Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A public apology (And stuff about ATWOP in pback.)
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:50:29 -0700

In article <n6dp_=f@lynx.unm.edu>, quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes:
> [For those of you who do not care about the PHIL wars, please bear
> with me.  I wish to express my thoughts on the entire matter after
> time spent consideration the course of events.  The stuff about ATWOP
> is at the end of this article.]
>
 
> Please, note.  This is *my* recollection of events.  I make no claim
> that they are the 'absolute' truth.  I would be most disappointed if
> you chose to disparage what I freely admit to be my own views.  If you
> wish to respond, please try to keep 'loaded' words at a minimum.  I
> shall attempt to do the same in my narrative.  Any omissions in the
> record are unintentional, and accusations to the contrary will, I
> expect, reflect poorly on you.
> 
> As things started up, I braced myself for another bout of 'The Great
> Floating Usenet Homosexuality Flamewar' (TGFUHF).  I have obesrved these
> things in the past, most recently when it flared up in rec.arts.startrek.*.
> As I watched events progress, I was mildly surprised to note that the
> usual vehmence associated with my past encouters with TGFUHF was
> missing.  Alas, that was not to be for long. ;-)
> 
> My first response to you was to answer some inqueries concerning the
> construction and layout of the Weyrs.  I noticed others making similar
> points.
> 
> Your response was, to put it mildly, something of a slap in the face
> when you declared all of my carefully researched points concerning
> accessibility of weyrs (i.e. the only known weyrs with access from the
> ground are those of queen dragons, and that the others required some
> form of draconic assistance) to be irrelevant.  I found your tone
> abusive and patronizing; it seemed to invite similarly worded
> responses.

This really was a side issue which shouldn't have come into the general
debate. It was mistake on my part to participate in this subject w/o
separating it. As I recall, you posted your data which included the
statement about Gold weyrs always being ground level. I had just hap-
pened to have been going thru one of books just before that & I noticed
a passage that described Lessa & Ramoths weyr as having steps from it
down to the ground. I posted this fact & you replied that I was nit-
picking because , to you, ground level was equivalent to "accessible
from the ground". The nit-picking charge really rankled me. Remember
it came in the midst of a full-fledged flamewar & choose to dispute
that. After that it was pretty much just a "knock-down drag-out". I
did, however, in the end, concede that the weyrs depicted in books did
appear to have at least the vast majority of the weyrs inaccessible
from the ground, despite the inconvenience that must cause. 
  
> Given the heated responses you had started gathering, and the fact
> that I agree with the 'majority viewpoint', I tried once more to
> explain the data I had gathered, and included a cheap shot at the
> end.
> 
> Your response reinforced my growing opinion that you did not wish to
> actually discuss the topic, but only wished to doggedly push your own
> view.  I cast asside all semblance of civility and proceeded to flame.
> For what it's worth, you gave as good as you got in your response.  (That
> is a perverse compliment of sorts.  ;-)

This is the initial sequence of events from my point of view;

A statement was made that whenever two dragons mate their riders will 
*always* engage in sex with each other. (The specific case involved
greens & blues/browns)

I posted that the books did not support that conclusion since the text
tended to be vague. What I primarily objected to was the exclusiveness
of the statement. It allowed no alternatives.

I don't remember what the rebuttal was.

I then proposed that a riders sexual preferences could possibly influence
his reaction to his dragons mating "fever" thereby allowing for alterna-
tive behavior.

At this point more than one person posted examples of gold/bronze mating
in which the riders always engaged in sex with each other.

I rejected these statements as invalid because they riders in these cases
did not have their sexual-preferences (gender-wise) violated.

At this point was when I found myself deluged with insults to which I replied
in kind. I also felt that a number of people where taking a very dogmatic
position since they would not allow any possibility of alternative behavior
on the part of the riders. I also stated a number of times that I wasn't dis-
puting the fact that
riders *could* mate with each other but just that the books did not offer
enough evidence to insist that it *always* happened w/o exception.
 
> From then on, I was primarily an observer.  What I saw was a person
> who refused to consider the evidence brought to counter his assertion.
> The specifics do not really matter, it was the (IMO) 'pig-headed
> denial' that I found annoying.  The constant accusations of
> 'intolerance' also did little for your case in my eyes.
> 
> 
> I contributed one or two cheap shots before Anne McCaffrey came in
> with her declaration.  For the record, I feel that she waffled on the
> issue and find that disappointing.  Still, she is the expert on these
> matters and I was satisfied to let the matter (of mating flights and
> associated sexual activity) rest.

IMHO her declaration was completely in line with the tone of her books. I
guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

I had always assumed that she had been deliberately ambiguous, not
primarily because of her fear of backlash but because she wanted to leave
alternatives open, so as to allow more diversity.

> Alass, net.delay provided more responses to earlier articles and you
> kept on plugging away with responses.  This worked to maintain the
> feeling that you were being unreasnable about the entire matter and was
> unwilling to let it lie.
> 
> Finally, your reputation as an pig-headed fool (waranted or not)
> manifested itself on one of the MU*s.  The log was posted, and you
> went on and flamed away.  It struck me that you did not fully
> understand the dynamics of the situation, so I chipped in with the
> Pot&Kettle spiel.

What rankled me about this was that it seemed to me that some people
felt that "toeing the line" of what was deemed to be the popular consensus
was all that was important. I also found the story
quite derogatory & inaccurate. I would also like to note that when I
posted my own insulting story the "targets" both responded angrily in
much the same way I had.
 
> Hoping to put this puppy to bed as quickly as possible...

Well I think this pretty much sums up my position.

PHIL