Typhon's nature

Mark Millman · 17 Oct 2011, 18:37 · from 2011-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: markjmillman at gmail.com (Mark Millman)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:37:11 -0400
Subject: (urth) Typhon's nature
In-Reply-To: <4E9C44BA.906 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W37CB36BDF2CC8D56853EFFCFE40 at phx.gbl>
	<CAD2109fYsTGEyWto0HaygXgMTO-z_vTxz8qRxKhiX6-HuJr46w at mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9C3B8C.70904 at verizon.net>
	<CAD2109d8bOcJ3hHpG+qD8+hdr-y3vtHRz+EgKnJvMPNmmEGatQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9C44BA.906 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <CAD2109cZAJJGpsEqH6ahgv_K1XT4f8pBjO-v=cWqdL_KfRabqQ at mail.gmail.com>

Mr. Stockhoff,

On Monday 17 October 2011, you wrote:

>> > Mark, Gerry has only
>> > been accused of ob-
>> > structionism and the
>> > creation of straw men.
>> > These are the things
>> > that waste time and
>> > do not strengthen ar-
>> > guments except by
>> > chance. Attacking
>> > ideas is welcome and
>> > desirable, but only if
>> > those ideas actually
>> > exist in the first place.
>> >
>> > That's hardly a per-
>> > sonal attack.
>>
>> I have noticed more than one
>> instance of personal phrasing.
>>?That's what makes it a per-
>> sonal attack. ?My comments
>> stand, no matter how point-
>> less you may think his posts
>> have been.
>
> Mark
>
> Are you sure you know what a person-
> al attack is?

Yes.  That's one.  It questions me--in this case, my ability to
comprehend discourse--and not my ideas of what constitutes a personal
attack.

If I'm moved to complain, somebody has done something wrong.  If it's
been inadvertent, then there's no reason not to apologize and continue
discussing the issues.  If it's malicious, then there's a bigger
problem.  If it's a result of somebody's style of argument, it's
regrettable; and I think it indicates that that person needs to
rethink his or her approach.  I have nothing more to say on this
topic.

> Your complaint risks obscuring the real
> issues. If you want better discourse on
> this forum, then insist on it. Be specific.
> If you have a point, present evidence.
> Otherwise, this is just another off-topic
> thread that increases the noise.
>
> If you need to discuss further,

I'm not discussing this further.  Every so often, people go off the
rails here, and it's usually simple to get them back on.  Perhaps the
difference is that my tolerance for it has decreased.  Regardless, I'm
the one who has identified it and is complaining about it now.

> I suggest that offline might be better.
> Wrangling over Wolfe is one thing, but
> wrangling over standards of civility is
> another.

I indicated a problem.  I made the mistake of continuing to discuss
it, but my indicating the problem in the first place is not an
instance of "wrangling".

Mark Millman

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net