RE: OT: Good-bye! (very, very long)

[Guest guest]

-

>I know that if I

>left the group without telling, hardly anyone would notice I was

>gone.

I can't of course speak for the teeming millions on the list (<g>) but I

for one will miss you if you leave. I know that, like me, you're an

introspective sort, but I really recommend in the strongest possible terms

that you refrain from taking any insults directed your way by Gene to

heart. He has a hair-trigger temper and tends to rip people new ones for

little or no reason. I sympathize with him to an extent as it took me some

years to learn to control my temper both externally and internally, but

having a temper is no excuse, and as I agree with many of his political

views, I actually find some of his conduct even more embarrassing and

unacceptable than I might otherwise (regardless of whether that's really

reasonable).

As to your concern that because you apparently offended Gene you may have

offended many other people, I can only say that I SERIOUSLY doubt it -- in

my estimation, you're quite well-liked here -- but even if so, so

what? You've always been extremely polite and you certainly haven't done

anyone here any harm (the very idea that you could have or would have is

laughable, in fact!) so the only possible offense you could have given is

through your beliefs, and in my not-so-humble opinion (which has something

of the force of law here, as I run the list) people ought to be adult

enough to accept that not everyone shares their beliefs. I hold as little

brief for the concept of " hate crimes " as I do for the legislation of

sexual mores. And while we might debate the merits of the Catholic ban on

female priests or the question of whether it's really sexist if a woman

happens to launder my undies, it can and should be done in a polite,

reasonable fashion. Awhile ago someone emailed me offlist to beg --

really, to insist -- that I eject Gene from the list, but the primary

reason given seemed to be his beliefs, not his politeness or lack

thereof. I find some of the politics of some list members absolutely

abhorrent -- but like I said, so what? Political censorship is extremely

contrary to my philosophy. I believe in freedom, even though freedom

allows people to go astray.

Perhaps more to the point, I'm extremely sorry that you got into an offlist

dust-up with Gene, but as he didn't initiate the conversation, it's really

outside my jurisdiction. I can only hope that it doesn't lead you to make

good on your decision to leave the list.

In friendship,

-

[Guest guest]

-

>

> >I know that if I

> >left the group without telling, hardly anyone would notice I was

> >gone.

>

> I can't of course speak for the teeming millions on the list (<g>) but I

> for one will miss you if you leave. I know that, like me, you're an

> introspective sort, but I really recommend in the strongest possible terms

> that you refrain from taking any insults directed your way by Gene to

> heart. He has a hair-trigger temper and tends to rip people new ones for

> little or no reason. I sympathize with him to an extent as it took me some

> years to learn to control my temper both externally and internally, but

> having a temper is no excuse, and as I agree with many of his political

> views, I actually find some of his conduct even more embarrassing and

> unacceptable than I might otherwise (regardless of whether that's really

> reasonable).

>

> As to your concern that because you apparently offended Gene you may have

> offended many other people, I can only say that I SERIOUSLY doubt it -- in

> my estimation, you're quite well-liked here -- but even if so, so

> what? You've always been extremely polite and you certainly haven't done

> anyone here any harm (the very idea that you could have or would have is

> laughable, in fact!) so the only possible offense you could have given is

> through your beliefs, and in my not-so-humble opinion (which has something

> of the force of law here, as I run the list) people ought to be adult

> enough to accept that not everyone shares their beliefs. I hold as little

> brief for the concept of " hate crimes " as I do for the legislation of

> sexual mores. And while we might debate the merits of the Catholic ban on

> female priests or the question of whether it's really sexist if a woman

> happens to launder my undies, it can and should be done in a polite,

> reasonable fashion. Awhile ago someone emailed me offlist to beg --

> really, to insist -- that I eject Gene from the list, but the primary

> reason given seemed to be his beliefs, not his politeness or lack

> thereof. I find some of the politics of some list members absolutely

> abhorrent -- but like I said, so what? Political censorship is extremely

> contrary to my philosophy. I believe in freedom, even though freedom

> allows people to go astray.

>

> Perhaps more to the point, I'm extremely sorry that you got into an offlist

> dust-up with Gene, but as he didn't initiate the conversation, it's really

> outside my jurisdiction. I can only hope that it doesn't lead you to make

> good on your decision to leave the list.

>

> In friendship,

>

>

>

> -

I cannot begin to convey how extremely inappropriate I believe that -'

personal emails to me were, and how even more inappropriate it is that he posts

about them here. I actually asked him to stop emailing me, which he did not do,

and sent several more emails. The tone of them from the first, was similar to

his tone here, which is why ultimately, in response, I called him aggressive

(yes - I do think that personal emails sent in reponse to a public forum, which

were, to put it mildly, very disparaging of my character) are quite aggressive.

I also find it completely inappropriate that you, , make some assumptions

about what happened. I do not believe that I lost my temper in our email

exchange, and the original post to which he objected was making a logical point,

and was not made in anger.

His condescension is unbelievably thick, and his attitudes expressed in these

email exchanges were quite offensive to me.

But, of course, because I have a " hair trigger temper " I must be at fault?

Please.

I had thought that we were not to post messages to this list that were personal

and negative in nature. That is what the essence of his post is about me.

Apparently that is ok in his case, because he is superficially a nice guy?

I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate at this

point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's tacit support.

[Guest guest]

Hi JC,

I must say that even reading all 18 sections I'm not exactly sure why

you're leaving, but we'll miss you.

You know, leaving because of a spat with *Gene* is like giving up on

eating entirely because you found out every time you eat wheat you

bloat, or because soy gives you headaches or something.

Good luck!

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> Hi JC,

>

> I must say that even reading all 18 sections I'm not exactly sure why

> you're leaving, but we'll miss you.

>

> You know, leaving because of a spat with *Gene* is like giving up on

> eating entirely because you found out every time you eat wheat you

> bloat, or because soy gives you headaches or something.

>

> Good luck!

> Chris

>

Either the man has an obsession with me, or (far more likely) my opinions anger

him, and so he is grandstanding here. It is considered a breech of internet

etiquette to post publicly about personal exchanges, but apparently not only is

this acceptable in his case, it is also simply accepted that I was the

offensive, rather than the offended party in this case. I think that his post is

a little over the top, don't you?

I hope that the research that you put into your articles is a bit more thorough.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate at

>this point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's tacit

>support.

You have a good point, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I

support airing offlist grievances onlist as a general rule. The one

exception I'd make to that -- and of course I can't say whether it's

relevant in this case -- is when one list-member feels the need to complain

about unsolicited ongoing hostile offlist communications from another list

member. Even then, I'd rather people email me or Wanita offlist, but so it

goes.

>The tone of them from the first, was similar to his tone here, which is

>why ultimately, in response, I called him aggressive (yes - I do think

>that personal emails sent in reponse to a public forum, which were, to put

>it mildly, very disparaging of my character) are quite aggressive.

I really don't want to get into the merits of the argument over private

emails which I didn't see and frankly have no interest in seeing, but if

you're saying that his emails were " aggressive " in the same sense that his

goodbye was " aggressive " , then I question your understanding of the word.

>I also find it completely inappropriate that you, , make some

>assumptions about what happened. I do not believe that I lost my temper in

>our email exchange, and the original post to which he objected was making

>a logical point, and was not made in anger.

A fair point. I simply shouldn't have posted any kind of guess or

conclusion about what might or might not have happened.

>I had thought that we were not to post messages to this list that were

>personal and negative in nature. That is what the essence of his post is

>about me. Apparently that is ok in his case, because he is superficially a

>nice guy?

What's the point about beating somebody up over list conduct when he's

leaving the list? And while I guess you may question his sincerity on this

count, a good part of his criticisms were directed at himself.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate at

> >this point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's tacit

> >support.

>

> You have a good point, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I

> support airing offlist grievances onlist as a general rule. The one

> exception I'd make to that -- and of course I can't say whether it's

> relevant in this case -- is when one list-member feels the need to complain

> about unsolicited ongoing hostile offlist communications from another list

> member. Even then, I'd rather people email me or Wanita offlist, but so it

> goes.

Right - and these emails from him were quite unsolicited, and continued well

past the point that I told him to stop.

>

> >The tone of them from the first, was similar to his tone here, which is

> >why ultimately, in response, I called him aggressive (yes - I do think

> >that personal emails sent in reponse to a public forum, which were, to put

> >it mildly, very disparaging of my character) are quite aggressive.

>

> I really don't want to get into the merits of the argument over private

> emails which I didn't see and frankly have no interest in seeing, but if

> you're saying that his emails were " aggressive " in the same sense that his

> goodbye was " aggressive " , then I question your understanding of the word.

>

Well, I myself don't consider it appropriate to post a several page 'article'

about another person's deficiencies of character to a public list, especially

when these deficiencies were apparently manifestly most blatantly in a personal

email exchange. You may not call this aggressive, but certainly similar

sentiments expressed in unsolicited emails to me fall under that category. If

you don't think so, then I question YOUR understanding of the word.

> >I also find it completely inappropriate that you, , make some

> >assumptions about what happened. I do not believe that I lost my temper in

> >our email exchange, and the original post to which he objected was making

> >a logical point, and was not made in anger.

>

> A fair point. I simply shouldn't have posted any kind of guess or

> conclusion about what might or might not have happened.

>

> >I had thought that we were not to post messages to this list that were

> >personal and negative in nature. That is what the essence of his post is

> >about me. Apparently that is ok in his case, because he is superficially a

> >nice guy?

>

> What's the point about beating somebody up over list conduct when he's

> leaving the list? And while I guess you may question his sincerity on this

> count, a good part of his criticisms were directed at himself.

>

I think that a good part of his post was sarcastic, and was really aimed at me.

So, yes, I do question his sincerity.

And I will repeat - I consider it to be a pretty major breech of etiquette to

post publicly about our private email exchanges, when he was the one who

initiated them, and wouldn't stop when I asked. And then somehow it is

acceptable for him to post a lengthy screed against me publicly, when you have

explicitly declared negative, personal comments about and towards people to be

against the rules here.

Again - I did not lose my temper in those email exchanges. But I really did not

care to continue defending myself against charges that I inappropriately

neglected to capitalize the titles of important personnages such as the PPPope,

and talked about them as if they were my peers. The 'argument' was essentially

political.

I do appreciate his opinion that I am without humor, though. I'll try to work on

that.

[Guest guest]

> I cannot begin to convey how extremely inappropriate I believe that

-' personal emails to me were, and how even more

inappropriate it is that he posts about them here.

I agree with this. I have an ongoing correspondence with my friend

JC, but I would be livid if he were to publicly post the contents or

even allusions of them here or on any other public forum. Chicken shit.

> I also find it completely inappropriate that you, , make some

assumptions about what happened.

> But, of course, because I have a " hair trigger temper " I must be at

fault? Please.

I have had correspondence with Gene as well. It is no one's business,

but I must comment under the circumstances that the exchange has

always been cordial.

> I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate

at this point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's

tacit support.

The message was definitely an ode to evil Mr. Schwartz. It is too

bad; not a very stylish way to leave the group, imo.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> > I cannot begin to convey how extremely inappropriate I believe that

> -' personal emails to me were, and how even more

> inappropriate it is that he posts about them here.

>

> I agree with this. I have an ongoing correspondence with my friend

> JC, but I would be livid if he were to publicly post the contents or

> even allusions of them here or on any other public forum. Chicken shit.

>

I am really quite upset by this. If the fact that some feel that, because I have

at times upset others, that I have no right to be upset at this, so be it.

> > I also find it completely inappropriate that you, , make some

> assumptions about what happened.

>

> > But, of course, because I have a " hair trigger temper " I must be at

> fault? Please.

>

> I have had correspondence with Gene as well. It is no one's business,

> but I must comment under the circumstances that the exchange has

> always been cordial.

Yes, and enjoyable.

>

>

> > I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate

> at this point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's

> tacit support.

>

> The message was definitely an ode to evil Mr. Schwartz. It is too

> bad; not a very stylish way to leave the group, imo.

>

I found his disparagement of me to be sincere, and his self effacement to be

insincere. He is rather articulate at sarcasm - I'll give him that.

Thank you for not jumping on the proverbial bandwagon.

As always, the humorless, juvenile, evil one.

>

> Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

> Chicken shit.

Regardless of your feelings about the subject, this is unacceptable onlist.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>And I will repeat - I consider it to be a pretty major breech of etiquette

>to post publicly about our private email exchanges, when he was the one

>who initiated them, and wouldn't stop when I asked. And then somehow it is

>acceptable for him to post a lengthy screed against me publicly, when you

>have explicitly declared negative, personal comments about and towards

>people to be against the rules here.

I don't consider it acceptable, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that

I do. Maybe I should have mentioned that issue in my reply to him. But I

think you may be concluding that I do because (a) I didn't reprimand JC

when he's evidently leaving the list, since I didn't see the point, and (

I considered it plausible that you flew off the handle at him, which is a

completely separate issue. You do sometimes fly off the handle,

particularly at people who have conservative and what you might call

" moralistic " political viewpoints (though I personally object in the

strongest possible terms to the appropriation of morals by the right wing),

so I didn't think it was implausible.

But this is neither here nor there. If JC rejoins the list, he'll have to

live up to the rules. If he's gone for good -- and he left the group today

-- then there's no point in debating his parting shot ad infinitum.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >And I will repeat - I consider it to be a pretty major breech of etiquette

> >to post publicly about our private email exchanges, when he was the one

> >who initiated them, and wouldn't stop when I asked. And then somehow it is

> >acceptable for him to post a lengthy screed against me publicly, when you

> >have explicitly declared negative, personal comments about and towards

> >people to be against the rules here.

>

> I don't consider it acceptable, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that

> I do. Maybe I should have mentioned that issue in my reply to him. But I

> think you may be concluding that I do because (a) I didn't reprimand JC

> when he's evidently leaving the list, since I didn't see the point, and (

> I considered it plausible that you flew off the handle at him, which is a

> completely separate issue. You do sometimes fly off the handle,

> particularly at people who have conservative and what you might call

> " moralistic " political viewpoints (though I personally object in the

> strongest possible terms to the appropriation of morals by the right wing),

> so I didn't think it was implausible.

>

So, without being a party to the private conversation, because you felt that it

was " plausible " that I flew off the handle, and because you believed his self

serving story that he was leaving the list (more likely hoping that people would

beg for his return and that you would ban me), you participated in the public

disparagement of my character, and let him off the hook. But did feel that it

was important enough to reprimand Deanna for using the phrase 'chicken shit'?

I think that this is pretty crazy.

> But this is neither here nor there. If JC rejoins the list, he'll have to

> live up to the rules. If he's gone for good -- and he left the group today

> -- then there's no point in debating his parting shot ad infinitum.

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > Chicken shit.

>

> Regardless of your feelings about the subject, this is unacceptable

onlist.

>

,

I don't know why you find this statement unacceptable. It is an

expression for cowardly behavior, which I found the ad hominem post to

be, quite frankly. Is that what is unacceptable, or are swear words

now banned from the list. Please clarify, as I certainly meant no

remarks to JC as a person, only to the message. But I can't see why

JC's lengthy barrage can be any more acceptable than mine, no matter

how it is phrased.

Thanks,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>So, without being a party to the private conversation, because you felt

>that it was " plausible " that I flew off the handle, and because you

>believed his self serving story that he was leaving the list (more likely

>hoping that people would beg for his return and that you would ban me),

>you participated in the public disparagement of my character, and let him

>off the hook. But did feel that it was important enough to reprimand

>Deanna for using the phrase 'chicken shit'?

I participated in the public disparagement of your character? If you

consider stating that you have a short temper public disparagement of your

character, OK, but I think there's not only a quantitative difference but a

qualitative one between saying something like that and saying something

like " Gene is evil " , or " Gene is a bad person " , or " is the devil " .

Again, JC was leaving, so I didn't see much point in jumping all over the

issue. It's arguable that I should have said something about his violation

of list rules, and if you'd like, I'll concede that point in good

faith. But the reason I told Deanna to refrain from that sort language is

that she's an active member of the list and, AFAIK, will continue to

post. (I certainly hope she doesn't quit in a huff!) I think that's

pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

Look, I could be spending my time much more productively, and if I'm not

going get any work done, I'd rather do some research or read a book or

listen to some music. I admitted that I could've responded to JC's message

more comprehensively and that I gave the impression of at least tacitly

approving of some of it without meaning to. I'm sorry about that. But

that's the end of the issue. I'm not questioning the offense you took or

your right to be offended, but the man in question isn't even a member of

the list anymore, and I'm not going to discuss the matter any further.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Either the man has an obsession with me, or (far more likely) my opinions

> anger him, and so he is grandstanding here. It is considered a breech of

> internet etiquette to post publicly about personal exchanges, but apparently

> not only is this acceptable in his case, it is also simply accepted that I

> was the offensive, rather than the offended party in this case. I think that

> his post is a little over the top, don't you?

Yes, actually I think it was inappropriate.

> I hope that the research that you put into your articles is a bit more

> thorough.

I didn't research what happened nor did I make any assumptions. I was

just pointing out that getting into it with you has predictable

results. You feel the same way about me, which is why you try to

limit the amount of exchange with me you'll have (as you've said in

the past). But neither of us quit the group over it.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I don't know why you find this statement unacceptable. It is an

>expression for cowardly behavior, which I found the ad hominem post to

>be, quite frankly.

I really don't want to get into one of those " how many angels can dance on

the head of a pin " type debates over whether " that's a lie! " is technically

an ad hominem. " That's chicken shit " and " You're chicken shit " are at

least quite similar.

> Is that what is unacceptable, or are swear words

>now banned from the list.

I haven't (yet) formally banned swear words because I strongly believe in

free speech, but I strongly discourage their use as a matter of courtesy to

members who are offended by them.

>But I can't see why

>JC's lengthy barrage can be any more acceptable than mine, no matter

>how it is phrased.

Clearly I should have commented on the problems with his message in my

response, as you're not the only person confused by my stance.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >So, without being a party to the private conversation, because you felt

> >that it was " plausible " that I flew off the handle, and because you

> >believed his self serving story that he was leaving the list (more likely

> >hoping that people would beg for his return and that you would ban me),

> >you participated in the public disparagement of my character, and let him

> >off the hook. But did feel that it was important enough to reprimand

> >Deanna for using the phrase 'chicken shit'?

>

> I participated in the public disparagement of your character? If you

> consider stating that you have a short temper public disparagement of your

> character, OK, but I think there's not only a quantitative difference but a

> qualitative one between saying something like that and saying something

> like " Gene is evil " , or " Gene is a bad person " , or " is the

devil " .

>

I think that you elaborated on this a little, and it was in the context of a 500

page literary piece about how I was an agent of Satan. Thus far you seem mildly

amused that JC posted this personal drivel about me, felt it was obligatory to

speak about my temper and how you found it embarassing, and castigated Deanna

for using the phrase 'chicken shit'.

> Again, JC was leaving, so I didn't see much point in jumping all over the

> issue. It's arguable that I should have said something about his violation

> of list rules, and if you'd like, I'll concede that point in good

> faith. But the reason I told Deanna to refrain from that sort language is

> that she's an active member of the list and, AFAIK, will continue to

> post. (I certainly hope she doesn't quit in a huff!) I think that's

> pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

>

> Look, I could be spending my time much more productively, and if I'm not

> going get any work done, I'd rather do some research or read a book or

> listen to some music. I admitted that I could've responded to JC's message

> more comprehensively and that I gave the impression of at least tacitly

> approving of some of it without meaning to. I'm sorry about that. But

> that's the end of the issue. I'm not questioning the offense you took or

> your right to be offended, but the man in question isn't even a member of

> the list anymore, and I'm not going to discuss the matter any further.

>

>

yeah, your position is quite clear.

[Guest guest]

But the reason I told Deanna to refrain from that sort language is

> that she's an active member of the list and, AFAIK, will continue to

> post. (I certainly hope she doesn't quit in a huff!) I think that's

> pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

Hi ,

No I am not leaving in a huff. I am not emotionally involved in this

matter at all (except for the general fact of private mails posted to

public lists). I only swear on occasion to flex my free speech

muscles. If we don't exercise our rights we might lose them! And in

all candor, that is why I chose such a euphemism.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I think that you elaborated on this a little, and it was in the context of

>a 500 page literary piece about how I was an agent of Satan. Thus far you

>seem mildly amused that JC posted this personal drivel about me, felt it

>was obligatory to speak about my temper and how you found it embarassing,

>and castigated Deanna for using the phrase 'chicken shit'.

I guess I'm an ass for getting dragged back into this, but " mildly amused "

is definitely not even remotely accurate.

Sad to see JC go? Yes. I don't have the negative opinion of him that you

seem to. Bemused by his reaction to you, which I consider overblown and at

least partly mistaken? Yes. Felt obligated to mention your temper? Yes,

in the sense that the impression I got was that he overreacted to it and I

was recommending that he just ignore it because it's not that

important. Embarrassed sometimes by your temper? Yes, and I'm saying so

forthrightly, because at least on some emotional level, I'd like to believe

that people of our political persuasion (and AFAIK your politics and mine

overlap a lot) are more measured, temperate, rational, reasonable,

etc. Emotionally speaking, I'd rather believe that tearing into people

with all sorts of heated, angry rhetoric is the behavior of fascists,

radical fundamentalists and the like. As I noted at the time, this isn't a

rational position and I don't actually believe it -- it's stupid -- but

emotionally speaking, yes, I'm more perturbed when people I expect more of

" misbehave " , so to speak.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >I think that you elaborated on this a little, and it was in the context of

> >a 500 page literary piece about how I was an agent of Satan. Thus far you

> >seem mildly amused that JC posted this personal drivel about me, felt it

> >was obligatory to speak about my temper and how you found it embarassing,

> >and castigated Deanna for using the phrase 'chicken shit'.

>

> I guess I'm an ass for getting dragged back into this, but " mildly amused "

> is definitely not even remotely accurate.

>

> Sad to see JC go? Yes. I don't have the negative opinion of him that you

> seem to. Bemused by his reaction to you, which I consider overblown and at

> least partly mistaken? Yes. Felt obligated to mention your temper? Yes,

> in the sense that the impression I got was that he overreacted to it and I

> was recommending that he just ignore it because it's not that

> important. Embarrassed sometimes by your temper? Yes, and I'm saying so

> forthrightly, because at least on some emotional level, I'd like to believe

> that people of our political persuasion (and AFAIK your politics and mine

> overlap a lot) are more measured, temperate, rational, reasonable,

> etc. Emotionally speaking, I'd rather believe that tearing into people

> with all sorts of heated, angry rhetoric is the behavior of fascists,

> radical fundamentalists and the like. As I noted at the time, this isn't a

> rational position and I don't actually believe it -- it's stupid -- but

> emotionally speaking, yes, I'm more perturbed when people I expect more of

> " misbehave " , so to speak.

>

>

>

> -

>

Except in this case there was no such behavior at all, and there was simply no

need for you to publicly castigate me for it. The ONLY transgressions that have

taken place here are JCs totally inappropriate, lengthy diatribe here. You still

talk as if I reacted so angrily to him off list that it has traumatized him

forever. That is laughable. That is very far from what took place. I am the

aggrieved party here, and I find your whole attitude to be objectionable. If you

don't like my personality then comment on things when they actually happen, or

comment to me off list if you must. but this is absolutely NOT about me 'tearing

into people'.

Negative opinion of JC? I did not have a negative opinion of him until he

starting sending me personal emails, and wouldn't stop when I asked him to. In

addition I would not have publicly posted negatively about anyone in this affair

had not he posted his self important nonsense, and you winked knowingly in

response.

I'll stop now unless you feel the need to comment further on my character

deficiencies.

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

> Gene-

>

> >I really cannot begin (hmmm - have already said this) to articulate at

> >this point how offensive I found his post to this group, and 's tacit

>

> >support.

>

> You have a good point, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I

> support airing offlist grievances onlist as a general rule. The one

> exception I'd make to that -- and of course I can't say whether it's

> relevant in this case -- is when one list-member feels the need to

> complain

> about unsolicited ongoing hostile offlist communications from another list

> member. Even then, I'd rather people email me or Wanita offlist, but so it

>

> goes.

>

>

Yes, anyone uncomfortable or put into compromising place with any offlist

email please feel free to mail me anytime.

IMO, Gene may seem harsh in contrast to my tries at diplomacy for example,

which could use a dumping from time to time. In order to call a spade a

spade, you need to be able to see it and dare say it. If criticizers would

look back on this list and see what Gene really stands up for, they'll see

it can be uglier than his manner of making it evident is.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Hey Evil One <g>,

> I am really quite upset by this. If the fact that some feel that,

because I have at times upset others, that I have no right to be upset

at this, so be it.

Well, it did seem a rather strange fixation for a good-bye message.

It was oblique at times, bizarre at others. For instance, JC wrote:

" And no matter what Mr. Schwartz's sexual orientation is, he must

concede that the gay lifestyle isn't a healthy option for everyone,

not even for many gays, and that if homophobia is a fact, another not

less real fact is *heterophobia* (if the term doesn't exist, I'm

coining it now), which is a way to put heterosexual behaviour under

fire and look at the straight as if they were all jerks and narrow-

minded people. I expect that Mr. Schwartz, in his libel against

homophobia, in which I'd support him heartily, doesn't commit the sin

of ignoring the other face of this wrinkled coin. If he can boast

that his own life is totally free from sexism and abuse of women and

if he can acknowledge the existence of a prejudice against the

straight and be sorry for it, then I'd be done with him. On second

thoughts, no, not yet.

" And isn't curious that Mr. Schwartz has an obsession with sex? I seem

to be obsessed by death, on the other hand. Aren't we brethren, by

the way? "

Where in the world did that come from, and is it not just a tad out of

line?

> Yes, and enjoyable.

Thank you.

> I found his disparagement of me to be sincere, and his self

effacement to be insincere. He is rather articulate at sarcasm - I'll

give him that.

>

> Thank you for not jumping on the proverbial bandwagon.

You are welcome. I still feel it was like a stab in the back (to use

more politically correct terminology) for JC to say good bye to the

group by reviling you with fluffy language. That's why I called it

for what it was. And besides, English is best expressed as concisely

as possible. generally uses cuss words more than I do. No one

is as good with it as New Orleans mayor Nagin, though.

The Gutter Talkin' Babe Who Should Learn to be More Ladylike

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes, anyone uncomfortable or put into compromising place with any offlist

> email please feel free to mail me anytime.

Yes - I AM THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. I received unsolicited emails. I did not respond

to them with an emotional outburst but tried to defend my points of view. I

finally asked JC to stop and he would not. Finally he emailed the list.

T

> IMO, Gene may seem harsh in contrast to my tries at diplomacy for example,

> which could use a dumping from time to time. In order to call a spade a

> spade, you need to be able to see it and dare say it. If criticizers would

> look back on this list and see what Gene really stands up for, they'll see

> it can be uglier than his manner of making it evident is.

> Wanita

>

Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I may stand up

for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is even uglier. If

this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said yet in this whole

affair.

this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have complained to

the list moderators about unsolicited emails.

I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100% absolutely

should not be about me.

[Guest guest]

> Hey Evil One <g>,

> > I am really quite upset by this. If the fact that some feel that,

> because I have at times upset others, that I have no right to be upset

> at this, so be it.

>

> Well, it did seem a rather strange fixation for a good-bye message.

> It was oblique at times, bizarre at others. For instance, JC wrote:

>

> " And no matter what Mr. Schwartz's sexual orientation is, he must

> concede that the gay lifestyle isn't a healthy option for everyone,

> not even for many gays, and that if homophobia is a fact, another not

> less real fact is *heterophobia* (if the term doesn't exist, I'm

> coining it now), which is a way to put heterosexual behaviour under

> fire and look at the straight as if they were all jerks and narrow-

> minded people. I expect that Mr. Schwartz, in his libel against

> homophobia, in which I'd support him heartily, doesn't commit the sin

> of ignoring the other face of this wrinkled coin. If he can boast

> that his own life is totally free from sexism and abuse of women and

> if he can acknowledge the existence of a prejudice against the

> straight and be sorry for it, then I'd be done with him. On second

> thoughts, no, not yet.

>

Yes - I saw no need to get into a point by point analysis of his post, and,

frankly, I stopped reading after awhile. I do find this paragraph above to be

totally objectionable, and quite bizarre.

> " And isn't curious that Mr. Schwartz has an obsession with sex? I seem

> to be obsessed by death, on the other hand. Aren't we brethren, by

> the way? "

>

You see, I do find JC to be quite nasty, and I was finding his unsolicted email

opinions to be similar in tone, and ultimately asked him to stop. When he

continued to go quite over the top about various issues, I DEMANDED that he

stop. He then still sent me one more email.

I think that it is fine if people find my 'hair trigger' temper to be upsetting,

to comment about things that I say to the list. However, it should not be a

topic of discussion now. It is absolutely irrelevant.

Yes, at this point I am really and royally pissed off.

> Where in the world did that come from, and is it not just a tad out of

> line?

>

> > Yes, and enjoyable.

>

> Thank you.

>

> > I found his disparagement of me to be sincere, and his self

> effacement to be insincere. He is rather articulate at sarcasm - I'll

> give him that.

> >

> > Thank you for not jumping on the proverbial bandwagon.

>

> You are welcome. I still feel it was like a stab in the back (to use

> more politically correct terminology) for JC to say good bye to the

> group by reviling you with fluffy language. That's why I called it

> for what it was. And besides, English is best expressed as concisely

> as possible. generally uses cuss words more than I do. No one

> is as good with it as New Orleans mayor Nagin, though.

>

I absolutely could not believe that, days after our exchange, he would post to

the list about it, though it did confirm my growing opinion that he is, uh, a

little unstable.

>

>

> The Gutter Talkin' Babe Who Should Learn to be More Ladylike

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I may

>stand up for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is

>even uglier. If this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said

>yet in this whole affair.

>

>this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have

>complained to the list moderators about unsolicited emails.

>

>I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100%

>absolutely should not be about me.

Given what Wanita's said to me privately in the past, I can offer you a

100% guarantee that she merely misspoke. Reinterpret (or rephrase) what

she said charitably and you'll arrive at her true meaning.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >Can you rephrase that? It sounds like what you said is that while I may

> >stand up for things in an ugly manner, what I actually stand up for is

> >even uglier. If this is so, this is perhaps the most offensive thing said

> >yet in this whole affair.

> >

> >this is just so wrong. If anything I was the one who should have

> >complained to the list moderators about unsolicited emails.

> >

> >I ask that you restate what you just said, or apologize. This 100%

> >absolutely should not be about me.

>

> Given what Wanita's said to me privately in the past, I can offer you a

> 100% guarantee that she merely misspoke. Reinterpret (or rephrase) what

> she said charitably and you'll arrive at her true meaning.

>

>

>

>

> -

Good. Thanks.