From: pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: twirps and calm and the angst-gatekeepers
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:37:11 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: darkpark

> > But that'd just be propping up a collapsing system.
> 
> I was not saying that the system was collapsing, I was trying to
> distinguish between saying that the system is structured in a certain
> way, and your argument about the impact of a hermes and her
> responsibility for eliminating all certainty.  I don't agree that
> these are the same thing or that they logically follow from one
> another, or that that is what I was doing.  

 Argh. Communication breakdown.
 You weren't saying that the system is collapsing...*I* was. If we accept 
your idea that this group has to be protected from people like Hermes, 
then I consider the effort to be futile because all that'd do would be to 
screen out the BLATANT hell-raisers and saboteurs, leaving the more 
subtle, more dangerous ones to run amok. This CANNOT be fought.


> > Besides, what do you mean by "tried"? By whom? alt.justice.tribunal? 
> >alt.angst.lynch-mob?
> 
> No, I was meaning by "me", according to your argument.  I was not
> describing what happened literally, I was describing what I understood
> to be your argument to tell you that I don't agree with it.  

 You just lost me. Maybe I need some coffee.


> > Yeah...hell, I was chuckling at the venom in your diatribe. What made me 
> >want to correct you was your motivation.
> 
> Please .... please, please, please.  Be very careful in interpreting
> others' motivation through a computer network.  Geez.

 Why? It's just as (un)reliable as such guesswork can be even in 
face-to-face communication. Besides, you seemed to be doing as much to 
Hermes.


> >> But on the melodrama scale, I am pretty darn skeptical that
> >> anything I said  was so inflammatory and divisive that it will "burn
> >> us all up along with the two(?) of you".   
> 
> > Why not? We're STILL discussing it...and NOT posting angst. I've seen 
> >things like this get MUCH worse.
> 
> Well, I guess I'm unclear at why you seem to think that's not ok.  You
> know, most of the time people still have to talk about things to make
> sure they understand each other before getting to the "real things".
> I've been reading a number of postings by people clearly uncomfortable
> with what seems to be an "angst orthodoxy".  And I don't think I'm out
> of line to suggest that you have certain set ideas about what is
> appropriate, both in terms of responses to people (particularly if you
> feel that you understand their motivation, an understanding derived
> from your own beliefs and experiences) in terms of what constitutes proper
> angst, having read a few of your other postings.  What gives YOU the
> right to act as Angst Policeman? 

 You're playing with semantics. If I seemed to be playing "Angst 
Policeman", it was only to try to get YOU to stop doing the same.


> 
> Diane
> 
> 
> dsmither@ccs.carleton.ca


marlowe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mary is strapping on rubber penis: 'Steely Dan III from Yokohama,' she 
says, caressing the shaft. Milk spurts across the room.
   'Be sure that milk is pasteurized. Don't go giving me some awful kinda 
cow disease like anthrax or glanders or aftosa...'"
                                -William S. Burroughs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------