From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Subject: Re: KHARE
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:50:24 GMT

In <92315.192633U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

>I feel I get flamed because people mired in negative thinking get very
>scared when change/insight is suggested in any way.  It threatens their very
>identity IMHO.  So, they flame the person giving off that message.
>It is quite predictable.  It does not phase me personally, but
>I will surely respond to it by pointing out what I see as the
>underlying motives.  I generally do not start flames, but neither do I
>shirk from them if they are blown my way.

I feel you're wrong. I feel you get flamed because you state opinions of
yours about people you barely know as facts, because you are a hypocrite
and because your tone is invariably condescending.                  

>One could ask why you felt obligated to respond to it or if it
>threatens you.  Do you have a lot of control issues going in your
>head, bloodied though that cranium must be by now after all that *thunking*?
>Does this bothers you so much that you had to post when you have
>never contacted me personally about it?

Ah arrogance! You have some sort of gross overestimation of your own
power Brady. Do you really feel your view *threatens* people? Well I can
only answer for myself, and the answer is no. Sorry.

What you have written is a flame, thinly disguised as reason.
Deliberately insulting, calculated, and quite unpleasent.

>The culprit attitude is one I do not adopt.  I think it is another
>example of narrow perspective and negative outlook.  It implies
>that you can decide the validity of my rights in the group.  You cannot.

Feeling threatened Brady? 

>That is certainly your right.  You can find my articles irritating
>if you so choose.  They can be, and are, certainly distasteful to some.
>I accept this and it is agreeable to me.  If you do not want to
>consider my views, by all means ignore them or say they don't appeal to you.
>You can say that you disagree intensely with my views if you need to.
>I don't know of one person who is committed to negativity that likes
>my views.  That's okay with me.

Sophistry and prejudice. 

>Responding with "ignorant-mofo-head-up-your-ass-dry-fuck" will not go
>unanalysed however.  I think things can be learned from how this kind of
>talk is received by others and how it appears to be a control mechanism
>to the receiver.

Ah but your analysis is only valid if you discount personal bias (among
others). Do you really think I didn't think before calling you those
names? Now you're underestimating.   
 
>I believe I point out the motivation behind flaming in some cases
>for some people.  Most posts on this group I do not feel any need
>to comment on.  I think a lot of excellent opinions are offered and
>I have not been seen to be flaming them, even if I don't agree.

And I *know* you've got it wrong in my case. Why this constant reference
to 'some people' Brady? I'm the only one *I'm* aware of that was openly
hostile/insulting...don't fuck around man...say what you mean. Or have
you been getting email? 

>I offer an hypothesis for consideration.  If one is being a bully,
>of course one will not like what I have to say about it.  This will
>not, however, deter me in the slightest.  I am not intimidated by flaming
>one iota.  I will generally respond in some fashion to public flames
>if someone else starts them though.  Sometimes this is good if it
>provokes a fruitful discussion later on.  I'm willing to take the risk
>that something good might come of it after the flaming is over.
>I believe some ASHers need to be more assertive rather than more aggressive.

I'd be disappointed if you were. You should clue in to the fact that you
have very limited data to support yourself and that therefore you've
placed yourself on the top of a very fragile house of cards. You judge
without knowledge and flame without purpose.

>I believe you mistate my views:  I have never stated I want people to
>follow my tastes in their posts--not once.  The basic thing I want ASHers
>to consider doing is to be more tolerant of divergent views.  I accept most of
>what is written other than obvious flame-for-flame-sake posts of some
>inveterate negativists.  I believe that you mistate my
>opinion totally.  I believe the group should tolerate a range of opinion
>without flames erupting and epithets being thrown about.

Oh I tolerate opinions just fine. Not demeaning ego-tripping though.
You really think you're being misrepresented. Good. Now maybe you'll
think before doing the same.

>For example, I find your posts rather attention-getting and tedious, with
>and undertone of sexual provocation (Why Psycho *Kitten*?), but I believe
>in your right to post what you want and I have never flamed you because I
>disagree with your style, your mood, or your content.  You do seem to like
>negativity though so I would expect that we would not get along that well,
>as I advocate the view that choosing negativity is a personal choice
>for which each individual is responsible.  No one mired in negativism will
>like that idea certainly.  To learn from the views of others and to
>understand their pain and frustration I do not believe we have to all
>agree or even like each other.  I believe we can still co-exist and
>each express our views unless we deteriorate into obvious flaming.

Well bestiality has never been my strong suit. Nor has sexual attraction
for a personality and some phosphor lines on a vt320. Certainly the word
Kitten which you emphasise so strongly has no sexual connotation for me.
Again your comments are little more than shallow provocation passing for
reasoned argument.

