From: vdeniger@mta.ca
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
Reply-To: vdeniger@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:14:56 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.111214.7012@pimacc.pima.edu>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.353465.53456@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>, takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
>> 
>> Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to flame we go...
>> 
>> In article [snip] ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>>In article [snip], takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) dribbles:
>>>[stuff cut]
>>>Belittlement of AM's vision of a the hypothetical world she calls Pern is
>>>a classic sign of intolerance. The same tactic has been used in the past
>>>against homosexuals & various minorities.
>> 
>> I say I think AM's temporizing is something of a disappointment, by which
>> I mean a disappointment to the homosexual community in particular, and
>> you accuse me of being intolerant of minorities?  Remove your head from
>> the sand it's stuck under.
>
>So you think that the homosexual community would be disappointed in an
>author who takes the position that an individuals personal sexula pre-
>ference should carry some weight in her books? What a curious statement.
>Perhaps you would care to elaborate on exactly how you came to such an
>interesting conclusion. Or, have you, like a number of others, somehow
>managed to conveniently "forget" what this debate was all about?
>
>> (Disclaimer: I make no claims to speak for the homosexual community,
>> blah, blah, blah, and so forth.  
>
>Yeah. Same goes for me.
>
>> *I* think it's a shame that AM
>> temporized on the subjec, and that it's unfortunate from the perspective
>> of the homosexual community.  It's my *opinion*.  No insult to anybody
>> except possibly PHIL is intended.  Don't imply anything else from it. 
>> Please.  Flame away.)
>
>Ah yes, temporizing is such a terrible thing isn't it?
>Well you may not realize it but temporizing is a very valuable tool for
>accommodating diversity. Considering what's taking place around the world
>& right here in the US I would think more temporizing would be in order
>not less. Perhaps you'd care to explain what you find so objectionable?
> 
>>>[cut]
>>>> PHIL, buddy, I'm not intolerant of you because of your opinions, no
>>>> matter how moronic I consider them.  
>>>The what exactly is the excuse you're using to justify your intolerance.
>> 
>> Maybe you ought to start reading the whole post before writing your
>> follow-up...
>> 
>>>> If you want to think the Red Star is
>>>> made of hot coals, you go right ahead and think that.  I'm intolerant
>> of
>>>> you because you are...now listen carefully and see if you can
>> understand
>>>> the words...acting...like...a...twink.
>>>*I'm* acting like a twink! 
>> 
>> Indeed you are.  Glad to hear you admit it.
>> 
>
>Well now you're taking my words out of context in order to twist the
>meaning. No doubt you'll consider this justified because I don't have
>what you consider the "proper" view. It'll be interesting to see how
>lower you are willing to stoop in order to misrepresent my position.
>
>>>You seem to have forgotten about a few others. (hmmmmm. Could the fact
>>> that they share your discredited interpretation have something to do
>> with 
>>>it?) 
>> 
>> Whoever you refer to, I have yet to see anyone in this thread act like
>> one-tenth as much of a twink as you.  
>
>I get it now! You're the "netgod-who-is-in-charge-of-judging-right&wrong"!
>How *could* I have overlooked that fact? ;*)
>
>Well, interestingly enough, I happen to disagree with your "judgement".
>My "judgement" is that you've gotten it backwards.
>Guess you haven't really "seen" much have you?
>
>> Perhaps, also, you would TRY to get
>> through your skull, although it has thus far been denser than a neutron
>> star, that whether your interpretation is right or wrong has precisely
>> zero bearing on how much of a twink you are.  I'm not flaming you because
>> of your opinion, but because of your actions.
>
>Well, at least you're willing to admit that the main inspiration for your
>attacks upon me is simply personal animosity. I've maintained that very
>position for quite some time. You realize of course, that this admission
>taints all of your arguments against me , don't you? You now admitted that
>you are biased.
> 
>> Despite your protestations of honor and noble purpose, you also seem
>> depressingly prone to gloat ("share your discredited interpretation")...
>> 
>
>
>Ah yes, another "half-truth". A number of people have felt it incumbent
>upon themselves to twist, distort & post outright lies about what the de-
>bate was about, what my position was & also the contents of my posts. 
>I am, therefore, determined to correct this & indicate what the reso-
>lution was. I guess now you'll say you didn't "see" any of that either?
>
>>>They were the ones that resorted to insults & slander when, for instance,
>>>in reply to my statement that I saw nothing in the books that ruled 
>>>allowing a riders sexual preferences to have an impact in this matter, 
>>>they posted , in an attempt at rebuttal, examples from the book
>>>in which rider's sexual preferences were NOT contravened! 
>> 
>> Grammar is a Good Thing.  Go back to fifth-grade English; perhaps this
>> time you'll learn to construct a sentence correctly.  
>
>Unless you're new to UseNet you're quite aware that the level of grammar
>on the 'net is quite low. That's nothing new. You're simply displaying
>how much you're allowing your personal animosity towards me to color the
>contents of posts.
>
>> Your poor grammar
>> shoots the argument nicely in the foot.  
