From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Alan Williams: Paradigms of Dissonance (was Re: Faggots) 
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:50:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(anderson)
>One reason you've served as the magnet for ridicule is your
>stubborn refusal (basically, it's a weak, defensive posture)
>to clean up your own thought processes -- not to please me
>or meet my standard (or any of the shibboleths you attack in
>your postings) -- but rather to cast some light into the
>darker parts of your own dissonances.

Again, notice the subtle flame that is not-so-cleverly wrapped in pop
psychology ("stubborn" "weak, defensive posture", "clean up your
thought processes", "darker parts"). 

Alan, if you want to attempt a rational discussion with Jess, that
is your choice.  But at least go in with the knowledge that he has
no desire to do the same with you.  You are material for his stage
performance; not a person whose opinions he wishes to understand.




/(anderson)
>But you will admit of no differences of opinion about such
>tactics, for one thing.  For another, that whole line of
>argument is another of the famous smokescreens in your
>thought process.

(vanyel)
/Smokescreens?  I find it continually amazing that saying things the way I
/see them is a "smokescreen," Jess.

"Smokescreen" is a codeword; it means   "I don't have an answer, so I'll 
accuse the other guy of not having a question". All this while Jess 
*still* will not face or define the issue. 




(vanyel)
/What about *your* smokescreens, hmm?  It seems you've got a penchant for
/going onb about muddied thought processes whenever you disagree with
/someone, as if you think all we have to do is think clearly and we're "all
/better" or something.  I ask again: Who's to judge the clarity of our
/thought processes?

You'll get a satisfactory answer for this at about the time that Hell
installs  a skating rink . . .



(vanyel)
/Nor am I the only person who notices this clinquishness.  Check back with
/the posts spreading from the root thread, and you will see that others have
/commented on the right of any one person (or group of people) to determine
/what may or may not be posted here.  If that's a product of "smokescreens"
/and "cognitive dissonance," Jess, then I find myself compelled to wonder
/just who's suffering from it.

You will also not get an answer for this.  He will poo-poo the whole
thing, and make it appear as though the effort of answering is beneath
him, and since "it's obvious" what the answer is, he doesn't have to
give one.



(vanyel)
/I find it amazing, Jess, that you can honestly believe that the continual
/barrage of flames couldn't, after a while, become so overbearing on the
/bandwidth that some individuals may feel intimidated by posting--

Remember when I told you that I knew of people who agreed but didn't
want to take the heat for posting their opinions?  



(vanyel)
/that some
/individuals aren't so turned off by the prospect of being continually,
/mindlessly, flamed that they choose not to post.  Instead, the whole
/barrage of flames--mine and others'--is apparently an *illusion*, created
/*solely* by me.

Of course it is.  By believing such, that excuses people like Jess from
having to actually sit down and rationally discuss an issue.  Flaming is
more fun, and besides:  there are people watching.  I *have* to look
good for my audience; I have a *reputation* to uphold.

Alan, I think you underestimate the theatrical needs of some of these
people.  Not the whole group of posters here, obviously.  But there
really are folks here who have no life beyond Internet and their computers.
Just like the Dungeons and Dragons folks I ran into in college, these
motss 'frequent flamers' have essentially traded fantasy for reality.
They wait impatiently for someone's posting, check the network multiple 
times in a single morning, and a post that argues with them can upset 
their whole morning.  Why, they just *shake* with fury.
You are messing with something very precious to them when you begin
to attack them on the net.  It is all that some of these people have.





(vanyel)
>>you might find we have something intelligent to say after
>>all.

(anderson)
>The only one who's stopping you is you.  And many people
>would be glad if you did say something intelligent after
>all.

(vanyel)
/This, for example, is a flame.  I've been trying to respond to this
/rationally, Jess, but you've gone and fouled it all up.  You've decided to
/apply your own criteria for intelligence--criteria sadly in need of work--
/to the posts on here.

I told you:  he is not interested in discussion.  Why do  you think he
leans so heavily on the "rethink" and "smokescreen" cliches?  He has yet
to define these. And beyond using them as nebulous codewords, he has
yet to discuss anything (beyond telling you that you need to have your
thinking corrected).

He wants to flame, Alan; nothing more. 

Newsgroups: soc.motss