>And, I actually think some level of controversy is *good* for a.s.h. in that
>it gets people's anger out and I feel that could alleviate some
>depression.  I actually feel it is better to be somewhat actively angry
>verbally than to be hopelessly depressed personally, but I think we can
>be angry with more class sometimes.  I think we can be angry without
>denying the other their rights to post too.  I believe you Ms. Kitten should
>post exactly what you want and feel even if it is not something I agree with
>and I will never flame you for it, nor have I.

Of course we can be angry with more class Brady. But then we'd miss the
knee-jerk, downright pavlovian and highly amusing reaction (freudian
analysis in a situation where Machiavelli would be more appropriate).
>But, still, some posters simply are too threatened by any view that
>is not in sync with theirs.

>Furthermore, I feel Ollie is perfectly capable of sticking up for
>himself and negotiating his own relationships.  As I have said, I think
>he brings many interesting and worthwhile views to the group.  We don't
>have to like each other to respect divergent views either.

What makes you think she was sticking up for me? Actually you're right.
We're plotting behind your back...go ask in alt.conspiracy.paranoid! 

Ewige blumenkraft!

>Well, you were doing well in this post and now you are degenerating into
>name-calling.  Too bad.  I am not biting on this either Ms. Kitten.

So would you give her, like, an A or a B man? Arrogance and
condescention Brady. Hmmmm....'not biting on this' that has some pretty
clear sexual overtones doncha think...have you considered Therapy??

>We are not boys and girls.  We may act that way sometimes, but we are adults
>who are responsible for our flaming.  I did not start this flame in
>public.  But if others flame me in public, I will answer in public.
>Ollie flamed me in public so I answered in the same mode.  That's it.
>I deserve the right to defend myself if flamed. If they flame me privately,
>as some have, I will keep it private, as I have and as some ASHers know.

Fine. We're responsible for inflammatory posts too though. Get a handle
on that.

>In addition, I hope that the results of this flame war of recent
>duration will finally turn into a discussion of relevant issues and
>feelings, such as the one I tried to discuss a while ago on "Why Are
>People So Confused About Anger?"  If this now occurs, then it will be
>useful to have aired the issue in public.  I think, as I have said before,
>that anger, reasonably handled, can be useful and I don't shirk from it.

As long as it's controlled right? 

>I try my best assert my views without resorting to "dry fuck" responses though.
>I don't always succeed either but I do try to maintain some decorum.
>The fourth-grader lurks in us all however, waiting to bluster and bully
>when threatened IMHO.

I don't. Welcome to the diversity of existence.

>I believe that if a flame is started in public then it is the right
>of the person flamed to answer in the same medium.  I'd ask you
>if anger makes you feel uncomfortable but you wouldn't like that much.
>I think the cop-out of "taking a public flame to e-mail" is a dodge.
>If the flamer wanted privacy, they would have started with e-mail to
>begin with.  I personally do not exchange e-mail with people until I
>get to know them a little.
    
If you feel you're being hard done by and misunderstood and you really
want to discuss the relevant issues without feeling you have to maintain
an image for the audience then email is the best place.

That's what I was offering...lets face it Brady there's nothing you can
do to me and vice versa. If you wanted more than to engage in a shallow
pissing contest then I think you'd have come to email. 

>I think this is a distortion of my views for your own purposes.
>I've already explained it:  Interpreting an action and controlling an
>action are far from the same thing IMHO.

From one who has done so much to ignore repeated statements of my
beliefs in favour of misrepresenting those beliefs, from one who has
been busy building straw men, this would be laughable. If it weren't
pathetic.

>Sorry to report that you have failed however.  But, if anything
>in this discussion has caused another reader to think a new thought or
>view a new way, then it has been of some value perhaps.  I certainly hope
>that you have received enough attention from my response Ms. Kitten.
>You deserve that much I feel for taking the time to post.

Arrogance and condescention. So much for acceptance of other views eh
Brady? Accept when it suits your purposes..call it names when it does
not. An excellent example of doublethink.

>I am certainly not worried.  I know this gambit very well.
>I am not a cinder and have no fear you will make me one.  I understand
>that my views threaten you.  You can try all you want.  I am not
>intimidated in the least by your threats.  I know what I believe in and
>feel and am committed to it.  Do you?  Are you?

It wasn't a threat. This is a threat: I will rip yer fuckin' head off
and piss down your neck. See the difference? 

>I hope now we can move on to more pertinent topics such as why
>many posters feel they have no hope of change or improvement.  From
>what I have been reading in the posts this is a prevailing mood here.
>I am sorry to see it.  I wish them all well.  And I wish them all the
>courage to try and change and consider new options.

I wish you'd consider a new one! *laughter*

>This statement is, IMHO, baiting pure and simple.  I'm not biting
>Ms. Kitten.  Now back to your regularly scheduled head-bashing. . . .
>*thunk*thunk*thunk*

As opposed to baiting pure and subtle...well I'm biting...just make sure
to count your fingers when I let go...

Ollie/Lucifuge...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Lord is my Shepherd............................but I'm not a Sheep
-----------------------------ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie-------------------------