# Personal attacks *The Urth list — 8 messages, 5 voices, 22 Nov 2011* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Mo Holkar *22 Nov 2011, 15:09* Hi all, Guys, some of you are currently making this list a really annoying place to hang out -- to the extent that I'm just deleting threads unread. It always seems to be observations about one another's distasteful modes of discourse that gets us to this point. I would really like that to be a banned topic, as it seems never to be helpful or informative, but invariably produces a trail of vitriol. Could you please just lay off each other? best wishes, Mo # ~ # ~ # WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ --- ### Ryan Dunn *22 Nov 2011, 15:47 · in reply to Mo Holkar* I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled Babbiecorn... for this very reason, Mo. There is a thin but important line between passionate discourse and slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of late. Thanks you for raising the concern. ...ryan > On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mo Holkar wrote: > Hi all, > > Guys, some of you are currently making this list a really annoying place to hang out -- to the extent that I'm just deleting threads unread. > > It always seems to be observations about one another's distasteful modes of discourse that gets us to this point. I would really like that to be a banned topic, as it seems never to be helpful or informative, but invariably produces a trail of vitriol. > > Could you please just lay off each other? > > best wishes, > > Mo > > > # ~ # ~ # > > WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe > http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *22 Nov 2011, 15:59 · in reply to Ryan Dunn* *chimes in with similar sentiment to the others raising concerns* -DOJP > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote: > I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled Babbiecorn... for this > very reason, Mo. > > There is a thin but important line between passionate discourse and > slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of late. > > Thanks you for raising the concern. > > ...ryan > > On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mo Holkar wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Guys, some of you are currently making this list a really annoying place >> to hang out -- to the extent that I'm just deleting threads unread. >> >> It always seems to be observations about one another's distasteful modes >> of discourse that gets us to this point. I would really like that to be a >> banned topic, as it seems never to be helpful or informative, but >> invariably produces a trail of vitriol. >> >> Could you please just lay off each other? >> >> best wishes, >> >> Mo >> >> >> # ~ # ~ # >> >> WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe >> http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ >> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *22 Nov 2011, 16:02 · in reply to Ryan Dunn* Ryan Dunn wrote (22-11-2011 15:47): > I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled Babbiecorn... for this > very reason, Mo. > > There is a thin but important line between passionate discourse and > slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of late. > > Thanks you for raising the concern. I think it's quite clear when one goes from criticism of the other's ideas to criticism of the other's intelligence/education/motivations/persona. And I think whenever that line is crossed, moderation would be in order. You may have lost one or two interesting points by deleting the recent threads, but I don't think you need to worry. --- ### Marc Aramini *22 Nov 2011, 16:35 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques > Subject: Re: (urth) Personal attacks > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 8:02 AM > Ryan Dunn wrote (22-11-2011 15:47): >> I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled >> Babbiecorn... for this >> very reason, Mo. >> >> There is a thin but important line between passionate >> discourse and >> slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of >> late. >> >> Thanks you for raising the concern. > I think it's quite clear when one goes from criticism of > the other's ideas to criticism of the other's > intelligence/education/motivations/persona. And I think > whenever that line is crossed, moderation would be in > order. > > You may have lost one or two interesting points by deleting > the recent threads, but I don't think you need to worry. > _______________________________________________ I really don't try to make anything personal, if I am guilty I apologize. It is unfortunate though, the topics I care about tend to generate into these "deleted unread" categories for most :( I started the Hunter in the East/Fitzgerald one and then just stood back as the stones flew. Sorry. --- ### Daniel Petersen *22 Nov 2011, 16:40 · in reply to Marc Aramini* Wow, thanks for the admirable willingness to publicly apologise for any part you may have had in it, Marc. On a different but related note, is there a Wolfe scholar out there who could make a digest of the main outlines of the main arguments on this mega-behemoth of a list? -DOJP > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Marc Aramini wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques >> Subject: Re: (urth) Personal attacks >> To: "The Urth Mailing List" >> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 8:02 AM >> Ryan Dunn wrote (22-11-2011 15:47): >>> I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled >>> Babbiecorn... for this >>> very reason, Mo. >>> >>> There is a thin but important line between passionate >>> discourse and >>> slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of >>> late. >>> >>> Thanks you for raising the concern. >> I think it's quite clear when one goes from criticism of >> the other's ideas to criticism of the other's >> intelligence/education/motivations/persona. And I think >> whenever that line is crossed, moderation would be in >> order. >> >> You may have lost one or two interesting points by deleting >> the recent threads, but I don't think you need to worry. >> _______________________________________________ > I really don't try to make anything personal, if I am guilty I apologize. > It is unfortunate though, the topics I care about tend to generate into > these "deleted unread" categories for most :( I started the Hunter in the > East/Fitzgerald one and then just stood back as the stones flew. Sorry. > _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *22 Nov 2011, 16:45 · in reply to Marc Aramini* I don't think you have to apologise to anyone, Marc, I've never seen you write even a hint of a personal attack. It's true that some topics are livelier than others, but I don't think liveliness is the problem. --- ### Ryan Dunn *22 Nov 2011, 17:26 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* My suspicion is that America may have a balanced budget before there is a streamlined Urth compendium. I think the trusty old search-for-keyword, followed by minutes-and-minutes of wheat and chaff separation is here to stay. ...ryan > On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Daniel Petersen wrote: > Wow, thanks for the admirable willingness to publicly apologise for any part you may have had in it, Marc. > > On a different but related note, is there a Wolfe scholar out there who could make a digest of the main outlines of the main arguments on this mega-behemoth of a list? > > -DOJP > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Marc Aramini wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques >> Subject: Re: (urth) Personal attacks >> To: "The Urth Mailing List" >> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 8:02 AM >> Ryan Dunn wrote (22-11-2011 15:47): >>> I have literally deleted over 100 emails entitled >>> Babbiecorn... for this >>> very reason, Mo. >>> >>> There is a thin but important line between passionate >>> discourse and >>> slanderous rhetoric, which is getting quite blurry of >>> late. >>> >>> Thanks you for raising the concern. >> I think it's quite clear when one goes from criticism of >> the other's ideas to criticism of the other's >> intelligence/education/motivations/persona. And I think >> whenever that line is crossed, moderation would be in >> order. >> >> You may have lost one or two interesting points by deleting >> the recent threads, but I don't think you need to worry. >> _______________________________________________ > I really don't try to make anything personal, if I am guilty I apologize. It is unfortunate though, the topics I care about tend to generate into these "deleted unread" categories for most :( I started the Hunter in the East/Fitzgerald one and then just stood back as the stones flew. Sorry. > _______________________________________________ ---