[EM] Worst offender is biggest crybaby

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I wasn't going to reply to Anthony's whining rant about me, because
that isn't the topic for which I joined the EM mailing list; and
also, I felt that anything that I said in reply would just be
stating the obvious.

But maybe I should reply, lest anyone believe Anthony's Ghandi-like
characterization of himself, and the resulting implication that I've
"bashed" him and others.

My purpose on EM is the discussion of voting systems. That's it.
I've repeatedly requested that the list be monitored and moderated,
to the extent of not allowing messages to post if their topic is
another list member, instead of the list's charter topic, voting
systems. Rob L., what do you think?

People like Anthony are, regrettably, quite common on the Internet,
and everyone has some way of dealing with them. I claim that my way
is as good as any.

What's my way of replying to the Anthonys of this world? Well, I
just don't bother to try to make my reply more polite than their
posting. I claim that I'm not obligated to make that effort.

That policy of mine is what leads to Anthony's charge of "bashing".

Take a look at the postings that I was replying to when I allegedly
"bashed" Anthony. Anthony lately has been coming out of the chute
fighting. I have no use for misquotes, obviously mistaken comparisons
and mis-statements, passing under the name of "parody". Reliance on
those forms of expression suggests an admission that facts don't
support the point that one is trying to make.

In one of my replies I said that I didn't know what I'd done to
give Anthony so much animosity and resentment. But Anthony's talk
about "bashing" may answer my question. Anthony's recent flurry of
anger seemed to begin right after a discussion with Markus. Anthony,
unaware of the past context of that discussion, might have misperceived
that I was "bashing" Markus.

So it appears that Anthony has appointed himself the
Avenger-of-the Bashed, lacking only a cape.

That seems to cover all there is to say on the subject, but
I'll answer some of Anthony's particular statements too:

Anthony said:

Everyone reacts to disagreement with some degree of annoyance
on occasion.[...] Some
try to deter by way of attack.

I reply:

I don't react to disagreement by attacking. I disagree with a number
of people here on various things, without attacking them. As I said,
Anthony's messages that I replied to were themselves on the attack.

Anthony continues:

So I
face a quandary: how to respond.

I reply:

Allow me to solve your quandry: Write at a politeness level that
you would like from replies to your posting. It's really very simple.

Anthony continues:

Comparable retaliation is prohibited by conscience, even if
it were appealing.

I reply:

Here, we're introduced to Anthony-as-Ghandi.

Anthony continues:

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we
should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough
to disarm all hostility. -- Longfellow

I reply:

Wise words, but not leading to feasible social solutions.

Least
of all feasible on EM, because I have no idea what led Anthony to
be like he is. At most, I can explain his rage in terms of a
misperception that I was bashing Markus, but that isn't the in depth
study that Longfellow proposes.

Anthony continues:

We could try to reassure each perpetrator, but I don't know
how to do that in an email group.

I reply:

Again, Anthony takes the high-road :-)

Anthony, if you really want to change to the high road, then
here's my advice: Stay on-topic. And if you want to discuss
something, limit yourself to factual arguments rather than
the various forms of mis-statements, misquotes,
false comparisons and off-the-subject ramble that you tend to rely on.

And get a dictionary, ok?

Anyway, as I said, I didn't want to reply on this topic, but I
eventually decided that maybe I should.

Mike Ossipoff




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com