Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » semi- (R) Introduction and general rant.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276308 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:23
Steve Rogers  
"Richard Heathfield" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Td2dnWN-IKS6POLZRVnygw [at] bt.com...
> peachy ashie passion said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> peachy ashie passion said:
>>>
>>>> The man just told the bulk of us we are in the gutter
>>>
>>> No, I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I wrote, not what
>>> you
>>> think I wrote.
>>
>> "perhaps there are insufficiently many people who are capable of
>> holding a conversation without having a security gutter within easy
>> reach."
>
> Ah, good old selective quotation again, I see. Well done. That's
> always a
> good trick. Unless, of course, it's pointed out, and the context
> restored.
> Then it kind of falls flat, doesn't it?
>
>> Which of those words are not what you wrote?
>
> Firstly, I invite you to notice that the words I wrote and which you
> have
> just quoted do not mean the same thing that you claimed I had said. I
> invite you to read the actual words there, especially the word
> "perhaps",
> and the phrase "insufficiently many". The one makes it clear that I am
> not
> making a definitive statement, and the other is utterly misconstrued
> if
> interpreted as being complementary to "the bulk of us".
>
> And now let's look at the context. The very next sentence, the one
> that
> follows the text you quote, and which is contained within the very
> same
> paragraph, and which it would have been easier to include in your
> quote
> than to exclude from it, is this: "I hope and believe that's false,
> but I
> could be wrong."
>
> So I've made a statement that is significantly qualified by the word
> "perhaps", which makes a very vague reference to quantity -
> "insufficiently
> many" - and then I qualified it further by saying I myself believe the
> hypothesis I've just raised to be a false one. To turn this into "told
> the
> bulk of us we are in the gutter" is not merely disingenuous - it is a
> staggering misrepresentation of what I actually said and meant.
>

I can see both POV on this and both, in my opinion, are correct
irrespective of whether the additional text is there or not (in fact it
can be construed as making it more offensive in fact), it is the tone
that is causing the offence more than the content I would say - the
content because of the tone is given a slightly different meaning to the
one you obviously intended. As I've said on another thread the use of
highly emotive words (or highly emotive combinations of words) can be
very wrong, and here there are a number strung together so no wonder
offence is taken, this misunderstanding is down to poor penmanship on
the part of the author and the follow-up is even more offensive.

Methinks you have forgotten that to anyone but yourself, what you write
has different meanings because of various things such as native
language, terms and modifiers in the language in daily use,
socio-economic factors, etc. They can't read what you write as you
think it says and means, because they are not you and their use of
language is different from yours and mine and the kid's next door. From
personal experience I can assure you, that what you say in the English
used in one country can very easily be offensive to another who's
English language base is another country or even region (or the next
village) in the same country - I and my American wife will attest to
this quite openly that any upset between us is caused purely by the
different meanings to words and phrases and their usage in our
respective countries, something innocuous to me and a common everyday
meaningless expression in the UK can have a whole different meaning to
her and be very offensive and vice versa.

You were asked to explain, expand and clarify your statements so that
people had an idea of what parameters you were using and you have mostly
avoided doing so and that seems to be the real problem, this thread
should've ended along time ago and would've done *if* you had not
pontificated, blustered, obscured, hedged, and a number of other things
and were clearer in what *exactly* you were driving at. It got to the
point where people who are normally quite moderate and not easy to rile
were joining in to attack you, even those who support your position come
across as being against the way you have dealt with things and expressed
yourself. You offended people and rubbed others up the wrong way by not
stopping to think carefully about what you have chosen to write or
rather how you have expressed yourself. The "read what I've written not
what you think I wrote" bit doesn't cut it I'm afraid, the problem is
not only with how you have written your posts, as some have pointed out,
but also down to the individual reader's own interpretation of what you
have written which is due to all the aforementioned and *it is the
author's responsibility* to ensure that their writings are accessible to
the majority and not the individual readers, a trap that I and Adrian
got into in earlier posts on a totally different topic. The only remedy
is to try to allow for that language gap when posting.

It has been asked before that people pause before sending and consider
how their post might be perceived by the other members, I would suggest
that you might consider that yours was not the clearest and mildest of
approaches and that you could've done a lot better in the language you
used and continue to use and the way you express yourself. Just my
opinion of course, but one that I have seen echoed by quite a few
others.

Steve
Re: [I] Afp content [message #276311 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:28
Flesh-eating Dragon  
CCA wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>> > 8'FED wrote ...
>
>> >> Actually, people taste more like pork.
>
>> > I so entirely do not want to know how you know that - oh
>> > wait: you're a dragon, right?
>
>> I also read it in a science magazine.
>
> So how did they know?
> (Apart from asking dragons, obviously... :-)

The article was about a French anthropologist who studied South
American cannibal tribes in the 1960s.

He asked them.

There's a lot of stuff in that article that's very quotable, but give
me a chance to catch up with afp first, please. :-) 440 messages
unread.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Afp content [message #276312 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:31
Gid Holyoake  
In article <0zTfg.1287$YI3.977 [at] amstwist00>, Torak generously decided to
share with us..

Snippetry..

> Presumably if he was, we'd be able to tell the difference? I mean, he's
> got the beard, right?

Just because you can't *see* the beard, it doesn't mean the beard isn't
there..

Gid
Re: [M] Proposing an [X] label? [message #276313 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:31
Gid Holyoake  
In article <e5p53k$5it$1 [at] ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, SeekUp generously decided
to share with us..

>
> "Ed Weatherup" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > http://www.lspace.org/faqs/
>
> Ah. Of course. Thanks.
>
> > Personally I'd suggest [X] ... the old X-rated.
>
> Seconded.

The trouble is it'd be a total waste of time.. everything I post is
suitable for a family audience as far as I'm concerned, so I'd never use
the [X] tag, and then some people would complain that I'd used the word
"fuck" or something and not tagged it as [X]..

With apologies to Flanders and Swann..

He's out, She's out, Let's talk rude!
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
Post to the newsgroup in the nude,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
Let's write rude words all down the page,
Post up things that are designed to enrage,
Even discuss with a coprophage 'bout
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Sunday again on AFP,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
And Rocky Frisco's coming to tea,
Pee Po Belly Bum Pants!
Richard Heathfield drones on and on,
But we're having a love-in when he's gone,
Come to the piss-up in the john,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Disney's planning a double bill,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
Christopher Robin meets Fanny Hill,
Pooh Bear Belly Bum Drawers.
Upon the group we all work hard,
Slinging loads of shit in our own backyard,
Who's afraid of the avant garde?
Pee, Pee, Po, Po, Belly, Belly, Bum, Bum, Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

What gets prizes and wins awards?
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
What did prince Phillip tell the Lords?
Well, never mind that.
At Oxford and Cambridge, and Yale and all,
At Berkeley, they really have a ball,
'cos the higher the brow, the harder they fall,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!

Gid
Re: [I] Luxury and fine [message #276314 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:31
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 02 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com>

> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:

>> Aye, when I were a lad the Four Yorkshiremen sketch came
>> from "At Last The 1948 Show". We didn't have no "Monty
>> Python Live At The Hollywood Bowl" in them days. But if
>> you tell young people that, they won't believe you...
>
> Well, it's still the Pythons in it, though. And Atkinson,
> but that's beside the point. At least in the version I've
> heard.

Ah, the "Secret Policeman's Ball". That was a year before
"Live At The Hollywood Bowl", although two years after "Live
At Drury Lane", in which it was also done by the Pythons as
the Pythons.

But the original version only had two Pythons (Chapman and
Cleese) and predated the Flying Circus by two years. I think
it still counts as a Pythons sketch, thouhg, as it was done as
such, eventually.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [I] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276315 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:33
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "CCA" <sphira9343 [at] aol.com>

> I often read posts thoroughly, think "Yes, he/she's right"
> and then just move on, as i've got nothing new to add.

What sort of AOL user *are* you 8-)?

(I'm allowed to make jokes like that, because I'm on AOL as
well...)

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276318 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:37
Brenda  
Hendrik Schober said:

> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Lesley Weston said:
>>
>> > most of us are, indeed, stupid.
>>
>> I disagree. I also don't think you would have the support of the group in
>> your claim to speak for most of them.
>>
>> See? I can do selective quotation too. It's hardly difficult to put words
>> into people's mouths by removing context.
>
> Except that Lesley quoted your posting in full.

So what? My point would remain valid and pertinent, even if Lesley had never
posted a reply to that article, or posted any article to this thread, or
indeed to any thread ever. It's what we call a general point.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276319 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:40
Brenda  
Lesley Weston said:

> in article moSdneIMCfkxyOLZRVny3w [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
> invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 01/06/2006 2:02 PM:
>
>> Philippa Cowderoy said:
>>
>>> What's up is that you are not in a position of authority, yet you
>>> persist in being patronising.
>>
>> No, I'm not patronising, any more than you are matronising.
>
> Yes you are.

No, I'm not. I know perfectly well how to be patronising, and I also know
I'm not doing it right now, in this thread.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276320 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:49
Brenda  
Hendrik Schober said:

> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> I'm not attacking *anyone*. How many times, FCOL?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> More than one person felt like you attacked.

More than one person on this group, then, has failed to understand what I've
been getting at, despite repeated repetitious repetitions, up to and
including "I'm not attacking *anyone*", but also at various points before
that, repeatedly, over and over again. With anchovies. And I can't stand
anchovies.


> IME it is
> impossible to undo this by doing "I didn't do it!". It
> is, however, possible to get people to forget about it
> if one says "I am sorry, if you fell like it. I did not
> mean to." in a way that people believe it's true that
> you're sorry.

So you seem to be saying that if I apologise for doing something I didn't in
fact do, those who actually caused the problem by a combination of
skim-reading and conclusion-jumping will forgive me? Well, gosh. How big of
them. But no. No deal.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276321 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:49
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 02 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com>

> CCA wrote:
>> Steve Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>for example I've just
>>>finished reading them the last Harry Potter and each got
>>>out of it what they understood, for the youngest it was
>>>the "silly voices" I used for each character, for the
>>>middle one the thrill and adventure aspect and the eldest
>>>all but the more advanced topics and concepts.
>>
>>
>> Reading to kids is a great thing to do, and *especially*
>> with silly voices :-)
>
> I listened to the Potter audio books, thought I'd enjoy
> them, what with Stephen Fry being good and all, but I
> couldn't stand the voices he inflicted on the characters.
> Three chapters, then back went the tapes.

I've not heard them, but I've mentioned before that Tony
Robinson's Discworld audios annoy me. The voices are fine, but
I'm sure he's pronouncing all the place-names wrongly.

His pronounciation of Scottish placenames in the otherwise
excellent "The Real Macbeth" largely confirmed this suspicion.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [M] Proposing an [X] label? [message #276324 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:52
Brenda  
Gid Holyoake wrote:
> In article <e5p53k$5it$1 [at] ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, SeekUp generously
> decided to share with us..
>
>>
[snip]
>
> The trouble is it'd be a total waste of time.. everything I post is
> suitable for a family audience as far as I'm concerned, so I'd never
> use the [X] tag, and then some people would complain that I'd used
> the word "fuck" or something and not tagged it as [X]..
>
> With apologies to Flanders and Swann..
>
> He's out, She's out, Let's talk rude!
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
> Post to the newsgroup in the nude,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
> Let's write rude words all down the page,
> Post up things that are designed to enrage,
> Even discuss with a coprophage 'bout
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
>
> Sunday again on AFP,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
> And Rocky Frisco's coming to tea,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Pants!
> Richard Heathfield drones on and on,
> But we're having a love-in when he's gone,
> Come to the piss-up in the john,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
>
> Disney's planning a double bill,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
> Christopher Robin meets Fanny Hill,
> Pooh Bear Belly Bum Drawers.
> Upon the group we all work hard,
> Slinging loads of shit in our own backyard,
> Who's afraid of the avant garde?
> Pee, Pee, Po, Po, Belly, Belly, Bum, Bum, Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
>
> What gets prizes and wins awards?
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
> What did prince Phillip tell the Lords?
> Well, never mind that.
> At Oxford and Cambridge, and Yale and all,
> At Berkeley, they really have a ball,
> 'cos the higher the brow, the harder they fall,
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!
>
> Gid

Applause!

--
Ed.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276325 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:53
Steve Rogers  
"Richard Heathfield" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:V_KdnapUQbE1O-LZRVnysQ [at] bt.com...
> Lesley Weston said:
>
>> in article 5dmdncKCkqmduOLZRVnyuQ [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
>> invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 01/06/2006 10:34 AM:
>>
>> And it
>> wasn't software making the decision to block afp, it was the people
>> running the software.
>
> Then the decision cannot be laid at the door of immature software. If
> what
> you say is true, then *people* are deciding that afp breaches whatever
> guidelines they have for protecting young people from unsuitable
> content.
>

Now this is an area in which I have some experience and as has been
stated elsewhere it is common for schools to block the alt newsgroups,
in fact most if not all newsgroups dependant on the age of the students.
Get it through your head it is not the content of afp but a general
thing applied to all newsgroups. In fact I would not be surprised that
it is the fact that this is a "fan" newsgroup that is their problem and
so it is deemed not to be of educational value hence blocked so students
won't spend all their time when they should be learning just
participating in fan activity for their favourite whoevers. It should
not surprise you to learn that access to the more popular fan websites
is also limited in schools.

Incidentally it may surprise you to learn that your own website is
blocked by some of the filtering systems used in schools because the
filters block any site that has religious references. So should we all
go on the rampage about what your site contains that is obviously so bad
for children to look at?

Stop pontificating on a subject you very obviously are not qualified to
talk about it is annoying those of us who are.

Steve
Re: [M] was: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276326 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 14:56
Brenda  
Lesley Weston said:

> Richard, a word in your shell-like...

I'm listening.

> It's gone beyond anything you can handle.

No, it hasn't, although you seem to be trying hard to make that true.

> This is because you are in the wrong in this discussion.

No, it isn't, although you seem to be trying hard to believe this.

> Making personal attacks on other afpers isn't going to make you right,

That is certainly true. But what you call "making personal attacks" (i.e.
what are actually my reactions to other people's attacks) have actually
been quite restrained.

> it's just going to annoy everybody even more.

Well, it would, wouldn't it? Some people here have decided what I meant, got
it wrong, despite it being terribly, terribly clear what I meant. They have
then got annoyed with what they thought to be my position, and completely
failed to understand that the entire monsterthread is one enormous
strawman. They're hardly going to be pleased at being told the actual
facts, are they?

There are, of course, several people here who understand exactly what I was
saying, and one or two of them even agree.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [M] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276332 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:08
Brenda  
Lesley Weston said:

> in article Ds-dnTPTWvzPj-LZRVny0Q [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
> invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 01/06/2006 9:15 AM:
>
>> geminii [at] tpg.com.au said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:24:17 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>>> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not condemning anybody. I'm merely expressing an opinion about some
>>>> of the content posted here
>>>
>>> One which has been raised and raised again from time immemorial
>>
>> ...which in itself suggests that there is something here worth
>> discussing.
>>
>>> and every time has been shot down to die festering in the gutter.
>>
>> Yes, it's much easier to shoot down a good idea than to make it work.
>
> So that *is* what you wanted,

Excuse me? What are you talking about? I'm merely expressing, in passing, an
opinion on someone else's claim that others, in the past, have also
expressed concern over some of the content posted in afp - i.e. that there
is something here worth discussing. And then we learn that, when others
have raised the matter in the past, they have been shot down in flames. And
here we are, in the middle of yet another - well, not quite a flame war,
but close to it - so it seems we are witnessing the process all over again.

> despite your denials and attacks on people

What you call my "denials" are in fact reminders to people of what I
actually said, which is a matter of record, remember - you can look it up
on Google if you care enough. As for attacks on people, well, I see it this
way: when I'm getting a good kicking, I'm not going to feel too worried if
some of my assailants get an occasional ding on the ear.


> who did understand what you meant after all.

If they had done so, they would not be trying to give me a good kicking.

> Oh, and it's impossible to
> shoot down a good idea; only a poor one can be shot down.

Utter bilge. It's *easy* to shoot down a good idea. One obvious way is to
discuss the idea in committee. That often works well.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276334 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:19
Brenda  
Philippa Cowderoy said:

> On the bright side, at least I read my mail in a monospace font :-)

You mean there are people who don't?

Wait a minute...

/me mentally reviews thread

Yeah, okay, you have a point.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276335 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:09
jester  
On 2 Jun 2006 04:41:08 -0700, CCA
<sphira9343 [at] aol.com> wrote:
>Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> Which reminds me; I ought to climb up on the roof and clean some of the
>> gutters out.
>
>I bet you haven't got a plant growing in yours!

*A* plant? We almost had more in the gutter than in the garden.

Actually, I think it probably was more than the front garden, but that's a
square foot of gravel.

--
Andy Brown
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276341 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:36
Brenda  
Orjan Westin said:

<snip>

> Not long ago, I gave you as an example of how people's perceptions of
> a poster affect the way people read their posts.

Yes, I remember.

> I wish I had been more
> explicit and explained it in greater detail.

So do I. Would it have done any good? I doubt it. But I'd have enjoyed
reading it anyway!

Still - the "group mind" will win, as it so often does, and truth and reason
will go to the wall, as they so often do. C'est la vie.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276342 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:37
Orjan Westin  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Hendrik Schober said:
>
>> IME it is
>> impossible to undo this by doing "I didn't do it!". It
>> is, however, possible to get people to forget about it
>> if one says "I am sorry, if you fell like it. I did not
>> mean to." in a way that people believe it's true that
>> you're sorry.
>
> So you seem to be saying that if I apologise for doing something I
> didn't in fact do, those who actually caused the problem by a
> combination of skim-reading and conclusion-jumping will forgive me?
> Well, gosh. How big of them. But no. No deal.

If I may butt in to translate a bit here, I think Schobi's saying that
people who have felt insulted by what they percieved you have written
probably would appreciate if you said something like:

"Oh, I did not intend to express anything like that, and if my words
have inadvertedly hurt you I am sorry."

Yes, a lot of people have, from what I can tell, read your words through
a "arrogant fundamentalist" filter, and the meaning they have thus
gleaned from your words is not the one you expressed. That's not your
fault.

It would be polite, though, to clarify these misreadings in a more
humble manner, as we have seen that there are people who *do* understand
your words and still consider some of them suboptimally chosen and
combined.

I'm sorry this post is about you in particular and not the issues in
general - like you I prefer to hold discussions on principles and
generics rather than examples and specifics. However, much of this
debate, and many other monster threads in the past, have centered on
your tone and attitude. Personally, I don't mind either of those, and I
sincerely do appreciate your calm and composure.

/wait for it.../

But.

/roll of thunder/

You have an enviable command of the English language. You know what
words mean, and pick them with care. The problem comes when your
readers do not use the same definitions, or connotations. This does not
necessarily mean they are wrong, since most words have more than one
meaning, and often multiple meanings can be valid in a phrase. We've
seen discussions on the intended and percieved meaning of the words
"plonk" and "adult" here recently, for instance.

Of course, you can not be held responsible for how the things your write
are percieved. Except that you can. To some extent. You (generic)
have to speak with a voice that's understandable to the audience if you
want to be heard and understood.

The point of the exercise is not to write perfectly according to your
standards, but to communicate. If that means that your preferred mode
of expression does not work, might it not be an idea to alter it?

This isn't an invitation to "dumb down", by the way. That has nothing
to do with it. It's about finding a tone that does not grate on
people's nerves as being patronising, arrogant and/or condescending.
Regardless of whether you transmitted that in or not, it was received,
which is a communication failure on both sides.

So.

What I would like to ask of you, Richard, is to try to think about this,
and to forgive people for sometimes misunderstanding what you write.
Give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that there are differences
in usage of English around the globe, and differences in culture and
backgrounds, which might lead to honest misunderstandings.

I'd also encourage you to take a step back, go and make a cup of tea and
spend the rest of the evening with a good book, or some other group, or
knitting or something the next time a storm like this brews. Doing an
all-nighter replying to hundreds (well, that's a slight exaggeration)
can't be good for you. If what you wanted to say hasn't been said the
next morning, or the next evening, go ahead and say it then, if you
still feel it needs saying. Usenet is not time-critical. A reply can
be, and often benefits from being, delayed for half a day or a day from
inspiration to posting. A review and rewrite might be in order if the
issue has proved or looks likely to be contentious.

The same advice goes to everyone else, of course. Think, consider.
Don't post in anger. Do not attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained with differing opinions and use of language. Do
not try to brake the chainsaw chain with your bare hands. Eisa peitää.

And please, everyone, the time to stop, think and read carefully is when
someone you don't like writes something that upsets you. Take the time
to calm down, read it again and try to disengage your perceptions of the
poster from their current words. Read with your brain, not your
prejudices.

Be generous and allow others to express themselves clumsily.

Be humble and do not take a general comment personally.

Be nice.

Okay?

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276345 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:43
exquisite witch peach  
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>
>>And that's what some people have been doing to what I've written. Perhaps
>>they don't even realise they're doing it, but they're reading soundbites
>>rather than sentences, phrases instead of paragraphs, abridgements in place
>>of articles. That's why some people seem to think I'm on a witch-hunt,
>>attacking people, out to censor the group, and so on and so forth.
>>
>
>
> The parts I quoted as being "nasty" I considered to be nasty even with the
> context in place - indeed I wouldn't have done so otherwise. I probably
> should've included Message-IDs as well, but I'd assumed that Karen could
> find the posts and check for context herself if needed.
>


Seconded.

I didn't take things out of context to alter the meaning, the meaning
was right there, regardless of context. I snipped to show the part I
objected to, because reposting the entire thing and saying I object to
bits is incredibly unhelpful.

Pointing out specifics of what you are talking about is HELPFUL.
It's why we have continued to ask you to do so.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276347 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:45
Brenda  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Philippa Cowderoy said:
>
>> On the bright side, at least I read my mail in a monospace font :-)
>
> You mean there are people who don't?
>
> Wait a minute...
>
> /me mentally reviews thread
>
> Yeah, okay, you have a point.

Font? .......?

Nixie tube array, surely.

--
Ed.
Re: [M]Proposing a [G] label? [message #276349 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:55
Torak  
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Cathy Young <cathy85 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>In any case, it's been demonstrated in this thread that, between us, we
>>have rather varying definitions of what's appropriate and what's not. I
>>don't think there's a single solution that can satisfy everyone.
>
>
> How about: Be tolerant.

We've got to stop meeting like this, Schobi. I can't keep agreeing with
you, it's bad for my rep.
Re: [F] Reincarnation of the afp-junior list? [message #276350 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:53
esmi  
on 02/06/2006 00:17 Lesley Weston said the following:

<snip>
>I think that people who are mature enough to enjoy NGs, lists, fora
> or whatever are also mature enough to be allowed to get on with it on their
> own. Perhaps a moderator could limit themselves to making sure that only
> genuine kids are involved, and leave the rest to the kids.

