Responses to two posts from Marek:

Sorry, Marek, but you've really fouled up the context here,
inadvertently or otherwise.

First, "The charge of failing to condemn what other posters
have written has been a frequent one here" applies almost
exclusively to Curtis's failure to reprove (not "condemn")
Barry. It's come up very rarely otherwise.

Second, the charge has in recent months been a broad one,
made by a number of people, not referring in most cases to any
specific offensive post of Barry's but rather the fact that he
makes them routinely, aiming at quite a range of posters and
creating a general atmosphere of hostility and bad feeling--
one he appears to revel in. In other words, it's a bad habit
of Barry's, a very negative character trait, and Curtis has
been criticized for not reproving Barry for the habit itself
(of which Curtis is unquestionably aware).

And finally, with regard to *specific* posts of Barry's that
Curtis has been charged with failing to reprove him for, many
of them have involved posts Barry has written *to Curtis* that
contained offensive remarks about others here. In at least some
of these cases, Curtis has responded, but without mentioning
the offensive parts. In other cases, the offensive parts have
been quoted to Curtis by other posters, and he has still
failed--not just failed but adamantly *refused*--to reprove
Barry for them.

So the notion you attempt to put over that it just "doesn't
make practical sense" to charge Curtis with "adoptive admission"
because, gosh, there are just too damn many posts, is nonsense.

Oh, and one more thing: Nobody has, in fact, charged Curtis with
"adoptive admission" as you define it below. Nobody is claiming
that because Curtis fails to reprove Barry for his offensive
posts, therefore Curtis must agree with them. Nobody believes
that; it's a straw man.

The real charge is that Curtis overlooks Barry's offensive
behavior because he wants to retain Barry's friendship. Curtis
himself has said as much. Curtis has also made it clear that he
feels no obligation to stand up for those who have been unfairly
maligned. Perhaps there's also a legal term for that, but it 
sure ain't "adoptive admission."

Pretty shoddy job of analysis, counselor.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote:
>
> An adoptive admission is where a person is assumed to agree with the 
> statement of another if it is said in her/his presence and she/he chooses to 
> remain silent and doesn't deny what is said. The person's silence is 
> considered to be agreement with the statement made by the other. The charge 
> of failing to condemn what other posters have written has been a frequent one 
> here.
> 
> In a forum like FFL, however, where there are so many posters and lurkers and 
> where over a hundred a messages a day are posted, it doesn't make practical 
> sense to apply the charge of adoptive admission for anyone's failure to 
> respond to what someone else posts.
> 
> People could consider responding to what other posters actually write, rather 
> than what they don't write. There would be less argument, but maybe that 
> would be a good thing.



This is in response to Marek's post #300967 if anybody
wants to see the full context:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote:
<snip>
> It would be fair to say I exalted Curtis; I hold him in
> high esteem. But not only did I not "pile on" (though the
> characterization of "others" doing so following my post
> may be arguably correct), but I certainly did not condemn
> anyone. I remarked on the subject of my concern in the
> broadest and least offensive fashion and did not specify
> any particular person, specifically to avoid argument.

I have the distinct sense Marek genuinely believes in this
self-justification.

Of course you "piled on," Marek. Your post was a response to
Curtis's post denouncing Ravi as a liar and me as a hypocrite;
that denunciation was what you piled onto.

"Did not specify any particular person": This is the very
lamest of excuses. "Some very untethered behavior by some
of the more recent and prolific posters" clearly referred
to Ravi; and "the willingness of some folks here to glorify
and encourage" said behavior and to "gang up on Curtis" was
clearly meant to include me.

"In the broadest and least offensive fashion," perhaps, but
nobody here doubted it was meant as a sharp rebuke to Ravi
and myself, especially given the post of Curtis to which
you were responding.

As I said:

"And then Marek and others began piling on, exalting Curtis
and condemning Ravi, and me for supposedly supporting him."

I'll stand by that characterization. 

> I don't take pleasure in argument and avoid it in personal
> matters, even though I engage in it professionally.

If you were cross-examining a hostile witness, or summing up
your case for the defense, would you let the kind of
sophistical rationalization from the prosecution that you've
just indulged in go by without contemptuously tearing it to
pieces?

If so, you can't be a very effective lawyer.


Reply via email to