From: eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick
Subject: Re: Santeria
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:55:23 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
: 
: Yes, it was sarcasm, and no, my ego wasn't bruised. I was only surprised
: at the strength of your reply, and the tone. I pictured the two of you 
: doing a high-five over the net. It seems both of you missed the intention
: of the original post,<<


It looks like you've played into the same web that sought out to spin
yourself. But we've both proved my point that with just words a lot can be
misinterpreted. Frankly, I found your post a good observation but lacking
clarification that filled my e-mail with other's concern. My answer was
meant as sarcasm as well. I do not think that the other posting was meant as
a heated rebuttal either  but simply a clarification of what could easily be
misleading by a third party that merely, in a sweeping statement condemned
an idea.

>>:Actually, if you go back and look at my original post, I did frame it as a
: statement, not a question, and deliberately. It reflects the belief (or
: bias) of one group of people, and yes, I have been following some of your
: posts regarding Santeria/Lukumi enough to understand some of the 
: differences.
: 
: My background of study is in philosophical and religious Taoism, and on
: another thread Gil Hardwick has been referencing this subject from a 
: fairly narrow (though commonly understood) viewpoint. I have not found
: it necessary or desirable to counter his statements, as his general 
: principles are within the "boundaries" of historical Taoist thought.<<

Now imagine if someone would write that they have a friend that is into
Chinese religion and that they commented that Taosm was considered by his
Hindu friends as black magic, what would have been your response?
Inspite that the original posting explained that the user did not know
anything about Taosm and then after giving his friends opinion proceeds to
suggest to look it up in the library to clarify this truth??

Would you have ignored the statement?  Specially after you've written a
dissertation on Taosm for the length of 7 postings?

: 
: I brought up this "white/black" dichotomy because it struck me at the 
: time (and when reading the post) as a misunderstanding due to ignorance.

: I made no claim in my original post as to my expertise in Haitian or
: African religion; in fact I claim to no very little. This does not 
: exlude me from discussion -- how else does one learn? I don't feel that
: the tone of my original post made any claim to a soapbox authority, so
: I didn't understand the reply. 

I understand this. What you needed to have included was the question. People
on the net may understand words, but they are not mind readers. We are
limited to a very narrow form of expression of words without punctuations
and accents.
 
: 
: I'm sorry you misinterpret my "Krispy-Krusted" but it was meant in humor.
: I think to sum up, my reaction to all of this (and hence my sarcasm) was
: that you took this all so seriously. When I said lighten up, I meant
: lighten up. This is not a retraction. It's just that the original post
: was not meant as a statement of fact, nor do I see how it could have been,
: prefaced by my statements about who it came from. If in a normal discussion
: between a group of people, I said, "I've got a friend who thinks this-and-
: such" I would not expect two others to roundly condemn not only this
: friend's opinion but my own statement of it as well. I would expect someone
: to contradict the statement, following up with some reasonable references.

Unfortunately it seems to have come accross as Machiavellian manipulation,
and it is this that I objected to. Obviously I may have seen through this
flaw since I pointed out, again, that limits of just words minus expression
or tone of voice.

>>: In this case the reaction was not polite. Your sarcasm brought forth my
: "Excuse ME", not my gritting my teeth in apology. I WILL apologize for any
: misunderstanding the post caused, but not for my motives, which remain
: the same.<<

No problem...Point well taken. I never took it as anything else than
sarcasm. After all a good fare cannot do well without its seasoning. ;-)
 
: 
: >On the net there are no visual or audible apperances so words will have to
: >do. Statements are never taken personally, or should never be so taken, as
: >the perties involved, dissatisfied, could easily just skip your thread or
: >turn off their computer. But if any time is taken by anyone to answer
: >publicly a statement then they have to understand that it will equally be
: >answered according to the manner that it was written whether you like it or
: >not.
: 
: I agree wholeheartedly. My original post was not written in an angry or
: attacking tone, nor did it attempt to misrepresent a truth.
: 
: >
: >It has become boring and tiresome that people with the lack of intelligent
: >command of a language usually resort in their accustaion of that which
: >rebuttals their statements as a Flame.
: 
: It's funny how even in your attempt to move the decorum of the discussion
: up a level you must resort to an insult. I have more than adequate command
: of the English language, thank you.


Now see how easy it is to misinterpret? Subtly I interjected a statement of
"flame" for others on the net. I was in fact not talking to you directly at
all. And see how easily you reacted to a statement within sarcasm?
I am afraid that you are as easily victimized by what defense you've
presented. Understanding you subtle intent I deliberatly snuck in sarcasm
and example to reflect the error I was making a point of. At the same time
speaking to others that would take our discussion as an excuse for a tirade
of flame. I certainly apologize to you that it seem to imply condemnation of
your post. But it was a necessary evil since you are not the only one that
reads these posts. It was not meant as manipulation, malice or whaever
adjective you or anyone else could devise. Simply as an example to prove
that a statement on the net can be taken in many ridiculous ways that the
original posting did not intend. Also I might add, this was the point in
question in answering you. But you must forgive my grammar sometimes as I am
a foreigner before american citizenship and sometimes have the habit to
write english with Chaucer like style that is archaic.


: 
: >The above is neither intended nor IS a "flame". It is just a clarification
: >of how your statements come accross to me. I cannot speak for anyone else.
: >If you will note, my commentary to your original post, sarcastic as it may
: >have been at times was directed more to the credibility of your "friend's"
: >statement than it was intended to  admonish you. It was an observation of
: >decorum that I questioned your motivations which you have answered above.
: >
: >But don't twist my words and confuse the issue by stereotyping my answers or
: >questions as a threat of what I know that you don't.
: >
: >Eshin-Fun
: 
: And please don't mistake my apology as obsequiousness. I am sorry that 
: there has been a misunderstanding between us, as I find it probably due
: to the medium's lack of facial expression etc. I'll try to be less 
: sarcastic with you if you're willing to do the same. I have no trouble 
: with your discussions of Santerian/Lukumi religion, and in fact have 
: wanted to thank you for a number of illuminating posts you've made 
: recently.
: 
: Blessings,
: 
: Murray
: 
Thankyou very much for you understanding and professionalism in your
response. I certainly did not mean to thrash you at all. My argument was in
fact for defense of an already misguided subject that so many ignorami seem
to latch on to. I know you are neither an ignoramus nor a jerk (point of
clarification): --)

But as I stated earlier, e-mail is personal, posting is not. And when a
public posting is made, a public answer is warranted as many readers >will<
and can misinterpret what is posted. I accept your sincere apology as I
already felt no malice was intended. But unfortunately, sarcasm is a human
trait that cannot be promised elimination, as it will happen almost
unconciously in the impetiousoty of reflect. But I can promise that I will
attempt greater clarification for you when I re-read what I ve posted  so as
to not mislead my intentions.

I hope that we can help each other in these clarifications as it is >very<
hard to write without sound and sight, a seemingly >very< necessary part of
intelligent conversation.

Sincerely

Eshin-Fun