From: hal@nexus.yorku.ca (Harvey Haldorson)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Organization: York University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:00:47 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>In article <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov>, alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale) writes:
>> What do all the following people have in common?
>> 
>> Kathi. Ataylor. Sam. Kim Posey. Rolfe. More than one Susan. Synth.
>> Tim, I think. Probably a few other people I've forgotten about.
>> 
>> They have posted to talk.rape. And they have been attacked by DC,
>> called deliberate liars, idiots, ignoramuses or worse, on the basis of
>> their opinions (generally freely and openly admitted to be opinions,
>> note, rather than facts). Many have been attacked savagely and
>> demeaningly, in 500-line polemics about their morality, their
>> relationships, their access to legal documents and their spelling.
>> After a series of increasingly heated exchanges with DC, many don't
>> come back. I doubt (this is my OPINION) that this is because they've
>> come round to DC's rather narrow way of thinking and as a result,
>> don't need to post any more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the
>> readership of talk.rape is getting rather small these days.

>As much as I can appreciate what you are trying to achieve here, let's
>clear something up. Out of your list of people I have 'attacked', there
>are a few errors.

--------stuff deleted-------


>In each of these situations, I did NOT initiate combat. 

That  doesn't justify being insensitive or abusive.  Nor does it
abrogate your responsibility to members of this group to treat them
with some sympathy and understanding, whether you feel you are right
or not.  Too many people go out on their holy crusades and hurt alot
of other people needlessly.  After all, this isn't
alt.I.am.right.so.listen.dammit, is it?

>I was posting my
>opinions when someone else came along and started to dig into me. And, I am not
>yet a lawyer, but I am in training to be one, true. However, should I be gentle
>when someone comes along and tries to show how hot they are?

Well, yes.  It is easy to be nice when other people agree with you.
You show what you're really made of when there is disparity between
your views and that of another persons.  Frankly, I am bothered by
this militaristic, combat-metaphor laden approach to talking about
stuff here.  


>To make an analogy--you shouldn't go into a bar and pick a fight with someone.
>They might be golden gloves and can hurt you real bad real quick.

Ouch, your ego  is showing.  Please, for the benefit of those that
aren't your intellectual equal, and it appears you feel you are an
elite amongst the plebians, go somewhere else to satisfy your need to
contribute to unfriendly and unkind argument.  When you are in this
group, I would suggest you take your 'golden gloves' off, and put on
'kid gloves'.  Even if someone else gets your gord with something they
have said, don't take off the 'kid gloves'.


---------stuff deleted ---------

>My advice to everyone out there, who does not like the 'savagry' of my posts
>directed at them, is to not come at me. Tough shit if I can work the words
>better than you---that is no reason for me to hold back to your level.

You are a child with the tool of an adult.  Possessing the ability to
"work...words" is not license to be abusive.  Get off your
pompous-I-am-so-better-than-you horse.  You don't work words, as you
put it, well enough to be either subtle,  diplomatic or profound.
Give us poor lowly people a break.  Reason--you need a reason to be
kind, gee, all I need is to realize I am talking with other human beings.

---------stuff deleted------------

>People who want me to be civil should not engage in cheap shots themselves. 

Duh, gee, an eye for an eye, eh?  Uncivility does not bread uncivility
in you, it only brings to the surface (it appears) your own latent
hostility and apparent insecurity manifested in a false sense of
superiority.  THis isn't YOUR group, you are here as we all are to
participate in a human encounter.  Be Nice, or don't be here.  It is
the mark of a wise person to know when to speak and when not to;  this
has been known since the time of Aristotle, but something that seems
to have escaped you.  You have something to contribute here, but work
your words in a way that is more caring -- the effort is worth it.

>> 
>> DC; I would ask you to take a couple of days off. Take a look at
>> yourself. All the people I listed at the top are entitled to their
>> opinions and actions. Don't reply to people's posts immediately. Is
>> everybody else REALLY dead wrong, while you're always dead right? Are
>> you ALWAYS the only one marching in step?
>> 
>> THINK about what you're doing when you reply to messages.  Think about
>> who will read your venom-laden missives and the effect it will have on
>> them.  It just doesn't help to hurt people. It doesn't persuade people
>> to your point of view by battering them, it just makes them defensive.
>> Maybe you can win cases by being forceful and intimidating, but you
>> don't win arguments that way. It just doesn't work.

