From: pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: twirps and calm (was logic confounding people unclear on the con
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:34:34 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: darkpark

> Well, listen Phil, I am not going to try to deny my particular point
> of entry into this newsgroup - if this were a group full of
> hermes-types, or even had enough of them to throw the balance into
> uncertainty about whether this is alt.theatrical posturing or
> alt.angst, I wouldn't bother; there are just so many other places I
> can find that kind of thing.  It's fine if that's what one wants and
> expects (and sometimes I enjoy it), but from what I can see it doesn't
> seem to be the raison d'etre for this group.  And I am thankful for
> that.  I haven't yet had to cry on anyone's shoulder here, but I think
> that if I did have a problem that I felt people here could help me
> with, I would post it here, rather than to, say alt.peeves or
> alt.fuckyou.  

 Yeah, but does that give you (or anyone else) the right to act as the 
alt.angst vanguard? Snapping at Hermes would probably do the trick, and 
if not, well, that'd what kill files are for. 


> > Well...the nagging doubt whenever I read anything here is "What if 
> >he/she's a liar, and is playing me for a fool?". Terribly irritating if 
> >one's been feeling sorry for a practical joker now, isn't it?
> 
> And shouldn't it be? In my *life* I have never met a person that enjoys
> being taken for a ride. 

 You miss my point. Sure, that sucks, but short of mob-violence 
totalitarianism, there isn't much that can be done about something like 
that.


> > That's where your...ah...victim comes in. If ONE person can try to play 
> >us, all certainties go out the window, and alt.angst becomes a colder 
> >place. Thing is, to blame all of this complex reaction on one annoying 
> >user really isn't fair, since you're attributing structural faults of 
> >this newsgroup to a buffoon who inadvertently exploits them.
> 
> I agree with you in some respects, but I also think that you are
> collapsing some things together.  The medium (which is written rather
> than spoken)  makes it particularly easy for people to do a hermes,
> because it can be difficult to get a sense of people.  However, I
> think that there is a difference between talking of "structural
> faults" and blaming hermes for this complex reaction in the sense you
> describe:  "A" lies; reaction in group member due to Honesty Code
> infraction - A is tried and convicted of Honesty Code offense; A is
> implicitly blamed, through complicated discursive constructions, for
> eliminating all certainty and wrecking the group. 

 But that'd just be propping up a collapsing system. Hermes is obvious -- 
others are not. Hell, *I* could be an escaped mass murderer who's just 
talking to you in hopes of somehow wheedling an address out of you so 
that I would be able to hunt you down and kill you (whew!). Just 'cause I 
say it ain't so is not proof at all.
 Besides, what do you mean by "tried"? By whom? alt.justice.tribunal? 
alt.angst.lynch-mob?


> I still reserve the right to evaluate a hermes and feel that it is
> not a positive and productive addition to the group and respond to
> her with my opinions about that. I mean, of course it was happening
> within a group that I have certain ideas about what I want to get from
> it, but I think that what you really didn't like about my postings was
> how strong my reaction was to her, and that's fine, but it's different
> from what you are saying.     

 Nope. Me, I've been accused many times of being nasty, abrasive, or just 
plain vindictive, and these charges have not always been without grounds. 
Be angry at Hermes, by all means...just don't confuse her with the REAL 
problem.


> Actually, I only posted two angry posts and had said as much that I

 Heh. Only two? You certainly packed a lot into those, then.


> wasn't going to bother posting any more to her.  And if I overreacted,
> I think it's mainly because I hadn't dealt with a moron like that
> before and was not able to be The Voice of Rationality, Reason, and Calm
> which I presume would have received higher marks.  In the future, I
> will probably try to be more careful, and if mine were the
> only angry posts this group ever saw, I might accept your reprimand.
> I find it pretty hard to stay calm when people are doing things I
> really take exception to.

 Yeah...hell, I was chuckling at the venom in your diatribe. What made me 
want to correct you was your motivation.


> 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.
> Diane

marlowe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Groovy."
    -Evil Dead II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.angst