>
>Now I tried to keep my statement simple. Perhaps you could point out
>where you became confused. I'll be glad to clarify.
>
>> Yes, you are right, they DID
>> post examples where preference wasn't contravened.  
>> Why?  Well, because
>> those are all the examples AM gives us *in her work*.  They posted the
>> closest possible approximation in a situation when it was impossible to
>> find absolute proof from the sources then available.  IMNVHO a reasonable
>> attitude.  
>
>You have a very peculiar approach to logic. You silly justification for
>attempting to use inapplicable data to proof or disprove something is
>complete nonsense.
>
>> Care to disagree?  After all, you've been blathering about
>> tolerance all this time, let's see some.
>
>You can violate any principles of logic you wish. When you violate 
>those principles while attempting to refute my hypothesis , I see 
>no reason why I shouldn't take note of that. I would be very inter-
>ested in why you & the others became so enraged when I originally
>pointed out your errors. 
>
>There wouldn't have been any problem except that they claimed that their
>examples were, in fact, proof postive that my hypothesis was disallowed
>by the text of the books. It was when I pointed out that these examples
>prooved nothing that they became enraged.
>
>>>When I noted this flaw in their logic 
>> 
>> It was not a "flaw in their logic".  It was, at the time, perfectly
>> logical.  Try the following:
>
>The examples were inapplicable according to the hypothesis. This makes
>it an error in logic. Their logic was flawed by this error.
> 
>> a) We do not know if sex between riders during a mating flight is
>> inevitable.
>> b) We know brown/green pairings are of comparable emotional strength with
>> bronze/gold.  (Provable.  No, I don't have the page refs.)
>> c) We know that sex between gold and bronze riders during a flight, in
>> all the examples we have, is inevitable.
>> d) Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that sex between brown and
>> green riders during a flight is also inevitable.
>> 
>> Saying this was a "non-logical argument" is silly.  Stop doing so.
>> 
>
>Once again you fell compelled to distort what actually occurred.
>
>I have never challenged this line of thought. I simply stated that a
>major difference between the bronze/gold pairings contained in the
>books & the brown or blue/green pairings was that in none of the
>bronze/gold examples cited was the riders sexual preferences ever
>violated. Therefore, I thought it reasonable to assume, since the
>books were vague on the point, that the situation could occur where
>a rider was unwilling to have his sexual preferences violated. As
>AM's statement showed, this was exactly the situation that she had
>sought to portray. For some reason a number of people found this
>idea so objectionable that they became enraged. They still haven't
>explained why it triggered such a visceral response. I have attributed
>it to intolerance.
> 
>>>it apparently incensed then to the point that all sorts of baseless
>> charges 
>>>were hurled at me; namely, that I was opposed to any trace of
>> homosexuality 
>>>on Pern, amongst others. 
>> 
>> Well, if one denies a logical reasoning, like the one above, where the
>> result would be acceptance of homosexuality, and continues to deny it
>> despite lack of proof to the contrary (yes, until AM came along, yes,
>> yes), it DOES look like they have some base for their accusations.
>
>I guess it really asking too much of you that you cease your outright
>lies isn't it? My position was that the above argument was not ade-
>quate to refute my hypothesis. It was when the others realized that
>there was not any adequate means within the book to fefute my position
>that they apparently felt it necessary to resort to a smear campaign.
> 
>>>Even after I had posted a number of clarifications in an attempt to keep
>> the >debate on track they continued to make these baseless charges rather
>> that 
>>>address the central issue, which was whether the books indicated that
>> sex 
>>>between 2 riders whose dragons mated with each other was mandatory. 
>> 
>> No, they were just attempting to get you to pull your head out of the
>> sand.  They'd made their argument.  You looked right past it.
>>
>
>Well that's an interesting justification for posting lies & distortions
>if I ever heard one! The argument was not sufficient to invalidate my
>hypothesis. I simply noted that fact. Then, they became enraged.
> 
>>>Furthermore, a number of them the resorted to DEMANDING that I stop 
>>>responding to the posts that were attacking me. I guess they felt that
>> only 
>>>those who hold the "correct" views should be allowed to post here. I
>> call this 
>>>intolerance.
>> 
>> No, from what I saw, they just objected to your spamming the net by
>> replying to every post disagreeing with you, and not even bothering to
>> edit the quotations at that.  An entirely reasonable attitude.  
>>
>
>Another falsehood. I *was* editting the posts all along. It may not have
>been to your tastes but I wasn't exaxctly thrilled about editting either.
>You still haven't explained why I shouldn't be able to respond when chal-
>lenged or what makes *your* determination of what constitutes proper edit-
>ting the one that should govern this situation. Also, if my editting was
>the problem then why wasn't that simply stated? Instead it was my logic
>that was attacked while my statements & position were twisted & distorted.
>  
>>>[cut]
>>>This is *exactly* my point. My opponents have failed to make a logical
>>>case to support their views, they've failed to get AM's support so now
>>>they're resorting to a malicious distorted whispering campaign. BTW, it
>>>wasn't "may even be right". I *was* right & they were wrong. This would
>>>indicate to me that they've misinterpreted what AM intended to portray
>>>in her vision of Pern.
>> 
>> Thppppth.  "Malicious whispering campaign"?  Puh-leeez.  A plainly
>> sarcastic bedtime story whose point must have been obvious to anyone with
>> an IQ above zero is posted to the entire world, and from this you come up
>> with some paranoid delusion about a "whispering campaign"?  Don't flatter
>> yourself.  You aren't worth wasting that much effort on.
>>
>
>This is a very sorry excuse for this behavior. Of course it not surpris-
>ing considering the intense personal dislike for me you have already 
>admitted. You're allowing the double-standard you're employing to be-
>come very apparent.
> 
>> You are also wrong on several other counts.  Your opponents came up with
>> an entirely logical argument for their viewpoint, which you steadfastly
>> ignored (see above).  
>
>The maintained that their argument invalidated mine. This was untrue &
>I posted to that effect. I also posted a question in which I asked why
>when I was willing to find room in my vision of Pern for their visions,
>they couldn't seem to be able to find room for mine. Of course, they
>never answered.
>
>> I cannot and do not argue that if AM gives an
>> Official Pern Opinion, then that's the way it is, but by your sort of
>> logic it IS arguable that the note she wrote constitutes an Official Pern
>> Opinion.  
>
>It seemed pretty clear to me.
>
>> Rather than argue this, I leave it as an exercise for the apt
>> pupil.  (Yes, PHIL, go right ahead and say I'm not arguing it because I
>> can't.  You'd be wrong, but that never stopped you before.  After all,
>> the Word of Anne is often selfcontradictory...)  
>
>Her contradictions are one of the prime reasons why such a position as
>the one my opponents expounded, mandatory behavior, are so very diffi-
>cult to support.
> 
>>>>>[PHIL's critique of Lydia's character cut] 
>>>>[my ranting that PHIL has no clue what he's talking about deleted]
>>>Oh I get it! Only certain "acceptable" individuals get to flame on this
>>>board! 
>> 
>> Find me the place I said that.  Go on, find it.  
>Your statement was a crude attempt to intimidate me into refraining
>from defending myself when I am attacked. I have been flamed for alot
>less & you never seem to mind. I wonder why?
>
>> What I *said* was that
>> you looked like an idiot for criticizing Lydia's character on the basis
>> of a joke which, based on your reponse, you obviously failed to get.  Go
>> ahead and flame all you want, but do try to flame with some semblence of
>> reasonableness.
>You're about as unreasonable as anyone I've ever met. Considering your
>self-admitted personal hostility towards me it's not too surprising
>though. I happen to think that you , in fact, are the one that appears
>to be an idiot. I hardly expect that to matter to you. I *am* surprised
>that you would expect me to care about your opinion of me. Especially con-
>sidering the level of hostility towards me that you've displayed.
> 
>> I notice that you don't bother to defend your criticism of Lydia, except
>> with some reference to "not finding her endorsement...laudable".  You
>> shouldn't.  Your criticism of her is considerably more baseless than any
>> accusations made against you.  She said she liked the story, and made a
>> comment (which was an injoke, to which you were not privy).  You manage
>> to imply from this that she is deficient in character, and IMNVHO you are
>> wrong.     
>
>You're quite wrong there. I have been flamed on the basis of outright
>lies posted about my statements. Funny that it never seemed to bother
>you.
> 
>> [cut]
>>>Those who hold the proper views & are above criticism & those who don't, 
>>>who are below contempt. 
>> 
>> No, no.  There are two types of people in society: those who have clues,
>> and those who don't, and thus deserve to get their buns flamed off. 
>> Y'all fit nicely into the second category.
>> 
>
>Well opinion is that you are in fact a prime candidate for the 2nd cate-
>gory. As proof I present your flawed interpretation.
>
>>>>[cut]
>>>My logic board need to be replaced? :*) 
>>>Well, you seem to forgotten *another* little item, haven't you?
>>>*My* logic yielded the correct interpretation.
>>>*Yours* failed to do so.
>> 
>> Where do you get this, you pathetic little twink?  Until AM decrees one
>> way or another, any one logic is as valid as another.  To trumpet
>> brilliant logical success because your opinion happened to conform to the
>> whim of Anne, which all the available evidence in her own books
>> contravenes, ridiculous and foolish.  That's not "logic".  That's "making
>> a lucky guess.
>
><talk about pathetic>
>
>What a clown. You just can't admit when you're wrong can you? Well maybe
>somedat when you mature a little.... maybe.
>
>AM *has* decreed! (I guess you missed that too, eh?) She has supported
>my position , that a riders sexual preference will have an impact on their
>behavior when their dragon is mating, in full & rejected yours , that a
>riders behavior will always be the same regardless of their sexual pre-
>ference, completely. How clueless can you get?
>
>PHIL
> 
Enough of the sex deal, your tearing the book all to hell, What does it matter
anyway?
Ether they do or they don't, isn't it up to the writer?