That's pretty much been the approach with previous attempts to get some
sort of AFP Junior up and running. The intent has certainly never been
to interfere with the discussions in any way but more to be there in
case someone needed help posting etc and to make sure that subscribers
are, indeed, kids.

esmi
Re: [M] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case akid saw us? [message #276351 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:42
esmi  
on 01/06/2006 23:06 Torak said the following:

> That petty cash jar must be overflowing by now.

That's not petty cash. That's the Con pub kitty [1]!

esmi

[1]Note for non-native English speakers: a pub kitty is a collective
pool of cash used for the express purpose of buying drinks for all of
the kitty's contributors. [2]
[2] And that's *totally* spoiled the joke.
Re: [M] was: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276352 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:40
Diane L  
Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>
> Well, it would, wouldn't it? Some people here have decided what I
> meant, got it wrong, despite it being terribly, terribly clear what I
> meant.

It's not terribly clear to me what you meant. Now, that may be because
I'm stupid, or tired, or can't read or some other failing on my part,
but since whatever the reason it is still the case that you have not
made yourself clear to at least one person here (who is, btw, trying
*not* to jump to conclusions), it might be a good idea for you to
explain clearly what you *did* mean rather than spend so much time
and effort merely repeating what you didn't mean.

> They have then got annoyed with what they thought to be my
> position, and completely failed to understand that the entire
> monsterthread is one enormous strawman. They're hardly going to be
> pleased at being told the actual facts, are they?

It would probably depend on what the actual facts are. You still haven't
shown any sign of telling us what it is you have a problem with.

> There are, of course, several people here who understand exactly what
> I was saying, and one or two of them even agree.

That's nice. Perhaps we could get them to translate.

Diane L.
Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276354 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:06
exquisite witch peach  
treesy wrote:

> elzystar [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>treesy wrote:
>>
>>>treesy a écrit :.
>>
>>Hey - I'm also new, and Aussie. You may all call me Mousie. ^___^
>>
>>I had a lot of trouble with the censors at school last year, they had a
>>thing against hotmail and msn... they also blocked Google Images, and
>>probably Google Groups. Like you, we got around this by accessing
>>international sites... they do catch up eventually, and realise what
>>you're doing. Then it's just a matter of finding another hole in the
>>net. :)
>>
>>Let's face it - school censors suck. Ours used to block the local
>>counsil website on account of: 'gay porn'. Now, I've been on that site
>>before... and it sure wasn't that exciting....
>>
>>Is there a Death of Censors? If not, there bloody well should be!
>>
>>Cheers!
>>~ Mousie
>
>
> Hi Mousie, chocolate, chair, cat. The alligator's still in the oven,
> but if you'll wait a bit....
>
> Isn't it interesting how threads run away on you (sighs).
>
> treesy.
>

But it's a very good introduction to afp, where EVERY thread runs away.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276355 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:58
Hendrik Schober  
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober said:
> > Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > I'm not attacking *anyone*. How many times, FCOL?!?!?!?!?!?
> >
> > More than one person felt like you attacked.
>
> More than one person on this group, then, has failed to understand what I've
> been getting at,

Yep. That either means the author intended it or he didn't
come across the way he meant to. Of course -- it /can/ also
mean /everyone/ of the audience who misunderstood is dumb.
Pick the one you believe in and have people judge you by your
choice.

> despite repeated repetitious repetitions, up to and
> including "I'm not attacking *anyone*", but also at various points before
> that, repeatedly, over and over again. With anchovies. And I can't stand
> anchovies.

You had very little to say but "I didn't say what you read!"
That's not much and it's certainly not very convincing.

> > IME it is
> > impossible to undo this by doing "I didn't do it!". It
> > is, however, possible to get people to forget about it
> > if one says "I am sorry, if you fell like it. I did not
> > mean to." in a way that people believe it's true that
> > you're sorry.
>
> So you seem to be saying that if I apologise for doing something I didn't in
> fact do,

No. I suggest that you apologize for what you did. You
/did/ cause iritation with quite a few people -- even
though you insist you didn't want to.

> those who actually caused the problem by a combination of
> skim-reading and conclusion-jumping will forgive me? [...]

Oh. I see. You already made your choice.
May I now judge you by it?

