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

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>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.

I didn't publicly castigate you, though I understand why it seemed that way.

>The ONLY transgressions that have taken place here are JCs totally

>inappropriate, lengthy diatribe here.

Yes, that's true.

>You still talk as if I reacted so angrily to him off list that it has

>traumatized him forever.

Traumatized him forever? I granted him the politeness of taking him at

face value, but the idea that he's permanently traumatized is ludicrous,

and if he is, it's his problem. As I believe I've said before, while I've

objected to your past losses of temper (do you find that phrasing more

acceptable?) I also think people overreact to them.

>and you winked knowingly in response.

It seems to me that that's how you tend to read things -- negatively and

personally. But I wasn't winking knowingly. I was crediting the

possibility that you'd lost your temper with him, yes, but I was also

telling him that he was overreacting to whatever you might have

said. That's it.

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

>deficiencies.

I suppose you'll consider the above more of that, but once again, that's

not my point.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

> generally uses cuss words more than I do.

" Crap " is officially a cuss word, then?

-

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

> >

> > 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.

>

> Gene,

You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you

weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the

time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly

(political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle,

because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter

what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

issue represented.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

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

> >

> >

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > Gene,

>

> You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you

> weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the

> time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly

> (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle,

> because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter

> what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> issue represented.

> Wanita

>

ok - as I replied to , I wasn't sure what your post was actually saying.

That's fine. I didn't complain because I never thought that he would escalate

like he did...

[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.

> > >

> > > Gene,

> >

> > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of

> you

> > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all

> the

> > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's

> ugly

> > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can

> handle,

> > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no

> matter

> > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> > issue represented.

> > Wanita

> >

>

> ok - as I replied to , I wasn't sure what your post was actually

> saying. That's fine. I didn't complain because I never thought that he would

> escalate like he did...

Gene,

Thanks for the proacting this issue.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

,

> " Crap " is officially a cuss word, then?

>

A few flavorful quotes from you, my dear (if any are misquotes, accept

my apologies and bring me to task for them):

" The very suggestion would be a straw man and a lame-ass ad hominem

attack. " - message # 38581

" The problem is that Bush did a half-assed job of the invasion. (Strong

on terrorism my ass.) " - # 58250

" Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued

about awhile ago. " - # 73363

" Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I mean, WTF?

How about some damn priorities! " - # 15783

I respect the way you run this list. I appreciate your emphasis on

freedom of speech as long as it is not directed at a person (not in

charge). I hope it continues and hope that you will see my chicken shit

remark for what it was, which is a reaction to the " get the last word in

an out of nowhere attack on Gene " tactics of good ol' JC. Whassup with

that? Gene did NOTHING on list recently to deserve this pent up vomit.

Last I read from Gene, he said something about the pope, which most

folks probably agree with for all I know. knows exactly how

I feel about it by reading this list and my personal off list remarks to

him.

I suppose it's difficult to let the past go and deal with posts on their

merit, not by whom they are posted. I feel it is important try, though.

" WTF " is a frequently used abbreviated foul language phrase, for the

naive among you, btw.

Respectfully,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

> " The very suggestion would be a straw man and a lame-ass ad hominem

>attack. " - message # 38581

Lame-ass is a cuss word? I suppose this is partly a matter of perspective

and taste, but still...

> " The problem is that Bush did a half-assed job of the invasion. (Strong

>on terrorism my ass.) " - # 58250

Again, that's not cussing in my book, though I guess it would be in some

people's.

> " Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued

>about awhile ago. " - # 73363

<chuckling> I guess you might have me there, except that I was using the

expression literally -- that's in essence actually how the test is conducted.

> " Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I mean, WTF?

>How about some damn priorities! " - # 15783

OK, fair enough.

>I hope it continues and hope that you will see my chicken shit

>remark for what it was, which is a reaction to the " get the last word in

>an out of nowhere attack on Gene " tactics of good ol' JC.

Look, I _personally_ have no problem with it, but I personally have no

problem with all sorts of " cuss " words that bother some people mightily. I

also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon

my French-Canadian, but the fact is that not everyone has the skin I have

and not everybody grew up in the, shall we say, extremely emotionally

intense fracas that I did, so I try to find a workable compromise. The

point of my message to you, though, wasn't about the words used but about

the arguably ad-hominem nature of the statement. (And no, I don't want to

get into the angels-on-a-pin thing.) While I have no problem wading into

an intense debate even when it becomes personal, it can rapidly turn a list

or any kind of discussion forum into a war zone permanently scarred by

rubble and corpses. It's a slippery-slope sort of problem. That's why in

this case restrictions override free speech. I'd reluctantly censor or ban

someone for personal attacks, whereas I'd never do it for personal viewpoints.

And now I've got to fly. I was supposed to be way the frack downtown 3

minutes ago, and I haven't even brushed and showered yet.

-

[Guest guest]

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

> I also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon

> my French-Canadian,

LOL! I'm sorry but that was just hilarious.

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]

On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

> You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you

> weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the

> time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly

> (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle,

> because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter

> what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> issue represented.

> Wanita

Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist

from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is

not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us

KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his

story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be

talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us

know.

The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance

in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless

Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is

ALL we know.

So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said,

but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with

is no different than taking at face value what said about

his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and .

I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can

handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when

made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in

a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist*

So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason

you state above.

post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has

acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's

story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you

and want to check it out with both sides.

I don't think either of you do.

--

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

> On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

>

> > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of you

> > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the

> > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly

> > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can handle,

> > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no matter

> > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> > issue represented.

> > Wanita

>

> Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist

> from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is

> not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us

> KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his

> story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be

> talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us

> know.

>

> The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance

> in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless

> Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is

> ALL we know.

>

> So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said,

> but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with

> is no different than taking at face value what said about

> his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and .

>

> I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can

> handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when

> made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in

> a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist*

>

> So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason

> you state above.

>

> post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has

> acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's

> story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you

> and want to check it out with both sides.

>

> I don't think either of you do.

>

>

In any case, I really agree with most of this, and, while the issue got

sidetracked...this was my point. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for

the substance of the private conversation. What I objected to was, seemingly,

the assumption at first that I had somehow viciously attacked JC. I pointed out

that this wasn't the case, because it seemed to be assumed that this must have

taken place.

I did think about posting the entire content of the private exchange, but I

really don't think that it's necessary. Obviously its privacy wasn't respected,

which kinds of voids the internet etiquette thing, but I think that the

inappropriateness of his post should stand for itself.

I do interpret Wanita as agreeing that I was the aggrieved party because of JC's

post, not because of any assumption about what had taken place in the private

conversations.

[Guest guest]

,

>

>

>> " Yeah, like the shove-it-up-your-ass South Park Science test we argued

>>about awhile ago. " - # 73363

>>

>>

>

><chuckling> I guess you might have me there, except that I was using the

>expression literally -- that's in essence actually how the test is conducted.

>

>

Yeah, that whole message is pretty damning <g>.

>Look, I _personally_ have no problem with it, but I personally have no

>problem with all sorts of " cuss " words that bother some people mightily. I

>also think people should have some thicker frickin skin, if you'll pardon

>my French-Canadian, but the fact is that not everyone has the skin I have

>and not everybody grew up in the, shall we say, extremely emotionally

>intense fracas that I did, so I try to find a workable compromise.

>

I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair

use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to

besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I

don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr.

Anton :

" As a linguist, I have to jump in and offer my support for Christie's

position here. Words like " fuck " are part of the real language we

use and are beautiful and important. They have a definite and

permanent place in our lives and it is unhealthy to dogmatically shun

them based on idiosyncratic moral ideologies. I hope that no one

will ever hold back from expressing themselves using their authentic

native language with all its beautiful nuances of lexical choice and

phrasing. One of the most important effects of email is the

textualization of authentic spoken language, giving us all

opportunities to relish it's greater complexity and expressive range

compared to the distinct entity of written language, which also has a

valuable place in our lives too, but should not be taken as a

standard by which other registers, dialects, etc are judged. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair

> use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to

> besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I

> don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr.

> Anton :

" Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a

kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after

prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not.

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]

> On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> > I figure, if it is said on TV then it is fair game here in terms of fair

> > use (and anyone help me out here, what words have we progressed to

> > besides shit, damn and bitch that I saw at the hotel gym last cuz I

> > don't watch TV). But I must defer to our absent as of late Mr.

> > Anton :

>

> " Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a

> kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after

> prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not.

>

> Chris

> --

Obviously y'all haven't seen Deadwood...

[Guest guest]

>

> " Shit " is definitely NOT allowed on TV! " Damn " has been since I was a

>kid, but " God damn " has never been. I think " shit " is allowed after

>prime time hours, but for most of the day, it's not.

>

>

Shoot, I am hardly ever awake after prime time! I guess I'll have to

stick with " chicken livered " during the day. But wait, this is an

international list spanning several time zones. I think we should

accommodate all of them. Besides, most other western-type countries are

just as free and easy about this sort of expression. And what about

bitch and bastard, are they spoken on TV?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Shoot, I am hardly ever awake after prime time! I guess I'll have to

> stick with " chicken livered " during the day. But wait, this is an

> international list spanning several time zones. I think we should

> accommodate all of them. Besides, most other western-type countries are

> just as free and easy about this sort of expression. And what about

> bitch and bastard, are they spoken on TV?

I don't know whether bastard is or not, since I'm not sure how often

I'd hear it anyway, but I'm pretty sure " bitch " isn't because I'd hear

it all the time from music videos, and I don't ever notice hearing it.

I'm pretty sure " bitch " is not allowed on the radio, although what

radios will bleep out seems rather inconsistent sometimes.

I think that " ass " is allowed but that " asshole " is not, iirc.

I think polite conversation generally includes what is heard on tv

during prime time. What is allowed in the wee hours of the night is

generally what is considered on the more offensive side.

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]

>I don't know whether bastard is or not, since I'm not sure how often

>I'd hear it anyway, but I'm pretty sure " bitch " isn't because I'd hear

>it all the time from music videos, and I don't ever notice hearing it.

> I'm pretty sure " bitch " is not allowed on the radio, although what

>radios will bleep out seems rather inconsistent sometimes.

>

>I think that " ass " is allowed but that " asshole " is not, iirc.

>

>I think polite conversation generally includes what is heard on tv

>during prime time. What is allowed in the wee hours of the night is

>generally what is considered on the more offensive side.

>

Thanks for the cultural edification, however, if my ever dominant memory

serves, I have read such words as " bitch " and " shit " on captioned TV in

the gym at like 9something in the morning within the last 5 years off

and on. Since I don't watch TV at home and haven't since I was in

college, I am amazed at the change in it. My theatre training probably

makes me spit it out for its predictable plots and planned commercial

breaks. But the camera shots are like a strobe light now (which makes

me wonder how much ADD/ADHD comes from watching it too much/young).

God I love this list! The morphing of topics being just one small

reason. , forget the fruify niceties of compromise, else you want

constant bickering over terms of censorship. Some of y'all are from the

not-so-well-known-for-niceties New England, where I have never been

believe it or not. It has always shown since day one for me. Adapt or

jump ship, I figure.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

>

> On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

>

> > You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> > When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> > worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of

> you

> > weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all

> the

> > time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's

> ugly

> > (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can

> handle,

> > because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no

> matter

> > what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> > purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> > issue represented.

> > Wanita

>

> Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist

> from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is

> not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us

> KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his

> story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be

> talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us

> know.

>

> The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance

> in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless

> Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is

> ALL we know.

>

> So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said,

> but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with

> is no different than taking at face value what said about

> his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and .

>

> I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can

> handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when

> made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in

> a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist*

>

> So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason

> you state above.

>

> post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has

> acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's

> story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you

> and want to check it out with both sides.

>

> I don't think either of you do.

>

> ,

I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal

boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't

happen. Instead the list had to experience that diatribe all because of

this?

Unfortunately, what I had envisaged as a

brief and possibly amiable interchange quickly turned into a flaming

session, so to say. I should have known better. We have a saying

here: " If you join the pigs, you may end up eating dirt. " Mr.

Schwartz made me eat the dirt. But I don't want to play the innocent

part at all. I must have deeply provocated Mr. Schwartz or stepped on

his prized callus, because he ended our interchange rather brusquely

by anointing me with a series of bad but resounding names, such as:

impolite, aggressive, insulting, hostile, disgusting, unsettling,

harassing, etc. Does the mouth speak out of that which fills the

heart? I know my dialogue with him was a private affair, but it

wasn't confidential at all, and I've got to tell these things in

public in order to illustrate my point. I'm exposing both of us, not

only him.

Disgusting would probably be the most agreed to offensive word there.

Disgusting back publically sure does expose a lot here.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

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

On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

> You are correct! You are the aggrieved party and should have complained

> When JC would not stop. Sorry you took my defense of your position as a

> worse insult than all the rest. What I meant is if recent criticizers of

you

> weren't only going on recent perceptions of your posts rather than all the

> time you've been here this shouldn't have happened. You expose what's ugly

> (political, social injustice) in your manner, which I personally can

handle,

> because there's a purpose of good behind it. Anyone who does such, no

matter

> what their manner of doing it is other than physical harm which defeats

> purpose, will come across those that can't see beyond the person to the

> issue represented.

> Wanita

"

Gene should have complained if he was getting unwanted email offlist

from another member after he had asked him to stop. That however is

not the issue here. While that may in fact be the case, none of us

KNOW that to be the actual case. has his story and Gene has his

story. So far it is just a " he said-he said " and NONE of us should be

talking about who was agrieved OFFLIST because frankly none of us

know.

The one thing we DO KNOW is that Gene does have a legitimate grievance

in having his *private* conversation with made public. And unless

Gene has made that correspondence available to you or , that is

ALL we know.

So yes Gene is the aggrieved party *publically* as to what said,

but to take at face value what Gene says about his interaction with

is no different than taking at face value what said about

his interaction with Gene, short of it being vetted by you and .

I really don't care who did what offlist. Gene is an adult who can

handle his own business. The problem *for us on this list* is when

made the substance of that interaction public. None of us are in

a position to judge who was right/wrong *offlist*

So yes Wanita Gene is the aggrieved party here, but not for the reason

you state above.

post was inappropriate. I think everyone in this thread has

acknowledged that hopefully to Gene's satisfaction. But taking Gene's

story as true is no better than taking story as true UNLESS you

and want to check it out with both sides.

I don't think either of you do.

-- "

I will say this, however. JC - since I think that obviously part of your

intention was to 'hit and run' and lie back and watch the results, I

challenge you. I give you permission: post here the most offensive parts of

the email exchange that we had. Of course, leave in enough context so that

it makes sense. While is entirely correct that people should not

take my word for it, and, of course, I could post quotes from exchange here,

I could be excused of picking and choosing, or (if people take my 'trigger

temper' as a sign of dishonesty) of editing the words, or even outright

fabricating them. So - you pick and choose. Post any of the threads. Leave

in your shouting (capalization) of course, as you became more agitated and

more free in your general characterizations of my personality...

On the one hand you apologize for your English, and on the other, you use

very flowery, polite language to say some rather impolite things. So,

please - you have posted so eloquently on my deficiencies, apparently based

on my one sentence reply to your post about the Pope, and my replies to your

unsolicited emails. Now quote the offending passages here for all to see.

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

> I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal

>boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't

>happen. Instead the list had to experience that diatribe all because of

>this?

>

>

I appreciate your moderatorship. You are wise and measured, which is

more than I can say for myself quite often. I am proud of you.

> Unfortunately, what I had envisaged as a

>brief and possibly amiable interchange quickly turned into a flaming

>session, so to say. I should have known better. We have a saying

>here: " If you join the pigs, you may end up eating dirt. " Mr.

>Schwartz made me eat the dirt.

>

Ya know, this language strikes me now. Honestly, I did read the whole

piece but had several food items going, a game of Monopoly with ds, a

new group to start, and now that I read what you have snipped from JC's

rail against Gene, I have to wonder about antisemitism. Gene, I don't

know nor do I care what you were raised as, be it Martian, drag queen,

Catholic or otherwise. JC was bringing up the name Schwartz and

wondering about it in terms of Judaism. This wasn't the first time

either. To bring up pigs in his post after making more inquiries as to

his Hebrewness seems to me more possibly veiled weirdness. I won't even

go there. I only wanted to make the connection.

Gene, you are a fine man whom I am glad to know in the limited context

that I know you.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

> I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal

> boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't

> happen.

Wanita,

My whole point is unless Gene/ has shared their actual interchange

with you, YOU don't know whose personal boundary actually got crossed.

You are simply taking Gene at face value that is was him that got

dissed off list. Why? Why not take at face value? I mean it seems

only obvious that wrote that inappropriate post to the list

because he believed others would consider plausible what he was saying

based on their own interaction with Gene, whether or not it went as he

laid it out. Given that we don't know the particulars, we shouldn't

take either at face value (unless of course you have some private

knowledge the rest of the list doesn't have).

Gene may be absolutely correct, and is unstable and totally blew

it when contacting him privately. All I am saying is WE have no way of

knowing anything about the personal stuff since none of US were privy

to that exchange. You are doing with Gene exactly what Gene doesn't

want us to do with , take his story as correct. And I agree with

Gene, except that standard applies to BOTH of them.

So lets acknowledge what we do know --- that the public comments

(diatribe as you put it) were out of bounds. On that Gene is

absolutely correct. As to * why* and *who* crossed what boundary

*personally*, short of airing their complete private interchange, none

of us will really know except Gene and .

--

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

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

> I do interpret Wanita as agreeing that I was the aggrieved party because of

JC's post, not > because of any assumption about what had taken place in the

private conversations.

Okay, then totally ignore what I just posted. Sorry I didn't see this

until just now.

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

>I did think about posting the entire content of the private exchange, but I

really don't think that it's necessary. Obviously its privacy wasn't respected,

which kinds of voids the internet etiquette thing, but I think that the

inappropriateness of his post should stand for itself.

>

It should if people would really go back and reread it. I can read

between the lines better than most (or read more into things than are

there depending on your perspective) Conceit is written all over it. I

hope Listgod will take another good look at what JC says.

" But as I said above, if you're short of time or patience or think that

details are

rather burdensome and redundant, you may want to skip the next

thirteen paragraphs and jump to section no. 14. The only *trouble* is

that by doing so, you may be depriving yourself of at least one or

two wry smiles, if I can speak out in favour of the little amusing

diamonds I'm trying to encrust those medial paragraphs with, not to

mention the bizarre way in which I recreate your English language,

hoping I can stop before I murder it. "

Yeah JC, if one is a sick puppy maybe they will smile. Bon voyage!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

" Ya know, this language strikes me now. Honestly, I did read the whole

piece but had several food items going, a game of Monopoly with ds, a

new group to start, and now that I read what you have snipped from JC's

rail against Gene, I have to wonder about antisemitism. Gene, I don't

know nor do I care what you were raised as, be it Martian, drag queen,

Catholic or otherwise. JC was bringing up the name Schwartz and

wondering about it in terms of Judaism. This wasn't the first time

either. To bring up pigs in his post after making more inquiries as to

his Hebrewness seems to me more possibly veiled weirdness. I won't even

go there. I only wanted to make the connection.

Gene, you are a fine man whom I am glad to know in the limited context

that I know you. "

I really appreciate that right now. I don't know if I deserve it, but I

try to be honest. Sometimes not very tactfully.

Again - I have to say that I am really upset by his post, by his allusions

(exactly what they were, I'm not entirely sure) to my ancestry, and to

whatever kind of allusions to my sexuality he seemed to be making. Sometimes

his language is so flowery I'm not sure of his actual point.

