Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:12:13 -0700
 992Oct3.345565.35353@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu> <1992Oct4.353465.53456@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>

In article <1992Oct4.353465.53456@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>, takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
> 
> Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to flame we go...
> 
> In article [snip] ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>In article [snip], takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) dribbles:
>>[stuff cut]
>>Belittlement of AM's vision of a the hypothetical world she calls Pern is
>>a classic sign of intolerance. The same tactic has been used in the past
>>against homosexuals & various minorities.
> 
> I say I think AM's temporizing is something of a disappointment, by which
> I mean a disappointment to the homosexual community in particular, and
> you accuse me of being intolerant of minorities?  Remove your head from
> the sand it's stuck under.

So you think that the homosexual community would be disappointed in an
author who takes the position that an individuals personal sexula pre-
ference should carry some weight in her books? What a curious statement.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on exactly how you came to such an
interesting conclusion. Or, have you, like a number of others, somehow
managed to conveniently "forget" what this debate was all about?

> (Disclaimer: I make no claims to speak for the homosexual community,
> blah, blah, blah, and so forth.  

Yeah. Same goes for me.

> *I* think it's a shame that AM
> temporized on the subjec, and that it's unfortunate from the perspective
> of the homosexual community.  It's my *opinion*.  No insult to anybody
> except possibly PHIL is intended.  Don't imply anything else from it. 
> Please.  Flame away.)

Ah yes, temporizing is such a terrible thing isn't it?
Well you may not realize it but temporizing is a very valuable tool for
accommodating diversity. Considering what's taking place around the world
& right here in the US I would think more temporizing would be in order
not less. Perhaps you'd care to explain what you find so objectionable?
 
>>[cut]
>>> PHIL, buddy, I'm not intolerant of you because of your opinions, no
>>> matter how moronic I consider them.  
>>The what exactly is the excuse you're using to justify your intolerance.
> 
> Maybe you ought to start reading the whole post before writing your
> follow-up...
> 
>>> If you want to think the Red Star is
>>> made of hot coals, you go right ahead and think that.  I'm intolerant
> of
>>> you because you are...now listen carefully and see if you can
> understand
>>> the words...acting...like...a...twink.
>>*I'm* acting like a twink! 
> 
> Indeed you are.  Glad to hear you admit it.
> 

Well now you're taking my words out of context in order to twist the
meaning. No doubt you'll consider this justified because I don't have
what you consider the "proper" view. It'll be interesting to see how
lower you are willing to stoop in order to misrepresent my position.

>>You seem to have forgotten about a few others. (hmmmmm. Could the fact
>> that they share your discredited interpretation have something to do
> with 
>>it?) 
> 
> Whoever you refer to, I have yet to see anyone in this thread act like
> one-tenth as much of a twink as you.  

I get it now! You're the "netgod-who-is-in-charge-of-judging-right&wrong"!
How *could* I have overlooked that fact? ;*)

Well, interestingly enough, I happen to disagree with your "judgement".
My "judgement" is that you've gotten it backwards.
Guess you haven't really "seen" much have you?

> Perhaps, also, you would TRY to get
> through your skull, although it has thus far been denser than a neutron
> star, that whether your interpretation is right or wrong has precisely
> zero bearing on how much of a twink you are.  I'm not flaming you because
> of your opinion, but because of your actions.

Well, at least you're willing to admit that the main inspiration for your
attacks upon me is simply personal animosity. I've maintained that very
position for quite some time. You realize of course, that this admission
taints all of your arguments against me , don't you? You now admitted that
you are biased.
 
> Despite your protestations of honor and noble purpose, you also seem
> depressingly prone to gloat ("share your discredited interpretation")...
> 


Ah yes, another "half-truth". A number of people have felt it incumbent
upon themselves to twist, distort & post outright lies about what the de-
bate was about, what my position was & also the contents of my posts. 
I am, therefore, determined to correct this & indicate what the reso-
lution was. I guess now you'll say you didn't "see" any of that either?

>>They were the ones that resorted to insults & slander when, for instance,
>>in reply to my statement that I saw nothing in the books that ruled 
>>allowing a riders sexual preferences to have an impact in this matter, 
>>they posted , in an attempt at rebuttal, examples from the book
>>in which rider's sexual preferences were NOT contravened! 
> 
> Grammar is a Good Thing.  Go back to fifth-grade English; perhaps this
> time you'll learn to construct a sentence correctly.  

Unless you're new to UseNet you're quite aware that the level of grammar
on the 'net is quite low. That's nothing new. You're simply displaying
how much you're allowing your personal animosity towards me to color the
contents of posts.

> Your poor grammar
> shoots the argument nicely in the foot.  

