From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Flame war
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:07:07 GMT

I'm getting mighty tired of all this (Graham, not the "New Age
bisexuals" thread of which this is a spin-off). You have said that you
don't suffer fools gladly (where your definition of fools includes
those who believe in "irrational claptrap": astrology, tarot etc). You
indicated that it is not necessary for people to _talk/rave_ about
their irrational beliefs; just _believing_ in it while not bothering
others is enough for you to dismiss them. (Your followup to Kay's "Have
you ever known me to rave" is proof of this.)

What I can't figure out in all of this is that if we can assume you to
be a rational, intelligent person, devoid of all such irrational
beliefs (as you would have us believe) then why is it that you have
been saying lots of totally irrational and stupid stuff on soc.bi
lately. Isn't this rather hypocritical? Or is it that you don't believe
all the crap you've been spewing forth and that (not believing in your
own crap) makes it alright?

You have stated several criticisms of individuals here and also the
group at large. I have yet to see you argue, or otherwise back up, these
criticisms. One that you seem to be hung up on is that soc.bi has "lost
its sense of humour and sense of proportion." You've stated that twice
recently, yet you still haven't indicated how you came to this
conclusion. And now you seem to be deflecting the issue by waving about
another (unsupported) accusation:

>I must say, I'm really impressed by the way this group has (ahem) bent
>over backwards to indulge all sorts of bigots and loudmouths

Who exactly are these bigots and loudmouths that we have embraced?

>but as soon as one of your own dares to criticise you on the grounds
>of 'PC', it's daggers drawn and stabs in the back.

That's ever so slightly, just a teenchy-little bit incorrect. I flamed
you for tossing around criticisms *without being willing to support
them*. I've asked you numerous times to either argue your case or shut
up but you still come back with more accusations which you are unwilling
to support. And public flames are hardly a "stab in the back."

>Sheesh.  Just because I made an innofensive joke at Ciaran's expense
>that I thought he would be able to take against himself.

Hmmm... A short history lesson to jog your memory:

	Owen/Gwen (who doesn't post here anymore) had posted here for a
	while before coming out as bi. You posted a "congrats on coming
	out" into which I read the following:

		o Queer-friendly straights are really queer but just
		  aren't out to themselves yet
		o You ration hugs based on people's sexuality.
		  (Straights don't deserve any, but you were willing to
		  grant them to bi-folk.)

	When I flamed you for these two points, you counter-flamed and
	said that I had misread you. (I wasn't the only one who
	"misread" you so I think that the error lay in you not
	expressing yourself properly.)

	There was another flame war in progress (Brad Shapcott (?) had
	cross-posted an article from alt.sex.something to soc.bi and
	flamed it which brought up the issue of reposting other
	people's articles to different newsgroups.) Flames were
	exchanged in several directions.

	I decided to take my differences with Graham to email. In email
	I explained at length the hot buttons of mine which he had
	pressed. If memory serves me correctly, these were:

		o Non-specific accusations, too vague to be able to
		  defend one-self against ("you have been posting
		  recently as if you had a pool-cue up your
		  butt"---obviously intended as an insult but the
		  inherent criticism is too vague to be able to defend
		  oneself against it.)[

		o Accusations aimed at an ill-defined group of people;
		  thus individuals would not know if they were included
		  in the attack ("some of the more politicised-types
		  here"---who are these people you then went on to
		  accuse of something?)

		o Just stating the accusations but not arguing their
		  validity in any way (you didn't refer to any postings
		  to illustrate my pool-cue-up-the-butt posting style
		  nor did you give examples of postings in which the
		  "more politicised types" found "devils behind every
		  tree" (or whatever phrase you used))
	
	My email wasn't a flame. Rather I *explained* these points to
	try to promote some understanding between us and hence heal the
	hurt of the recent flames. Graham's response was (quoting from
	memory): "I forget my reasons for flaming you. Let's drop it."
	I would have prefered to talk about it a bit more to make sure
	that we understood each other, but if he wanted to drop it then
	that *seemed* to indicate some measure of understanding.


>Sheesh.  Just because I made an innofensive joke at Ciaran's expense
>that I thought he would be able to take against himself.

Given all the above, you claim that you didn't think I would take
offense at your joke which (i) reiterated the line about queer-friendly
straights not being out to themselves and (ii) used the term "thought
police" which was non-specific, aimed at an ill-defined group of people
and wasn't backed up. In other words you very accurately hit all of the
hot buttons which I had explained at length a few months previously.

With all that knowledge, I can't believe that you didn't know I would
take offense at your joke. You're not that stupid. Besides, in a later
posting (where you counter-flamed Dave Berry who had flamed your joke),
you again used the phrase "thought police", this time in a *non*-joking
manner. This certainly suggests that you are serious about the "thought
police" allegation and hence that it wasn't intended as an "inoffensive
joke" the first time round.

In the flames since then, Graham has continued to push those
hot-buttons. Here are a few examples from the top of my head (I'm sure
I've forgotten most of the recent occurances):

	Non-specific allegations:
		- Thought police
		- The group has bent over backwards to indulge bigots
		  and loudmouths
		- Irrational claptrap
		- Wooly-headed PC thinking

	Accusations aimed at an ill-defined group of people:
		- Thought police
		- "The lot of you" might either refer to the ill-defined
		  Thought police or the entire readership of soc.bi

	Accusations which weren't backed up:
		- Thought police
		- soc.bi has lost its sense of humour and proportion
		- The group has bent over backwards to indulge bigots
		  and loudmouths

What I have consistently asked of you is that be prepared to stand by
what you say. Alternatively, an apology would be in order. It's getting
mighty tiresome to read your accusations and insults, which you never
back up, and then to read your whinings that people are giving you a
hard time.


<> I knew someone who argued like you when I was in High School. He didn't
<> have any friends. He grew up, though, and last I heard he was a
<> pleasant, rational person. Maybe he can give classes.

Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Newsgroups: soc.bi