From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Getting your corrections right
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:59:29 GMT
	<4067@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
	<DOCONNOR.93Jan25181549@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1993Jan26.060836.20213@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: greg@silver.lcs.mit.edu's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:08:36 GMT


greg@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose)) writes:
] Oh dear God, more on the O'Connor brouhaha.

Gee I thought it was the "Authenticity Clique" brew-ha-ha-ha-ha.
But I'd never say so, not wanting to post snide little ad-hominem
attacks to r.o.sca. You have no such compuction, I see.

] Mr. O'Connor writes, in criticism of Terry/Angharad:

Much better : a statement with actual content !

] >I think it's presumptious of you to answer for Hossein. If I
] >had people speaking for me on my reasons to sdo things, when I
] >was perfectly able to do so myself, I'd feel offended, I think.
]
] I didn't respond to your posting myself for the same reason that I seldom
] talk to walls -- I don't think they're listening.

I'm beginning to think you don't even know what an ad-hominem is.
Or a flame either for that matter. Sure is a fun game of tag-team arguing
we're playing at. I don't mind tho. It's only USENET after all.

But lets get to the crux of it : I take it then you'd have no
object to other people, including ME, telling the net why YOU
do things ? Or is Terry special somehow ?

] Terry, on the other hand, found the need to answer a question, which _you_
] asked in your posting,

I asked a personal question on why YOU did something. Unless you
told Terry why, she couldn't know the answer. Her presumptuous attack
wasn't any noble attempt to educate me or anyone else, it was a
vindictive ad-hominem flame motivated by my logical demolition of
her ill-concieved attitudes.

] by displaying the selective memory you have of your own diatribes.

More useless ad-hominem. I know what I've said. I know what it means.
I have a clue as to how you boneheads have, in your typical paranoid
authenticity-clique fashion, misinterpretted it.

] I thought it was pissing in the wind,

You're not contributing to the net with this latest post, for sure.

] myself, but she's a nicer person than I am. 

I doubt it. You should read the e-mail she's sent me. 

] I am warmed by your concern that I would be offended at Terry speaking
] for me.  I'm not offended at all, and not just because she's my wife, 

Ah HA ! The reason for the tag-team approach comes out ! Geez, with
that much sub-rosa communication possible, I'm surprised you aren't
more effective.

Of course, I myself NEVER speak for my wife : she's her own person
and perfectly capable of communicating her own views. She shows
me the same courtesy and respect.

] but because I trust her judgment infinitely more than I would ever
] think to trust yours.

The insane would never trust the judgement of the sane. The fool
does not trust the judgement of the wise. Fanatics don't trust the
judgement of the moderate. Which is to say : OOOOhh I'm so HURT. NOT!

] Again, quoting Terry, Mr. O'Connor writes:
]
] >] In Service to the Society,
] >
] >Not with this post, you're not.
]
] You certainly talk the talk, but I've not seen one iota of evidence that
] you walk the walk.

Hey, I don't put conceited little sign-offs in my messages. You
can't acuse ME of hypocracy. And I don't primarily serve the "Society" 
anyway : restricting the ordering to exclude the mundane entities
I serve, I first serve my family, then my Barony, then my Principality,
then my Kingdom. Any service to "the Society" is a by-product.

] You've insulted Cariadoc,

Cariadoc have come to an understanding over who felt insulted when and
why. That beef has been settled privately.

The fact that Cariodoc and I could approach understanding, while the two
of you and I can not, shows you to be less than Cariodoc. No surprise.

] you've insulted Angharad/Terry,

I suppose you don't think the two of you have insulted me ?
How self-serving your indignity is. How poor your sight.

] want to insult anybody else who's been around the Society longer and
] contributed more to the Society than you have?

I've been in the Society since Pennsic X. Had my AoA over eleven (11)
years now. Not as long as some, longer than others. I myself have never
presumed to judge people by their length-of-stay in the SCA. Maybe this
is a fundamental difference between us.

[ I've also been on the net for years and years, BTW ]

As to relative contribution : you're clueless. Obviously I haven't
contributed as much as most if not all Peers. Other than that you
can't know my contributions. I could drag out a few local service
awards from back East, but that really doesn't mean anything, does it ?
	
Besides that, service to the SCA doesn't make people off-limits
for what animal trainers call "correction" if they deserve it.

] It seems to me that all you have brought to this forum is a pathetic
] bravado looking for a fight.  I'm not going to give you one.

Then you shouldn't have posted this flame of yours. You're pathetic.
This cheap attempt to look like you're not going to flame away,
embedded in the middle of a flame, makes you so. I pity you.

] I don't fight with children.

I don't either, but I apparently do argue with pairs of half-wits.
[ Hey, lets compare SATs and GREs ! That'll settle who's right ! (not)]

]  It's why I didn't answer your previous posting

"... but had my wife answer it instead." What a brave guy.

] and why, after this correction of your assumption of my offense, I shan't
] try to argue with a solipsist.

Couldn't just say "you" vould you ? Had to throw in the last little
attempt at an attack. Unfortuneately, it's a lame attack. I can't
seem to find a definition of "solipsist" that's particularly relevant
to this thread ( as opposed to one relevant to all discourse ).

Of course, I expect this promise of yours to last about as long
as Terry's identical promise : less than three days.

] Hossein/Greg

Well, Greggy, now you've been flamed. See how I attacked YOU
personally, as opposed to just attacking your fallacious and
ill-concieved statements ? That's what flaming is all about :
getting personal ! That's what you and your babe have been doing
to me ! It's time you got a clue, boy. 

By now you should feel REALLY offended. Fortuneately for
you, I don't : after years on the net, I'm relatively
flame-resistant. Otherwise, I might have not limited myself
to what, in the hey-dey of USENET flames, would only have
been considered a few seconds in the microwave.

I'm sort of sorry I did it, and sort of not. If I were
a tower of invulnerable ego, I really wouldn't care how
insignifican people like you on an unimportant chat service
insulted and attempted to demean me. But poor imperfect
mortal me : I do care.

Try to learn from this, Greg and Terry. Try to learn what a 
flame is, so you can stop doing it. Or take it to alt.flame.
If rec.org.sca didn't so badly need to know what true flamage was,
that's what I would have done. Ooops, I'm patronizing. Oh well.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca