offer my support for Christie's position here. Words like " fuck " are part of the real language we use and are beautiful and important. They have a definite and permanent place in our lives and it is unhealthy to dogmatically shun them based on idiosyncratic moral ideologies. I hope that no one will ever hold back from expressing themselves using their authentic native language with all its beautiful nuances of lexical choice and phrasing. One of the most important effects of email is the textualization of authentic spoken language, giving us all opportunities to relish it's greater complexity and expressive range compared to the distinct entity of written language, which also has a valuable place in our lives too, but should not be taken as a standard by which other registers, dialects, etc are judged. " Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair > use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to > besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I > don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr. > Anton : " Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not. Chris -- Want the other side of the cholesterol story? Find out what your doctor isn't telling you: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > > > I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair > > use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to > > besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I > > don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr. > > Anton : > > " Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a > kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after > prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not. > > Chris > -- Obviously y'all haven't seen Deadwood... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > > " Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a >kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after >prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not. > > Shoot, I am hardly ever awake after prime time! I guess I'll have to stick with " chicken livered " during the day. But wait, this is an international list spanning several time zones. I think we should accommodate all of them. Besides, most other western-type countries are just as free and easy about this sort of expression. And what about bitch and bastard, are they spoken on TV? Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > Shoot, I am hardly ever awake after prime time! I guess I'll have to > stick with " chicken livered " during the day. But wait, this is an > international list spanning several time zones. I think we should > accommodate all of them. Besides, most other western-type countries are > just as free and easy about this sort of expression. And what about > bitch and bastard, are they spoken on TV? I don't know whether bastard is or not, since I'm not sure how often I'd hear it anyway, but I'm pretty sure " bitch " isn't because I'd hear it all the time from music videos, and I don't ever notice hearing it. I'm pretty sure " bitch " is not allowed on the radio, although what radios will bleep out seems rather inconsistent sometimes. I think that " ass " is allowed but that " asshole " is not, iirc. I think polite conversation generally includes what is heard on tv during prime time. What is allowed in the wee hours of the night is generally what is considered on the more offensive side. Chris -- Want the other side of the cholesterol story? Find out what your doctor isn't telling you: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 >I don't know whether bastard is or not, since I'm not sure how often >I'd hear it anyway, but I'm pretty sure " bitch " isn't because I'd hear >it all the time from music videos, and I don't ever notice hearing it. > I'm pretty sure " bitch " is not allowed on the radio, although what >radios will bleep out seems rather inconsistent sometimes. > >I think that " ass " is allowed but that " asshole " is not, iirc. > >I think polite conversation generally includes what is heard on tv >during prime time. What is allowed in the wee hours of the night is >generally what is considered on the more offensive side. > Thanks for the cultural edification, however, if my ever dominant memory serves, I have read such words as " bitch " and " shit " on captioned TV in the gym at like 9something in the morning within the last 5 years off and on. Since I don't watch TV at home and haven't since I was in college, I am amazed at the change in it. My theatre training probably makes me spit it out for its predictable plots and planned commercial breaks. But the camera shots are like a strobe light now (which makes me wonder how much ADD/ADHD comes from watching it too much/young). God I love this list! The morphing of topics being just one small reason. , forget the fruify niceties of compromise, else you want constant bickering over terms of censorship. Some of y'all are from the not-so-well-known-for-niceties New England, where I have never been believe it or not. It has always shown since day one for me. Adapt or jump ship, I figure. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote: > > On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > > > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of > you > > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all > the > > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's > ugly > > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can > handle, > > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no > matter > > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > > issue represented. > > Wanita > > Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist > from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is > not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us > KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his > story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be > talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us > know. > > The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance > in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless > Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is > ALL we know. > > So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said, > but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with > is no different than taking at face value what said about > his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and . > > I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can > handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when > made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in > a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist* > > So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason > you state above. > > post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has > acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's > story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you > and want to check it out with both sides. > > I don't think either of you do. > > , I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't happen. Instead the list had to experience that diatribe all because of this? Unfortunately, what I had envisaged as a brief and possibly amiable interchange quickly turned into a flaming session, so to say. I should have known better. We have a saying here: " If you join the pigs, you may end up eating dirt. " Mr. Schwartz made me eat the dirt. But I don't want to play the innocent part at all. I must have deeply provocated Mr. Schwartz or stepped on his prized callus, because he ended our interchange rather brusquely by anointing me with a series of bad but resounding names, such as: impolite, aggressive, insulting, hostile, disgusting, unsettling, harassing, etc. Does the mouth speak out of that which fills the heart? I know my dialogue with him was a private affair, but it wasn't confidential at all, and I've got to tell these things in public in order to illustrate my point. I'm exposing both of us, not only him. Disgusting would probably be the most agreed to offensive word there. Disgusting back publically sure does expose a lot here. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Re: OT: Good-bye! (very, very long) On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle, > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the > issue represented. > Wanita " Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us know. The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is ALL we know. So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said, but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with is no different than taking at face value what said about his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and . I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist* So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason you state above. post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you and want to check it out with both sides. I don't think either of you do. -- " I will say this, however. JC - since I think that obviously part of your intention was to 'hit and run' and lie back and watch the results, I challenge you. I give you permission: post here the most offensive parts of the email exchange that we had. Of course, leave in enough context so that it makes sense. While is entirely correct that people should not take my word for it, and, of course, I could post quotes from exchange here, I could be excused of picking and choosing, or (if people take my 'trigger temper' as a sign of dishonesty) of editing the words, or even outright fabricating them. So - you pick and choose. Post any of the threads. Leave in your shouting (capalization) of course, as you became more agitated and more free in your general characterizations of my personality... On the one hand you apologize for your English, and on the other, you use very flowery, polite language to say some rather impolite things. So, please - you have posted so eloquently on my deficiencies, apparently based on my one sentence reply to your post about the Pope, and my replies to your unsolicited emails. Now quote the offending passages here for all to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 Wanita, > I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal >boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't >happen. Instead the list had to experience that diatribe all because of >this? > > I appreciate your moderatorship. You are wise and measured, which is more than I can say for myself quite often. I am proud of you. > Unfortunately, what I had envisaged as a >brief and possibly amiable interchange quickly turned into a flaming >session, so to say. I should have known better. We have a saying >here: " If you join the pigs, you may end up eating dirt. " Mr. >Schwartz made me eat the dirt. > Ya know, this language strikes me now. Honestly, I did read the whole piece but had several food items going, a game of Monopoly with ds, a new group to start, and now that I read what you have snipped from JC's rail against Gene, I have to wonder about antisemitism. Gene, I don't know nor do I care what you were raised as, be it Martian, drag queen, Catholic or otherwise. JC was bringing up the name Schwartz and wondering about it in terms of Judaism. This wasn't the first time either. To bring up pigs in his post after making more inquiries as to his Hebrewness seems to me more possibly veiled weirdness. I won't even go there. I only wanted to make the connection. Gene, you are a fine man whom I am glad to know in the limited context that I know you. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal > boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't > happen. Wanita, My whole point is unless Gene/ has shared their actual interchange with you, YOU don't know whose personal boundary actually got crossed. You are simply taking Gene at face value that is was him that got dissed off list. Why? Why not take at face value? I mean it seems only obvious that wrote that inappropriate post to the list because he believed others would consider plausible what he was saying based on their own interaction with Gene, whether or not it went as he laid it out. Given that we don't know the particulars, we shouldn't take either at face value (unless of course you have some private knowledge the rest of the list doesn't have). Gene may be absolutely correct, and is unstable and totally blew it when contacting him privately. All I am saying is WE have no way of knowing anything about the personal stuff since none of US were privy to that exchange. You are doing with Gene exactly what Gene doesn't want us to do with , take his story as correct. And I agree with Gene, except that standard applies to BOTH of them. So lets acknowledge what we do know --- that the public comments (diatribe as you put it) were out of bounds. On that Gene is absolutely correct. As to * why* and *who* crossed what boundary *personally*, short of airing their complete private interchange, none of us will really know except Gene and . -- " Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal' (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades! " Murray Rothbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > I do interpret Wanita as agreeing that I was the aggrieved party because of JC's post, not > because of any assumption about what had taken place in the private conversations. Okay, then totally ignore what I just posted. Sorry I didn't see this until just now. " Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal' (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades! " Murray Rothbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 >I did think about posting the entire content of the private exchange, but I really don't think that it's necessary. Obviously its privacy wasn't respected, which kinds of voids the internet etiquette thing, but I think that the inappropriateness of his post should stand for itself. > It should if people would really go back and reread it. I can read between the lines better than most (or read more into things than are there depending on your perspective) Conceit is written all over it. I hope Listgod will take another good look at what JC says. " But as I said above, if you're short of time or patience or think that details are rather burdensome and redundant, you may want to skip the next thirteen paragraphs and jump to section no. 14. The only *trouble* is that by doing so, you may be depriving yourself of at least one or two wry smiles, if I can speak out in favour of the little amusing diamonds I'm trying to encrust those medial paragraphs with, not to mention the bizarre way in which I recreate your English language, hoping I can stop before I murder it. " Yeah JC, if one is a sick puppy maybe they will smile. Bon voyage! Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > " Ya know, this language strikes me now. Honestly, I did read the whole piece but had several food items going, a game of Monopoly with ds, a new group to start, and now that I read what you have snipped from JC's rail against Gene, I have to wonder about antisemitism. Gene, I don't know nor do I care what you were raised as, be it Martian, drag queen, Catholic or otherwise. JC was bringing up the name Schwartz and wondering about it in terms of Judaism. This wasn't the first time either. To bring up pigs in his post after making more inquiries as to his Hebrewness seems to me more possibly veiled weirdness. I won't even go there. I only wanted to make the connection. Gene, you are a fine man whom I am glad to know in the limited context that I know you. " I really appreciate that right now. I don't know if I deserve it, but I try to be honest. Sometimes not very tactfully. Again - I have to say that I am really upset by his post, by his allusions (exactly what they were, I'm not entirely sure) to my ancestry, and to whatever kind of allusions to my sexuality he seemed to be making. Sometimes his language is so flowery I'm not sure of his actual point. I really don't think that I was using the language incorrectly to call his post 'aggressive', although seems to think that only a point of protocol was violated. IN any case, I'm just so angry, that I'm passed calling names, or insulting the man. It would just verify in some people's minds what I must have said to poor JC in the first place. is certainly correct - it is my word against JC's. However, look at what he posted and you might get some idea of the style that he employed against me. Don't I have a right to say that, no, actually, that's not what happened? I don't know if JC is anti semitic, or homophobic (Perhaps I am to a degree. I was tempted to post that I am not a homosexual after reading his post. Why should I bother? But, I think that obviously, he has made the assumption that I am, and that also there is something amiss with me because I think that homosexuality should not be an issue (except as one of inclusion) for the Church). He is very troubled that I simply state what I believe (or try to) directly, whereas he thinks that it is somehow more elegant to be nasty in a very roundabout way. I should stop. Too much Chimay. Want to play with my new Shrittmacher Midi Step Sequencer. It really is meaningful to me that people didn't all take his side. I know that I have offended several people here. Mr. Schwartz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote: > I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal > boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't > happen. " Wanita, My whole point is unless Gene/ has shared their actual interchange with you, YOU don't know whose personal boundary actually got crossed. You are simply taking Gene at face value that is was him that got dissed off list. Why? Why not take at face value? I mean it seems only obvious that wrote that inappropriate post to the list because he believed others would consider plausible what he was saying based on their own interaction with Gene, whether or not it went as he laid it out. Given that we don't know the particulars, we shouldn't take either at face value (unless of course you have some private knowledge the rest of the list doesn't have). Gene may be absolutely correct, and is unstable and totally blew it when contacting him privately. All I am saying is WE have no way of knowing anything about the personal stuff since none of US were privy to that exchange. You are doing with Gene exactly what Gene doesn't want us to do with , take his story as correct. And I agree with Gene, except that standard applies to BOTH of them. So lets acknowledge what we do know --- that the public comments (diatribe as you put it) were out of bounds. On that Gene is absolutely correct. As to * why* and *who* crossed what boundary *personally*, short of airing their complete private interchange, none of us will really know except Gene and . " I think that your reasoning, for the most part is pretty good, but where it fails is that by assuming this position of neutrality as far as what 'really' happened, I am put on the defensive. I didn't post to the list. He did. And he said some mightily offensive stuff, I think. And I'm not the only one. Given those things, and the fact that whatever happened, happened offlist, perhaps the benefit of the doubt should shift in my favor. Would you like me to email you the whole exchange (given that any semblance of email etiquette has been violated?) You state that no one will ever know - I again state - I have no problems with sharing any of it with anyone. Though I would prefer JC to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > Thanks for the cultural edification, however, if my ever dominant memory > serves, I have read such words as " bitch " and " shit " on captioned TV in > the gym at like 9something in the morning within the last 5 years off > and on. I just heard " bitch " used on a Sex and the City rerun. It's possible that that's allowed, but it's also possible it was an editing failure. Sex and the City was originally on HBO, so they have to edit out even the worst of swears. I have never seen shit on TV during the day, and I know it at least isn't allowed on prime time. I saw a Daily Show episode where what's-his-face addressed this issue. I think he was interviewing the guy who wrote _On Bullshit_ and he was saying " if you're watching this between the hours of __ and __ you just heard me say bull-*bleep*; if you're watching this after the hours of __ you just heard be say bull-*bleep* " and so on, only everything was a bleep to me because I was watching it on prime time. And for that matter, I just saw " shit " get bleeped out on Sex and the City tonight. > Since I don't watch TV at home and haven't since I was in > college, I am amazed at the change in it. I think I watch a lot more TV than you do, and I assure you it is not the norm to ever hear the word " shit " used on TV. Chris -- Want the other side of the cholesterol story? Find out what your doctor isn't telling you: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.