Schobi

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: [M] Flirting defined (was Afp content) [message #276356 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:10
exquisite witch peach  
Orjan Westin wrote:

> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>>in article MPG.1ee8a432117077f2989c4f [at] cenote.gkhs.net, Eric Jarvis at
>>usenet [at] ericjarvis.co.uk wrote on 01/06/2006 12:14 AM:
>>
>>
>>>Lesley Weston brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote in
>>><C0A39B9F.486C5%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>If it isn't funny, it isn't flirting.
>>>
>>>Personally I concur, however I'm pretty sure that it isn't something
>>>universally agreed on.
>>
>>No? I can't think of any examples, here or in RL, where flirting
>>wasn't at least intended to be funny. Maybe others can?
>
>
> Um... Flirting is, at least according to my observations in Real Life,
> often intended to get the flirter laid. It is also used as a way of
> belittling people - this is called sexual harassment.
>
> Orjan


Interesting. I don't disagree that the macro intent is often to make
some progress towards that end. On the other hand, I've been thinking
and thinking, and outside direct compliments, I can't think of any
flirting that isn't using humor as the avenue towards getting laid.

Of course I'm cranky just now, so I'm likely not at my creative best
for exploring that idea.

I can't think of anything that I'd classify as flirting that could
double as sexual harassment. Can you be more specific as to what your
thoughts were there?
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276359 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:14
exquisite witch peach  
David Chapman wrote:

> From the Collected Witterings of Anastasia, volume 23:
>
>>Karen wrote:
>>
>>>We all come to this group for recreation, a bit of gutter now and
>>>again is harmless enough but we do *share* the spaces and when one
>>>person's enjoyable gutter or another person's hot button topic
>>>takes over the whole damned watering hole then we *all* lose out.
>>
>>What I'd like is a detailed map of where the gutter is.
>
>
> Wherever you are. Remember: we are all in the gutter, but some of us are
> crawling out of the drain.
>

Okay, I was totally loving you on your last post, but this one got
even ME!

I'm all creeped out and my skin is crawling.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276360 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:23
exquisite witch peach  
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Hendrik Schober said:
>
>
>>Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>>I'm not attacking *anyone*. How many times, FCOL?!?!?!?!?!?
>>
>> More than one person felt like you attacked.
>
>
> More than one person on this group, then, has failed to understand what I've
> been getting at, despite repeated repetitious repetitions, up to and
> including "I'm not attacking *anyone*", but also at various points before
> that, repeatedly, over and over again. With anchovies. And I can't stand
> anchovies.
>
>
>
>> IME it is
>> impossible to undo this by doing "I didn't do it!". It
>> is, however, possible to get people to forget about it
>> if one says "I am sorry, if you fell like it. I did not
>> mean to." in a way that people believe it's true that
>> you're sorry.
>
>
> So you seem to be saying that if I apologise for doing something I didn't in
> fact do, those who actually caused the problem by a combination of
> skim-reading and conclusion-jumping will forgive me? Well, gosh. How big of
> them. But no. No deal.
>

And I will again (and for the LAST time I will EVER) point out that
several people tried hard NOT to jump to conclusions, and repeatedly
asked you to clarify.

You refused. Repeatedly.
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276361 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:25
Brenda  
elfin said:

> On 01/06/2006 22:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> They're not reading what I'm actually writing.
>>
>
> aye, its called Usenet.
>
> :-)

That's possibly the brightest observation this thread has seen!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Flirting defined (was Afp content) [message #276362 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:25
Orjan Westin  
[Re-tagged]
peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>
>>> No? I can't think of any examples, here or in RL, where flirting
>>> wasn't at least intended to be funny. Maybe others can?
>>
>> Um... Flirting is, at least according to my observations in Real
>> Life, often intended to get the flirter laid. It is also used as a
>> way of belittling people - this is called sexual harassment.
>
> Interesting. I don't disagree that the macro intent is often to
> make some progress towards that end. On the other hand, I've been
> thinking and thinking, and outside direct compliments, I can't think
> of any flirting that isn't using humor as the avenue towards getting
> laid.

I guess it depends on the definitions of flirting, "intended to be
funny" and humo(u)r, but off the top of my head I'd classify these as
flirting:

Appealing to sympathy, from the old "my wife doesn't understand me" to
looking interestingly depressed, pale and black-clothed.

Impressing with size of gun/penis/car/wallet/breasts.

Creating interest by being different, like walking up to someone at a
party and telling them you are an alien and the president of the galaxy.

> I can't think of anything that I'd classify as flirting that could
> double as sexual harassment. Can you be more specific as to what your
> thoughts were there?

Focusing on sexual attractiveness, dress, and makeup of a colleague
instead of their professional capabilities.

Basically, any unwelcome flirting can be sexual harassment if
persistent. It's a very effective way of putting someone down by making
it clear that you only see them as a sex object, and you can always
defend it by saying "it was only a bit of harmless flirting".

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [I] Afp content [message #276363 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:10
esmi  
on 02/06/2006 01:02 René said the following:

> And that's pretty much the point of flirting, at least for me. Not just
> online but irl, too. Doesn't cost me a thing and it's fun without
> consequences.

Without wishing to be a killjoy in any way, I do think it's important to
point out that online flirting can, and has had, serious RL consequences
of both the very nice and distinctly unpleasant kind.

For example, some years ago, the non-afp fiancee of an afper read some
of the group's content which included a 'WYMM' post from her fiance to
another poster. Not understanding the group's sub-culture, she didn't
take kindly to what she perceived as unfaithfulness and, as a result,
threatened to call of the wedding. Whether the damage to this RL
relationship was permanent, I don't know as the poster in question left
the group in some distress shortly afterwards and, AFAIIA, never returned.

I do think that is an extreme example but I believe it also does bear
repeating as it illustrates that afp does not operate in a vacuum.
Anything posted here is available to the rest of the world - possibly
for years to come - and may be read completely out of context.

I am not suggesting, for one moment, that people should alter their
posting behaviour. Merely that they keep this mind when they do post -
if only to protect themselves from any future nastiness.

esmi
Re: [M] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276365 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:11
Hendrik Schober  
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
> > Oh, and it's impossible to
> > shoot down a good idea; only a poor one can be shot down.
>
> Utter bilge. It's *easy* to shoot down a good idea. One obvious way is to
> discuss the idea in committee. That often works well.

No. No ideas get shot down in committees. Usually ideas
just starve to death while being discussed for months.
A shooting is much faster. Your idea died within hours.

Schobi

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: [M]Proposing a [G] label? [message #276366 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:13
Hendrik Schober  
Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober wrote:
> > Cathy Young <cathy85 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > In any case, it's been demonstrated in this thread that, between us, we
> > > have rather varying definitions of what's appropriate and what's not. I
> > > don't think there's a single solution that can satisfy everyone.
> >
> > How about: Be tolerant.
>
> We've got to stop meeting like this, Schobi. I can't keep agreeing with
> you, it's bad for my rep.

<raises eyebrows>
Was that meant to be an insult?

Schobi :o>

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: [I] Afp content [message #276367 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:32
Kar98  
On 2006-06-02 09:10:24 -0500, esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> said:

> on 02/06/2006 01:02 René said the following:
>
>> And that's pretty much the point of flirting, at least for me. Not just
>> online but irl, too. Doesn't cost me a thing and it's fun without
>> consequences.
>
> Without wishing to be a killjoy in any way, I do think it's important
> to point out that online flirting can, and has had, serious RL
> consequences of both the very nice and distinctly unpleasant kind.

By flirting I mean things on the level of "hey pretty, how ya doin
today *smiles*", not "hey sweetheart, whatcha doing tonight *lascive
eyebrow-wiggle:"


--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: [M] Wouldn't it be keen if afp censored itself just in case a kid saw us? [message #276368 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:38
Brenda  
Hendrik Schober said:

> "I'd give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
> (Brian Kernighan?)

Probably not bwk, no. The joke, such as it is, was already part of the
mainstream UK primary school "humour" canon back in the early 1970s, along
with such classics as "knock knock, who's there, Doctor, Doctor Who, that's
right" and "how do you get down from an elephant?". At that time, most UK
*programmers*, never mind schoolkids, hadn't heard of Brian Kernighan or
anything he'd said or written.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276369 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:39
Brenda  
CCA said:

> No, my argument was 'You can put your point across without being
> insulting.'

And in fact I try very hard to do just that. I don't always succeed.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276370 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:42
Brenda  
Steve Rogers said:

<snip>

> I can see both POV on this and both, in my opinion, are correct
> irrespective of whether the additional text is there or not (in fact it
> can be construed as making it more offensive in fact), it is the tone
> that is causing the offence more than the content I would say

You appear to be arguing that people should be careful not to let the tone
of their articles cause offence to others.

Well, how about that? :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #276371 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:42
Gid Holyoake  
In article <fvednRQLqYIV0B3ZnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d [at] bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
generously decided to share with us..

> CCA said:
>
> > No, my argument was 'You can put your point across without being
> > insulting.'
>
> And in fact I try very hard to do just that. I don't always succeed.

Perhaps /some/ people should be trying harder then, as it seems /some/
people do have a problem with expressing themselves in a way that
/others/ understand..

Gid
Re: [M] Proposing an [X] label? [message #276372 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:42
Brenda  
Gid Holyoake said:

<snip>

> With apologies to Flanders and Swann..
>
> He's out, She's out, Let's talk rude!
> Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

<snip>

Now *that* was funny. :-)


(Yes, even /that/ bit.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Vorheriges Thema:shameless plug for new Pratchett novel, Wintersmith
Nächstes Thema:[M] Link wanted for unEncyclopaedia?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:51:30 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11630 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered