CHAT: List conflicts (was Re: Trial of the century?)
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <artabanos@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, January 20, 1999, 7:09|
First, I'd like to apologize for any discomfort I seem to have
caused. I did not mean to be offensive with what I wrote,
and upon rereading, it certainly seems like that's what's meant;
I should have reworded it. Sorry.
Can we please be friends?
> Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > vardi wrote:
> > > Has anyone else noticed a dramatic reduction in flow on the list over
> > > the last few days?
> > > Could it be that the American participants (and others) are glued to the
> > > televison watching the bizarre events from Washington DC?
> > I don't want to be a party pooper, but I'd rather not get into yet another
> > discussion about politics here, especially since we'd be partitioning
> > ourselves
> > into national and subnational camps, which has nothing to do with
> > conlanging.
> > I particularly don't like the idea of using conlanging as subtle excuse to
> > discuss
> > these issues, so please, let's, for the rest of us, keep these to an
> > absolute minimum.
> Hi Tom.
> I very strongly resent having you tell me what I really meant or
> appropriating the right to declare that conlanging was a subtle excuse.
> I think that from the overall tone of my message (you chose to quote
> just a few lines) it was very, very clear that I was writing in a
> jovial, friendly and non-political manner.
> I was genuinely surprised by the sudden drop in the number of messages,
> and I genuinely thought that maybe the reason was that people were
> watching the developments from Washington.
Well, no one is interested in it, as the comments here have
made clear. Certainly nothing like the Nixon hearings were supposed
to be. How many of us are Americans, anyways? (Just curious)
> I suggested three sentences - which it's hard to imagine anyone could
> not see were phrased in a jocular manner - to try to get some fun
> conlang responses going and maybe start up a little thread.
> If you review the messages that came, you'll see that the majority took
> up that idea happily, discussing problems they had with a word for
> "cigar," explaining their word for "infidelity" and so on. I found it
> interesting and learned about peoples conlangs.
> The last time you complained I was political (the sodomy thread) there
> was much more in what you were saying, and I wrote quite a detailed, and
> I think very respectful, response, which you ignored.
No, I didn't. You are probably unaware, but for the last five days
or so, I have been moving back into my apartment in Austin at school.
Only late this afternoon did I get my ethernet access back online (there
was some sort of driver conflict). Only tonight I was going to respond to
your letter, and in midresponse, Netscape crashed, and so I haven't
had a chance to respond to you yet at all. I'm sorry if you took my
absence as a cynical or childish grudge being held against you (as it would
be only natural to think of that if that were the case); it wasn't
meant as that.
My response to that letter will be forthcoming, probably tomorrow (it's quite
late now and I have morning classes).
> This time, in my opinion, I think you've gone over the line. I believe
> one should be able to express *almost* any view, but what I find
> COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE is to have someone start telling me what I
> meant, what I am thinking, what my real motives were. You say what you
> think, and I'll say what I think, OK? Given your long comments on PC,
> your effort now to establish so sharply permitted and non-permitted
> content, style and subjects on the list - according to your own personal
> preferences and inferences - is surprising to me.
In the recent past, I have made two relevant comments. First, somebody
complained some time ago something to the effect that the thread on sodomy
was irrelavent to the discussion on conlang, and I merely gave my opinion that
I saw nothing wrong with the discussion as long as it centered around the analogy
of closeted homosexuality and closeted conlanging. That is a very legitimate, and
very on-topic thread of discussion, and I was merely voicing what probably most
people on the list think. The second was this.
The difference, between that and this situation, is that we have
recently had a spate of totally off-topic conversations about politics which
served no real purpose save to inflame everybody's passions, and so it
was only natural, to me, to think we might be heading back in that
expressly off-topic direction.
The reason why I didn't want it is precisely because of the misunderstandings
those discussions brought out: I made a jocular statement about "PC thuggery"
(noting it with a smiley :) ), you took it seriously; you made a comment about
American right-wingers, and I took it seriously. I see no reason why those
misunderstandings had to occur; they would not have if we (you, me, and
the rest of us) had stayed on topic.
I will be honest and say that I thought the discussion about the cigars was
lacking in taste, but that did not enter into my decision to ask for discussion
more on topic (I only noticed that *after* I sent the letter about politics).
In the future, I will email the moderator to whom we owe so much if I feel
that the discussion is off-topic.
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."