>No, I win by pointing out the holes in their arguments. As for doing it
>'nicely' and offering advice, all that has earned me lately is cheap shots.

The reward, if you need one, for not absolving yourself of the
responsibility to be nice in this group, is that you are being nice.
If it brings you cheap shots, then be big enough to take them on both
cheeks, as it were.  There are always people around who act in abusive
and at times ridiculous ways, but don't be one of them.  

>> 
>> You'll note that female posters are becoming increasingly marginalized
>> in this newsgroup; why is that, do you suppose? Could it be because
>> talk.rape, a group that exists primarily to help THEM, has become such
>> an unpleasant place that they don't want to be here any more? Who does
>> that help? Women? Men? You? None of the above?
>> 
>> OK, you "do research", and pride yourself on getting your facts straight.
>> This is commendable. You derive great glee from "correcting" people.
>> This is unpleasant. You then indulge in sneering put-downs, sarcasm,
>> and general nastiness. This is reprehensible.

>And, unfortunately, me copying the tactics of those who argue with me. I have
>never been one to take the high road while my opponent is fighting dirty. Yes,
>I know I should be a gentleman about it all, but it is is difficult.

THis is why you are studying to be a lawyer? to fight dirty and win
even if you compromise your own principles (you did say you know you
should be better than that)?  Sometimes the only things you can do in
life are difficult and costly -- doesn't make the easy way admirable
nor right.

>> 
>> Based on the evidence before me, I'm not really expecting you to
>> change. I would be surprised if you indulge in any self-examination at
>> all, or attempt to put yourself in somebody elses shoes, more than
>> once a year.  But I'd sure be happy if I was wrong, and if you drew in
>> your claws a bit.  Just try to be constructive instead of destructive.
>> We'd all gain. Including, and especially, you.
>> 
>>         - Alan.

>Alan, I honestly do appreciate your post. I would love to see more productive
>debate. 

Well, we all agree here.  Productive debate is not encouraged by your
eye for an eye approach, though.

>And, all it takes is for people to treat me civily. You are voicing

Um, well actually all  it  takes is for you, since you are intelligent
enough, and capable enough, to maintain  some decorum despite others
lack of civility.

>your opinions as opinions in a positive constructive criticism, and as I 
>agree with what you want (peace on this board) I have pointed out facts which I
>think have been forgotten from the prior skirmishes.

>Not just by you, but by a few of the people who have had the pleasure of going
>up against me.

We aren't playing battles-of-the-intellectual-titans here.  And the
pleasure, I can assure you in large part has been yours (your glee is
too apparent)

>My claws, you will note, have stayed retracted.

>However, I know already that Sam has some post I am going to have to respond
>to. Without even reading it I know he has probably, once more brought my mother
>into it.

>When HE backs down and ABIDES by the truce he agrees to, THEN I will retract
>the claws.

Detente.  Guess with all your military metaphors, you haven't learned
from the cold war.

>Until then, he had better get used to being bloody. And everyone else should
>avoid the thread, because (and this may come as a surprise) up until know, I
>have been gentle.

>DC

Wow, look out world,  here comes an imposing giant of a man -- whose
intellect is only exceeded by his ego and lack of empathy (that's how
it looks).  

Please, get your pompous jollies at some other groups expense.  This
isn't the place for it.  "I have been gentle (up until know [sic])" --
do you really think that the way to encourage productive, inciteful
debate is to threaten people that if they aren't nice  to you that you
will trash them.  Maybe you need a refresher course on human
interaction.

Well, DC, if you persist, welcome to my kill file.

Harvey


			+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

			           H.M.Haldorson  
			      Philosophy Department
			          York University
			    E-mail: <hal@nexus.yorku.ca>

			+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+



  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  >                    D   I  S  C  L  A  I  M  E  R                    <
  |=====================================================================|
  | The opinions, value orientations and intentions expressed here are  |
  | those only of a singular individual, and in no obvious way do they  |
  | reflect, nor could they possibly represent the intentions, values or|
  |opinions of the nameless, faceless oppressive socio-historico culture| 
  |     that enslaves us all through sytematically distorted norms.     | 
  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-