From: takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:23:46 GMT
     <1992Oct3.023039.6999@pimacc.pima.edu>
     <1992Oct3.345565.35353@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: PsiLords of Takis Health Club and Massage Parlor
X-Useragent: Diamond Mask v2.7b5


Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to flame we go...

In article [snip] ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu scrawled:
>In article [snip], takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
>[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.

(Disclaimer: I make no claims to speak for the homosexual community,
blah, blah, blah, and so forth.  *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.)

>[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.

>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.  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.

Despite your protestations of honor and noble purpose, you also seem
depressingly prone to gloat ("share your discredited interpretation")...

>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.  Your poor grammar
shoots the argument nicely in the foot.  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.  Care to disagree?  After all, you've been blathering about
tolerance all this time, let's see some.

>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:

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.  

>[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.

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).  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.  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...)  

>>>[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.  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.

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.     

[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.

>>[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".

>PHIL

	-- herr feldmarschall dt
		Ye Royal Lord Twink-Squisher Extraordinaire, Amby's Army

--
"Thus I say it is better to be feared than to be loved, for people love
at their convenience, but fear at yours."
						-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern