From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: enough already.
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:02:18 GMT


In article <1992Sep27.075536.17552@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu
(Nelson Minar), himself rarely detectably dyspeptic, writes:

First, the title: one person's enough is very nearly always
too much long ago for another and not nearly enough yet for
still another.  This is true, isn't it?  If so, one problem
is going to be whose enough is enough at any given time, in
any given context.

>Am I the only one who thinks the various personal bashings
>going on in motss right now are a bit unseemly?

Methinks this is rhetorical.  I could cite people who
thought it was enough on the very first occurrence, not to
mention <n> instances downstream.

Incidentally (you know this, but maybe others don't), I'm
not being the least bit coy here.  All this is serious
stuff.  To continue:

"Bashing" is one of those words, I think, that means very
different things to different people.  Kinda loads things up
before the discussion ever gets going.  To insult is not to
bash.  And, with a tradition going back at least to the
satires of Juvenal, insult is a perfectly creditable and
acceptable literary device, *especially* in political
discourse.  Part of its very heart is excess and
outlandishness.

Next, we have the issue of which specific "personal
bashings" you had in mind.  They would almost certainly be
different from the ones I would think of, I think.  If you
say (and I rather thought you did), well, all of them, then
a person hasn't much to come to grips with, since it's
impossible to grip a gripe.

>I don't particularly care for the opinions that Sarver or
>Melmon are espousing.  Some of them are downright offensive.

I might not be the *very* last to disagree, but close to it,
I'm sure.

>But I'm also getting really tired of reading personal
>insults of them rather than criticisms of what they were
>saying.

Here's where specificity is absolutely required, I think.
In some of the cases, it would be my opinion that <x> had
said nothing worthy of the energy it takes to criticize, or
that a long enough tradition of clear pointlessness
existed to suggest it's folly to try to engage the person at
any meaningful level.  But that's *exactly* the right person
to serve as the point-person for jest, for irony, for
satire, to symbolize the truly idiotic things one finds,
alas, out there in the Cruel World.

And I repeat that I'm completely serious about all this.

>(I fully recognize that, when measured objectively, Melmon
>and Sarver are probably posting more tripe than the
>anti-Melmon/Sarver faction.  I don't care.  We should all
>know better.)

Thank you for noting the true proportions of things; I wish
more people did that.  But (I can't speak for others who let
fly at the people you mention) I wouldn't characterize
myself as part of a faction.

I don't see how "knowing better" would compute, in the given
instance.  For one thing, I see it as moralistic in a way I
can rarely sympathize with.  For another, as far as I'm
concerned, I know very well what I'm doing, and I'm not
doing it by accident.  I would expect at least some people
to reject it, whether out of hand or out of conviction or
even multiple kinds of ennui.  It's a risk I'm prepared to
take, because I believe if you don't offend at least some of
the people, you're sugar coated and content-free, which
naturally I don't take to be a Good Thing.

Let me illustrate another point I think is relevant with a
specific example *not* involving the current butts of
invective.  Now and then my extremely learned and venerable
colleague to the east and founder of this newsgroup, Friar
Dyer, and I get our swords crossed.  In every instance of
this I can think of, people (at least *some* people) were
quickly saying "oh, for pete's sake" and calling it a
cat-fight or a bitch-fight or whatever.  Neither Steve nor I
has ever stopped at the first sounding of that bell, as I
recall.  Now what I find pertinent to the present point is
that one dances to one's own tune, prepared for censure
(prepared to ignore it, too) from various quarters.  I don't
think anyone could seriously claim, of Steve or of me, that
these contretemps were our only contributions in these
quarters.

>For those of you keeping track of the motss.black-list, you
>might want to look at the names that were on there in times
>past.  You'll find me, and maybe John Dorrance, and probably
>a few others that might surprise you.

I can remember exactly one instance for each of you, neither
amounting black-listing, neither drawing *general*
opprobrium from the cohort.  But I suppoe I would be less
motivated than you to remember, too.

>Nelson, who is not immediately doing anything to solve the
>problem, but is indulging himself in meta-conversation
>anyway.

I see it otherwise; you are, in fact, doing something to
solve the problem.  But one good meta deserves another.

<> Just had to ask, is fighting violence *with* violence
<> the answer? -- Penn Collins (bfbear@penn.gwinnett.com)
<> I don't care if it's the Answer.  It's better than
<> fighting violence with nothing.
<> -- Tim Pierce (twpierce@amherst.edu)
-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888