From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:53:21 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <hal.714859247@yorku.ca>, hal@nexus.yorku.ca (Harvey Haldorson) writes:
> 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?

Oh, let me get this straight. When people are taking cheap shots at me I am
supposed to 'understand' their inner feelings and be 'sympathetic' to what is
inside of them?

My "repsonsability" is to treat as I am treated. Anything else is your opinion,
and while it may be binding on you, it is not binding on me.

You want peace on this group? It will come the day after people stop trying to
hammer me. Not before.

> 
>>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.  

You don't have to agree with me. Just be civilized and respectful when
disagreeing. Otherwise, you get what you give.


> 
> 
>>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'.

Why? So they can continue on their way and find someone else who is not as
resiliant that they can pick on? Nah. 

You know, what you are advocating is for me to verbally turn the other cheek.
Why should I? Will God come and reward me? Will women drop handkerchiefs in
front of me? Will anything happen other than the people who lashed out think to
themselves, "Hey, I got away with that. I can do it again!"


> 
> 
> ---------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.

And when they are not kind with you, do you continue to be kind with them? For
how long?

Besides, diplomatic, sublte, or profound is usually lost around here.

> 
> ---------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.

Aristotle was an idealist. Quintilian UNDERSTOOD rhetoric much better.

Besides, you are constantly missing what I have said throughout this ENTIRE
post--there is peace when no one comes in flaming me. When they do, it gets
bloody. If you want peace, why not write to them? Sympathy for they have been
through? Why? 

> 
>>> 
>>> 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 live your life as you see fit. You are right that there are always people
who act abusive and ridiculous. You can call it immature, or arrogant, or
whatever, but I will NOT let them do such and just get way with it. Christ, how
many slurs could I direct your way before you got pissed?

One? Five? Twenty?


> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

Whoa! Compromise my principles? Where??? My principle IS an eye for an eye
because the jerk has learned not to poke out anyone else's eye! I should be a
gentleman but that is difficult because your opponent is down there throughing
mud--better to walk down to the ditch, grab the back of his neck, ram his face
into the mud and tell him he doesn't come for air until he signals he will not
throw the mud anymore.

As for fighting dirty--fighting dirty is only wrong if the other guy is
fighting fair. If he is fighting dirty, you are an idiot for fighting fair.


> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

Sure, place the blame on me. Not the people who start the fights.

> 
>>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.

Oh, all it takes for peace is for me to not fight back when someone is fighting 
me.

I'll pass on that suggestion. No one strikes me with impunity.

> 
>>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.

On the contrary, I learned much. I learned that agression must be met with 
show of strength and a willingness to use it.

Unless you think Carter did more for world peace with his policies than Reagan
did with his.

Further, from the Cold War, I learned that when your opponent decides for a
real peace, and non-agressive stances, the conflict is over and THEN you begin
to make real progress.


> 
>>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).  

Yeah, I have a n ego. Oh well. People fall into two categories, those with
horrible self-esteem, and those with abundant self-esteem. Should I act humble?
Should I present a picture to you different than the way I percieve myself to
be? I know I have been gentle so far. If I wanted to, I could really dice and
slice and hit low.  I prefer not to use it because it can really hurt people.
No one on here has pissed me off as much as Kathi (I do not like being called a
rapists) but even she didn't get anything really more than annoyances tossed
her way. So, should I act like I don't know where to place my ability to argue?
I prefer to be honest over nice. Sorry.

As for the lack of empathy, let me get this straight, you want me to have
empathy for people who are openly hostile towards me?

Yes. If that is what empathy entails, not only do I lack it, but I am glad I
lack it.

> 
> 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.

Something I have NEVER understood is what is that supposed to mean? Does it
mean I should be hurt that someone does not like my views? Does it mean that I
have lost something in the grand scheme of things? Do I miss out on making new
friends because they aren't reading what I have written.

Sorry, but threatening to place me in your kill file is like threatening to
spit on the sidewalk in your hometown--so?

> 
> Harvey
> 

DC