From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: t: Is The New Tai Rising?
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:51:47 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <1992Nov05.174106.24093@bnr.ca>, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
wrote:
> 
> In article <mike_steiner-041192111240@192.35.50.131>,
> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> |>In article <1992Nov03.173914.21952@bnr.ca>, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
> |>wrote:
> [...]
> |>           In this situation, the follow-up was posted immediately after
> |>the message itself, and was titled, "My previous message."  It explicitly
> |>stated that I wrote "You are a horse's ass, you jerk." to illustrate that
> |>"I don't buy it.  The meaning of a message is solely determined by the
> |>sender.  It is the responsibility of the receiver to correctly interpret
> |>it.  A receiver's belief in the meaning cannot in any way alter the
> |>sender's intent." is erroneous.  I find it hard to believe that you
> |>received one message and not the other.
> 
> I use a threaded news reader, so perhaps the response was not a true follow-up
> of the previous message in that the previous message was not included in the
> "References:" list.  If that were the case, then the later message might not 
> immediately followed the first.  More likely, I was probably so annoyed by
> your original post that I just skipped through the rest of your posts with
> little more than a glance at each.  In hindsight, I seem to have exemplified
> your argument in that I apparently did receive your message in the manner,
> though not the meaning, that you had intended.  You argued that the 
> responsibility for correctly interpreting the meaning of a message could not 
> lie solely with the receiver, and such have I unintentionally shown.  Somewhat
> ironic that you seem to expect the opposite from me, isn't it?

No, I argued that the message perceived by the receiver was the message
transmitted, regardless of the message intended by the sender.  My
immediate follow up (which was not threaded to the message it followed up)
said that the meaning that I had intended by "You are a horse's ass, you
jerk." was that I really liked him, and that if he took any other meaning
from the message that proved my point that the meaning is determined by the
receiver.  In fact, Eric, in his reply to the message acknowledged that I
had made my point--before he had read my follow up.

> |>> Furthermore, the included post is completely in line with many of
> the previous
> |>> posts that I have seen from you.  You have frequently attacked the poster 
> |>> rather than the content of what is posted.  Such epithets, I believe, are 
> |>> probably responsible for the
> thought-I-would-join-Mensa-but-now-I-know-better 
> |>> people that have come and gone on this newsgroup.
> |>
> |>If you had been paying any attention, you would realize that the only time
> |>I attack the poster is if the poster attacks first.
> 
> I have never argued against your attacks per se, but against the targets and
> the manner of your attacks.

So far, to the best of my recollection, my only attacks have been against
Tai (and his other aliases) and against Franklin--in all cases, they were
in response to attacks; actually, they were counter attacks.

Someone wrote that I am apparently refighting old schoolyard fights.  In a
way, that is right.  As a short, skinny, bespectacled geek who usually had
his head buried in a book, I was often picked on by schoolyard bullies.  It
didn't take me long to learn that ignoring them got me beat up; running
away got me beat up; reporting them to the teachers got me beat up even
more; and fighting back still got me beat up.  However, by fighting back,
two things happened.  1)  In the short run, they did not remain unscathed,
and 2) in the long run, they stopped picking on me and diverted their
attentions elsewhere.

I try to match the force of my messages to that of those who attack; if
they are mild, I'm mild; if they are strong, I am strong.  If they
escalate, I escalate.

> |>> |>Your use of that extract out of context is reprehensible.  I'm not
> going to
> |>> |>say anything about you for doing it, but will let your act speak for
> |>> |>itself.
> |>> 
> |>> Enough negatives.  Your follow-up is an improvement over your name-calling.
> |>
> |>It is much bettewr than your chastising me for something that I don't do.
> 
> If name-calling is something that you don't do, then I applaud your recent
> decision to cease such activity.  The fact stands that your attacks have
> frequently devolved into name-calling, and, in fact, your recently post to
> Tai is little better than such.

True, because that is all he deserved.

> |>> As I said early last summer, your epithets do not affect only those you 
> |>> single out.  Such things, in my opinion, reflect more upon you than upon
> |>> your intended target.  If you really must call someone an ass, why not use
> |>> e-mail?  To your credit, however, I do see some improvement -- your belated
> |>> decision to show some restaint against Steve Franklin, for example.  Let
> |>> your writing be a vehicle for your mind, and not your mouth, and I will no
> |>> longer feel a need to express my objections to you.
> |>
> |>My, aren't you being sanctimonious lately?  I'm glad that you see an
> |>improvement in me.  It makes me feel so much better that the great Rodney
> |>Adams has judged me so.
> 
> Albeit without complete success, I try neither to judge you nor to tell you
> how to life your life.  What concerns me in this forum is your manner of
> writing; I ask you merely to show some respect for your fellow readers of

I show as much respect to the people I write to as they show me.  If
someone attacks me and I rebut in kind, chastising me is, IMO,
hypocritical--it is the same (in kind, but not in degree) as criticing the
victims in the Warsaw Ghetto for fighting back against the Nazis, or
criticizing Rosa Parks for making a scene by not giving up her seat on the
bus.  Self-defense is never wrong, so long as the offense is real.  And
Tai's and Franklin's offenses were real.

> |>                         Speaking of Franklin, did you notice that he
> |>flamed first, and that I responded in kind after he did so?  I didn't
> |>decide to show restraint against him; I decided that because he is a
> |>professional flamer, the worst thing that I could do to him was ignore him.
> |> People such as he hate to be ignored.
> 
> In that case, perhaps I gave you more credit than you deserved.
> 
> Now think about that last sentence, which was obviously an intentional barb.
> Did I write it because it felt good?  Because I wished to continue this
> childishness?  No, I did it to make a point, because whenever I say something
> of that sort I feel petty and immature.  These feelings are not something 
> which I particularly like to experience, do you?  Why then do you feel the
> need to "respond in kind," rather than rising above the manner of your opponent
> to expose the errors of that person's arguments?  Witty banter is one thing,
> but I do not think that I am asking too much.

Because rising above is usually a wasted effort.  It only encourages them
on to further excesses.  Either beat them at their own game or ignore them
completely.  In the case of Tai, when I did ignore him, others continued to
respond to him, which gave him excuses to continue posting--and he
continued to take stabs at me.  So, I decided to rejoin the fray.

> By the way, I stand by my previous assertion that your posts have shown
> some improvement, and I sincerely hope that this improvement will continue. 

Actually, there have been no changes in my posts; I still am polite to
those who are polite, I'm impolite to those who are impolite, and I'm nasty
to those who are nasty.

The fact that I responded politely to you should tell you how I perceive
your messages.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+