Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

David Stockhoff · 16 Dec 2011, 19:38 · from 2011-December.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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:38:26 -0500
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ5LU6ie01JTpK7whmfmD5=i9gBCApHtWedS5iiJypuu3g at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W12E7EC80127A6FC3AAA72CFA00 at phx.gbl>
	<CAGB0RZ5LU6ie01JTpK7whmfmD5=i9gBCApHtWedS5iiJypuu3g at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEB9E32.3020801 at verizon.net>

Actually 'illiterate know-nothing' was a clinical assessment. ;)

But if you look closely, I was pointing out that Gerry uses his own 
illiteracy as evidence for his arguments. He really does. This 
observation is substantively different from an /ad hominem/ approach 
that would rightly be considered to degrade discussion.

On 12/16/2011 1:48 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> Thanks for your generous interpretation of my comments, Lee.  I 
> actually am well known among family and friends as being the aggro one 
> at times - I have to fight hard with myself to be civilised in debate, 
> as I'm naturally a passionate, opinionated, snarky person (half the 
> time).  Some nasty scrap and scrape in a forum like this is indeed a 
> very good and healthy and enjoyable thing.  I have zero problem with 
> some feisty intellectual punch-ups happening here.  It's when the 
> insults start to sound pretty dark and vitriolic that I worry it's no 
> longer 'useful' and certainly not fun.  I may well have 
> misinterpreted, for example, Stockhoff calling Quinn and 'illiterate 
> know-nothing' and this is good debating-buddy language they use with 
> each other all the time (I have friends I argue with like that - 
> sometimes it crosses the line and we swear off each other for a while, 
> then make up and go at it again).
>
> Anyway, at least as much as that, I have problems with a more 
> intellectual obstinacy and obnoxiousness I sometimes see evident here. 
>  It's unfortunate, Lee, that I often have to just skim over or skip 
> the (usually lengthy) comments made by you and Gerry.  But that's what 
> I do rather than calling for you guys to be debarred.
>
> Two final notes:  I seriously doubt letting off steam on the internet 
> prevents it happening in real life.  I imagine there are complex 
> studies into these kinds of notions that show the whole thing is 
> dubiously unpredictable.  But that's merely an aside.
>
> The second thing is that I feel fairly uncomfortable with the idea of 
> people having 'goals' for this list.  What in the world?  (Like my 
> sanitary version of wtf?)  The list has a simple and stated purpose: 
>  to discuss Wolfe's works.  Let's leave it at that and be busy with it 
> - not trying to manipulate others and the 'community' toward further 
> ends we've concocted.  That's just weird.  Not in the good 'weird 
> fiction' way.  It's... creepy.
>
> -DOJP
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com 
> <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     >Daniel Petersen:  I simply don't understand you very well, Lee,
>     and Quinn I feel I do
>     >understand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about....
>
>     You seem like a gentle, considerate soul Daniel, which I think is
>     great. But do you
>     believe in the adage, "it takes one to know one"? Gerry and I
>     understand each other very well.
>     I recognize him as a social manipulator and his retort to that is
>     to accuse me of the same.
>     Gerry, in his desire to win every debate, cannot admit to this
>     shortcoming but I appreciate
>     his honesty in not trying to deny his own mechinations.
>
>     I freely admit to it. My explicitly stated goal in rejoining this
>     list a couple years ago
>     was to restore a sense of freedom of expression, the lack of which
>     had previously stifled the
>     list for a number of years.  I have employed various strategems to
>     achieve this goal. Have I
>     suceeded at all?
>
>     I think your confusion about Gerry is that you underestimate and
>     oversimplify him. You wonder
>     why he employs certain strategies when they seem counterproductive
>     to what he is trying to
>     achieve. But, as I said, I don't consider him an object of pity.
>     Is it possible Gerry is
>     getting exactly what he wants from this list? Why else would he
>     continue his very consistent
>     pattern of communication?  Gerry also has goals for this list.
>     What are they? (I'll let him
>     answer) Has he succeeded?
>
>     >Nor do I think my comments betrayed that I was 'missing
>     something', especially
>     >not 'a recognition of human diversity'.  I am (they are) calling
>     for just such recognition and
>     >celebration of human diversity - belligerence
>     and'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.
>
>     I think I understand your point of view Daniel. It is a wonderful
>     one. Belligerence and pig-head
>     stubborness do cause a lot of problems in this world and it might
>     be a better place without them.
>     No fighting, no killing, no hate.
>
>     But the truth is, if we managed to eliminate those things, the
>     world would be a less diverse place.
>     Currently, aggression IS a part of the human experience and a
>     pervasive, influential one at that.
>     Much of my professional experience has been in what some might
>     call the "dregs" of society and I
>     have thus been quite familiarized with the dark side of human nature.
>
>     Though I've always preached a message of peace and understanding
>     in my work, I also came to know
>     that there are some people who are inherently aggressive. You
>     simply cannot reach such people
>     with a message of peace and understanding. It doesn't register. So
>     what should we do?
>
>     The answer is what societies throughout history have done with
>     such people. Channel the aggression
>     toward productive or at least harmless activities. Sports and
>     other competitions are a good
>     example.
>
>     So, I hope you can see what I'm saying. For some people, preaching
>     the use of respectful, considerate
>     language here is a lost cause. Instead, embrace the conflict.
>     Encourage the expression of hostility
>     in a place like this instead of in the real world. Not only does
>     the energy of competition drive
>     some people to do intense scholastic research they might not
>     otherwise do; it just might be making
>     the real world a more peaceful place by reducing domestic
>     violence, pub fights and perhaps even war.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Urth Mailing List
>     To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>     Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net