Glenn,
I agree with a lot of what you have written.
With two caveats.
1. Frequent posters must be careful when employing fictional devices to
avoid confusing, annoying (without purpose) or unfairly offending
readers.
(You may recall I jumped on you, when one of your posts teetered into
areas I consiedered misogynistic and pornographic. And, you made a
gracious apology to the list. I consider this behind us, and only used
it as an example.)
2. Few on this list are stupid.
Many are brilliant.
I think all posters should give the benefit of the doubt to readers.
Before calling someone "stupid", in digital print, I prefer to imagine
them as distracted or at a different point on a learning curve.
Glenn, I value your passion and your insights, but...
... your tone, volume and quantity often lead me to delete.
I suspect you are making converts for the forces of evil.
;-)
Please moderate your posts, so that folks don't find a way to ban you
from the lists.
Best!
Liz
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:16:58 -0400 "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: Elizabeth F Campion
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] The way he should have handled it, were he not playing
CYA so desperately
Is this a
"When did you stop beating your kid?" question?
Or just a continuation of a trend that asks a distracting question that
insures that the "guilt" of the person or people who irritate the asker
is a 'given', and...
... that the irritators are presumed "blame"-able for something?
... a reminder that the irratatees have a tight little clique and are
reading from a similar script.
Liz
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:41:18 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, Al, are you saying that the Philadelphia candidate, Tom Knox, should
have taken the blame for having John Fenton help out with his political
rally?
Melani Lamond
Liz,
You really understand what is going on here. And you see this "clique"
strategy. Most often, I�ve noticed that it is the group straw man that is
used and becomes so intimidating. It becomes one of the biggest causes of
the list incivility. I�m glad you publicly and accurately questioned this
post.
I need to always ask are these uses of fallacious arguments really based
on extremely poor reading comprehension? Or is this something much more
problematic? Are these strategies actually intentional attempts to
dishonestly obfuscate important issues and destroy any chance for honest
discussion? Anwser: YES
Should they be condemned as mean and a huge original source of
incivility? I think civility does not come with fake politeness. Civility
requires an ingenuous attempt at communication by the players.
When the first person on the list does the "misreading" of someone�s
opinion or question, and then another 5 join in the mistake with angry
insulting posts; our neighbors who rarely post must be incredibly
intimidated. Once we all see the pattern, we can see how mean,
destructive, and dishonest the actors are being. Those who engage in
these strategies do risk being exposed at a later time, but for a time on
this list any outside reader saw "the gang" getting away with this
behavior. It was "the free pass" discussed a few months ago.
I was very confused at folks for harshly criticizing some of my clear
fictions because the imagery was crass while remaining silent to the big
obvious destructiveness going on simultaneously. A fiction or satire is
an attempt to make the reader think for him or herself and come to their
own conclusions of the writer's position.
By its clear fictional nature, an honest fictional effort cannot be used
like the pretense of a non-fictional but actually fallacious argument or
straight out lie. It cannot be as destructive as the deliberate attempt
to deceive and intimidate with these fallacious strategies. Constructing
obvious fiction is always honest, and non-fiction is often fiction that
we sometimes call propaganda or lies.
These mean strategies are designed to make a fool of the target, but once
exposed, as you clearly understand; they have actually made fools of the
writers. It is my opinion, that it becomes very important to challenge
these posts.
If someone seems to honestly make a misreading, I think it would be mean
to respond harshly instead of trying to help clarify. But I assert the
right to use any literary device and the right to pull out all literary
stops against those using these tactics deliberately. It is an important
way to stand up for free speech.
If our neighbors are intimidated from participation on this public
communication vehicle, aren't their free speech rights being harmed by
their neighbors with this intimidation????
The question should always be the same to the gang. Are you really stupid
with a pathetic level of reading comprehension? Or are you trying to be a
dishonest bully to confuse and intimidate; and win your position by
silencing discussion? These strategies are used by those whose positions
can't be backed up by asserting ethical principals.
That is why some folks can only resort to these tactics because they know
they can't carry their arguments in a fair and honest debate!
I have a thick skin because I understood the pattern before joining the
list. The first time a person is victimized with this; it gives a
horrible feeling and it made me very sad to accept that my neighbors
could go so low. Then, I think it can make many normal humans angry.
You probably know that you are now a target. At the same time, Liz,
taking a courageous position is not only the best ethical decision; it is
the best decision for our spiritual well being. The importance of that
can�t compare with any pain these folks temporarily dish out.
Thanks and have a great day,
Glenn
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/900 - Release Date: 7/14/2007
3:36 PM
Elizabeth Campion Cell Phone: 215-880-2930
215-546-0550 Main, -546-9871 fax, Desk + VM: 215-790-5653
PRUDENTIAL, FOX & ROACH REALTORS, LLC
Please read Consumer Notice & enjoy "HOME PILOT" tools at
www.PruFoxRoach.com