I really don't think that I was using the language incorrectly to call his

post 'aggressive', although seems to think that only a point of

protocol was violated. IN any case, I'm just so angry, that I'm passed

calling names, or insulting the man. It would just verify in some people's

minds what I must have said to poor JC in the first place.

is certainly correct - it is my word against JC's. However, look at

what he posted and you might get some idea of the style that he employed

against me. Don't I have a right to say that, no, actually, that's not what

happened?

I don't know if JC is anti semitic, or homophobic (Perhaps I am to a degree.

I was tempted to post that I am not a homosexual after reading his post. Why

should I bother? But, I think that obviously, he has made the assumption

that I am, and that also there is something amiss with me because I think

that homosexuality should not be an issue (except as one of inclusion) for

the Church). He is very troubled that I simply state what I believe (or try

to) directly, whereas he thinks that it is somehow more elegant to be nasty

in a very roundabout way.

I should stop. Too much Chimay. Want to play with my new Shrittmacher Midi

Step Sequencer.

It really is meaningful to me that people didn't all take his side. I know

that I have offended several people here.

Mr. Schwartz

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Wanita Sears <wanita.sears@...> wrote:

> I don't care either about the private until it crosses someone's personal

> boundaries. No is no. Drop it and deal with it. In this case that didn't

> happen.

" Wanita,

My whole point is unless Gene/ has shared their actual interchange

with you, YOU don't know whose personal boundary actually got crossed.

You are simply taking Gene at face value that is was him that got

dissed off list. Why? Why not take at face value? I mean it seems

only obvious that wrote that inappropriate post to the list

because he believed others would consider plausible what he was saying

based on their own interaction with Gene, whether or not it went as he

laid it out. Given that we don't know the particulars, we shouldn't

take either at face value (unless of course you have some private

knowledge the rest of the list doesn't have).

Gene may be absolutely correct, and is unstable and totally blew

it when contacting him privately. All I am saying is WE have no way of

knowing anything about the personal stuff since none of US were privy

to that exchange. You are doing with Gene exactly what Gene doesn't

want us to do with , take his story as correct. And I agree with

Gene, except that standard applies to BOTH of them.

So lets acknowledge what we do know --- that the public comments

(diatribe as you put it) were out of bounds. On that Gene is

absolutely correct. As to * why* and *who* crossed what boundary

*personally*, short of airing their complete private interchange, none

of us will really know except Gene and .

"

I think that your reasoning, for the most part is pretty good, but where it

fails is that by assuming this position of neutrality as far as what

'really' happened, I am put on the defensive. I didn't post to the list. He

did. And he said some mightily offensive stuff, I think. And I'm not the

only one. Given those things, and the fact that whatever happened, happened

offlist, perhaps the benefit of the doubt should shift in my favor. Would

you like me to email you the whole exchange (given that any semblance of

email etiquette has been violated?) You state that no one will ever know - I

again state - I have no problems with sharing any of it with anyone. Though

I would prefer JC to do it.

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the cultural edification, however, if my ever dominant memory

> serves, I have read such words as " bitch " and " shit " on captioned TV in

> the gym at like 9something in the morning within the last 5 years off

> and on.

I just heard " bitch " used on a Sex and the City rerun. It's possible

that that's allowed, but it's also possible it was an editing failure.

Sex and the City was originally on HBO, so they have to edit out even

the worst of swears.

I have never seen shit on TV during the day, and I know it at least

isn't allowed on prime time. I saw a Daily Show episode where

what's-his-face addressed this issue. I think he was interviewing the

guy who wrote _On Bullshit_ and he was saying " if you're watching this

between the hours of __ and __ you just heard me say bull-*bleep*; if

you're watching this after the hours of __ you just heard be say

bull-*bleep* " and so on, only everything was a bleep to me because I

was watching it on prime time.

And for that matter, I just saw " shit " get bleeped out on Sex and the

City tonight.

> Since I don't watch TV at home and haven't since I was in

> college, I am amazed at the change in it.

I think I watch a lot more TV than you do, and I assure you it is not

the norm to ever hear the word " shit " used on TV.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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