Now I tried to keep my statement simple. Perhaps you could point out
where you became confused. I'll be glad to clarify.

> Yes, you are right, they DID
> post examples where preference wasn't contravened.  
> Why?  Well, because
> those are all the examples AM gives us *in her work*.  They posted the
> closest possible approximation in a situation when it was impossible to
> find absolute proof from the sources then available.  IMNVHO a reasonable
> attitude.  

You have a very peculiar approach to logic. You silly justification for
attempting to use inapplicable data to proof or disprove something is
complete nonsense.

> Care to disagree?  After all, you've been blathering about
> tolerance all this time, let's see some.

You can violate any principles of logic you wish. When you violate 
those principles while attempting to refute my hypothesis , I see 
no reason why I shouldn't take note of that. I would be very inter-
ested in why you & the others became so enraged when I originally
pointed out your errors. 

There wouldn't have been any problem except that they claimed that their
examples were, in fact, proof postive that my hypothesis was disallowed
by the text of the books. It was when I pointed out that these examples
prooved nothing that they became enraged.

>>When I noted this flaw in their logic 
> 
> It was not a "flaw in their logic".  It was, at the time, perfectly
> logical.  Try the following:

The examples were inapplicable according to the hypothesis. This makes
it an error in logic. Their logic was flawed by this error.
 
> a) We do not know if sex between riders during a mating flight is
> inevitable.
> b) We know brown/green pairings are of comparable emotional strength with
> bronze/gold.  (Provable.  No, I don't have the page refs.)
> c) We know that sex between gold and bronze riders during a flight, in
> all the examples we have, is inevitable.
> d) Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that sex between brown and
> green riders during a flight is also inevitable.
> 
> Saying this was a "non-logical argument" is silly.  Stop doing so.
> 

Once again you fell compelled to distort what actually occurred.

I have never challenged this line of thought. I simply stated that a
major difference between the bronze/gold pairings contained in the
books & the brown or blue/green pairings was that in none of the
bronze/gold examples cited was the riders sexual preferences ever
violated. Therefore, I thought it reasonable to assume, since the
books were vague on the point, that the situation could occur where
a rider was unwilling to have his sexual preferences violated. As
AM's statement showed, this was exactly the situation that she had
sought to portray. For some reason a number of people found this
idea so objectionable that they became enraged. They still haven't
explained why it triggered such a visceral response. I have attributed
it to intolerance.
 
>>it apparently incensed then to the point that all sorts of baseless
> charges 
>>were hurled at me; namely, that I was opposed to any trace of
> homosexuality 
>>on Pern, amongst others. 
> 
> Well, if one denies a logical reasoning, like the one above, where the
> result would be acceptance of homosexuality, and continues to deny it
> despite lack of proof to the contrary (yes, until AM came along, yes,
> yes), it DOES look like they have some base for their accusations.

I guess it really asking too much of you that you cease your outright
lies isn't it? My position was that the above argument was not ade-
quate to refute my hypothesis. It was when the others realized that
there was not any adequate means within the book to fefute my position
that they apparently felt it necessary to resort to a smear campaign.
 
>>Even after I had posted a number of clarifications in an attempt to keep
> the >debate on track they continued to make these baseless charges rather
> that 
>>address the central issue, which was whether the books indicated that
> sex 
>>between 2 riders whose dragons mated with each other was mandatory. 
> 
> No, they were just attempting to get you to pull your head out of the
> sand.  They'd made their argument.  You looked right past it.
>

Well that's an interesting justification for posting lies & distortions
if I ever heard one! The argument was not sufficient to invalidate my
hypothesis. I simply noted that fact. Then, they became enraged.
 
>>Furthermore, a number of them the resorted to DEMANDING that I stop 
>>responding to the posts that were attacking me. I guess they felt that
> only 
>>those who hold the "correct" views should be allowed to post here. I
> call this 
>>intolerance.
> 
> No, from what I saw, they just objected to your spamming the net by
> replying to every post disagreeing with you, and not even bothering to
> edit the quotations at that.  An entirely reasonable attitude.  
>

Another falsehood. I *was* editting the posts all along. It may not have
been to your tastes but I wasn't exaxctly thrilled about editting either.
You still haven't explained why I shouldn't be able to respond when chal-
lenged or what makes *your* determination of what constitutes proper edit-
ting the one that should govern this situation. Also, if my editting was
the problem then why wasn't that simply stated? Instead it was my logic
that was attacked while my statements & position were twisted & distorted.
  
>>[cut]
>>This is *exactly* my point. My opponents have failed to make a logical
>>case to support their views, they've failed to get AM's support so now
>>they're resorting to a malicious distorted whispering campaign. BTW, it
>>wasn't "may even be right". I *was* right & they were wrong. This would
>>indicate to me that they've misinterpreted what AM intended to portray
>>in her vision of Pern.
> 
> Thppppth.  "Malicious whispering campaign"?  Puh-leeez.  A plainly
> sarcastic bedtime story whose point must have been obvious to anyone with
> an IQ above zero is posted to the entire world, and from this you come up
> with some paranoid delusion about a "whispering campaign"?  Don't flatter
> yourself.  You aren't worth wasting that much effort on.
>

This is a very sorry excuse for this behavior. Of course it not surpris-
ing considering the intense personal dislike for me you have already 
admitted. You're allowing the double-standard you're employing to be-
come very apparent.
 
> You are also wrong on several other counts.  Your opponents came up with
> an entirely logical argument for their viewpoint, which you steadfastly
> ignored (see above).  

The maintained that their argument invalidated mine. This was untrue &
I posted to that effect. I also posted a question in which I asked why
when I was willing to find room in my vision of Pern for their visions,
they couldn't seem to be able to find room for mine. Of course, they
never answered.

> I cannot and do not argue that if AM gives an
> Official Pern Opinion, then that's the way it is, but by your sort of
> logic it IS arguable that the note she wrote constitutes an Official Pern
> Opinion.  

It seemed pretty clear to me.

> Rather than argue this, I leave it as an exercise for the apt
> pupil.  (Yes, PHIL, go right ahead and say I'm not arguing it because I
> can't.  You'd be wrong, but that never stopped you before.  After all,
> the Word of Anne is often selfcontradictory...)  

Her contradictions are one of the prime reasons why such a position as
the one my opponents expounded, mandatory behavior, are so very diffi-
cult to support.
 
>>>>[PHIL's critique of Lydia's character cut] 
>>>[my ranting that PHIL has no clue what he's talking about deleted]
>>Oh I get it! Only certain "acceptable" individuals get to flame on this
>>board! 
> 
> Find me the place I said that.  Go on, find it.  
Your statement was a crude attempt to intimidate me into refraining
from defending myself when I am attacked. I have been flamed for alot
less & you never seem to mind. I wonder why?

> What I *said* was that
> you looked like an idiot for criticizing Lydia's character on the basis
> of a joke which, based on your reponse, you obviously failed to get.  Go
> ahead and flame all you want, but do try to flame with some semblence of
> reasonableness.
You're about as unreasonable as anyone I've ever met. Considering your
self-admitted personal hostility towards me it's not too surprising
though. I happen to think that you , in fact, are the one that appears
to be an idiot. I hardly expect that to matter to you. I *am* surprised
that you would expect me to care about your opinion of me. Especially con-
sidering the level of hostility towards me that you've displayed.
 
> I notice that you don't bother to defend your criticism of Lydia, except
> with some reference to "not finding her endorsement...laudable".  You
> shouldn't.  Your criticism of her is considerably more baseless than any
> accusations made against you.  She said she liked the story, and made a
> comment (which was an injoke, to which you were not privy).  You manage
> to imply from this that she is deficient in character, and IMNVHO you are
> wrong.     

You're quite wrong there. I have been flamed on the basis of outright
lies posted about my statements. Funny that it never seemed to bother
you.
 
> [cut]
>>Those who hold the proper views & are above criticism & those who don't, 
>>who are below contempt. 
> 
> No, no.  There are two types of people in society: those who have clues,
> and those who don't, and thus deserve to get their buns flamed off. 
> Y'all fit nicely into the second category.
> 

Well opinion is that you are in fact a prime candidate for the 2nd cate-
gory. As proof I present your flawed interpretation.

>>>[cut]
>>My logic board need to be replaced? :*) 
>>Well, you seem to forgotten *another* little item, haven't you?
>>*My* logic yielded the correct interpretation.
>>*Yours* failed to do so.
> 
> Where do you get this, you pathetic little twink?  Until AM decrees one
> way or another, any one logic is as valid as another.  To trumpet
> brilliant logical success because your opinion happened to conform to the
> whim of Anne, which all the available evidence in her own books
> contravenes, ridiculous and foolish.  That's not "logic".  That's "making
> a lucky guess.

<talk about pathetic>

What a clown. You just can't admit when you're wrong can you? Well maybe
somedat when you mature a little.... maybe.

AM *has* decreed! (I guess you missed that too, eh?) She has supported
my position , that a riders sexual preference will have an impact on their
behavior when their dragon is mating, in full & rejected yours , that a
riders behavior will always be the same regardless of their sexual pre-
ference, completely. How clueless can you get?

PHIL
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern