Typhon's nature

David Stockhoff · 17 Oct 2011, 20:30 · 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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:30:56 -0400
Subject: (urth) Typhon's nature
In-Reply-To: <CAD2109cZAJJGpsEqH6ahgv_K1XT4f8pBjO-v=cWqdL_KfRabqQ at mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CAD2109cZAJJGpsEqH6ahgv_K1XT4f8pBjO-v=cWqdL_KfRabqQ at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E9C9080.7010501 at verizon.net>

On 10/17/2011 2:37 PM, Mark Millman wrote:
> Mr. Stockhoff,
>
> On Monday 17 October 2011, you wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
Mark

(1) You seem to define "personal attack" as any questioning of your 
ideas. Or is it just your idea of a "personal attack"?

(2) You asked us to only attack ideas, implying that all else is 
personal. Is calling someone's behavior "disgusting" then a personal attack?

(3) And now you tell us that since you complained, a crime must have 
been committed. Do you realize this logic effectively leaves you in 
charge of the forum?

Boy, this is going nowhere fast.

You should know that sometimes, members who sincerely want to calm the 
forum while still participating in it have made general remarks about 
restoring civility. They avoid pointing fingers, but they also don't 
drop cute hints that, in effect, accuse everyone. They don't start new 
fights where before there were none. They don't come out of nowhere to 
interrupt and impose themselves on a productive ongoing discussion. Some 
of them even strive to set an example by their calm, restraint, and 
humility.

May I suggest you rethink your own approach?

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