[EM] Reply to James, who is not James A.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

When you speak in the 3rd person, you're talking to the list as a whole, and 
implying that you think that this matter is of interest to them. I don't 
think it is, and that's why I address this message to you instead.

You said:

	The intention of my posting was to show you'all my arrow diagrams. Your
post talked about visual aids to explain the Schwartz/GOCHA set, so I
thought I'd share my own. If you've already seen diagrams like that
before, great. I was just trying to be helpful.

I reply:

That's a good goal. When trying to be helpful, it's good if you write so 
that people know what you're trying to say.

You continued:
	"Hating", as I used it, is slang for expressing hate, especially hate for
a person or thing. Similar to "hating on". Example: "Hey, don't hate on
Ralph Nader." "Hating" is more abbreviated and perhaps more general.
Related to being "a hater". (Not necessarily a "player hater", but just a
"hater" in general.)
	When I suggested that you were "hating" a lot, I meant that in your posts
you have shown a certain amount of anger, aggressiveness, insultingness...
This isn't true of all your posts, but I'd say a good many, including a
good many that have been directed toward myself. So I'm not talking about
the actual emotions you're experiencing--since I don't know what those
are--but rather what comes through in your writing.

I reply:

...except that in your message that I'm replying to now, you keep referring 
to my alleged anger, along with a number of other similar speculations and 
assumptions, a few, but not all, of which are labeled as guesses. Go ahead 
and post guesses if you want to, though it isn't clear why you need to.

You continued:

So what I was trying to say is, why all the anger?

I reply:

The anger is in your imagination. I merely spoke frankly.

You continued:

I wasn't trying to
insult you with my diagrams post

I reply:

Does it occur to you that a nonsense reply is insulting? Whether intended or 
not, it implies that your gibberish statements about diagrams are somehow 
like my statements about diagrams. You called it satire or humor. Satire is 
intended to imply that what is being satirized is actually very much like 
the satire. The satire is intended to demonstrate what it implies are 
aspects of what it satirizes.

I'm not objecting to your nonsense. I don't care if you post nonsense.
Post all the nonsense that you want to. As I clarified in my previous 
posting, it would be better if you don't claim that your nonsense is a reply 
to a serioiusly-intended  message that someone else has posted.

You continued:

, so why were you accusing me of being on
drugs, etc.?

I reply:

Re-read your posting that I was replying to.

You continued:

	I have written a lot of very serious posts to this list, and put forward
very carefully-defined proposals and arguments. In some of my posts, I try
to have a little fun. Some of my posts are more serious than others. The
one I wrote the other night wasn't very serious. But in writing a
lighthearted post, I wasn't trying to express any disrespect for yourself
or your previous message.

I reply:

Good. Then, next time, you can post a lighthearted posting without 
representing it as a reply to someone else's posting.

You continued:

I just thought I'd share my arrow diagrams, and
the brief text that I wrote to introduce them was a bit silly. Silliness,
in my opinion, is not a cardinal sin, when it is in moderation. Actually,
I think that it can be healthy.

I reply:

As I said, I  have no objection to your silliness, only your representation 
of it as a reply to my posting.

You continued:



	So, again, why the anger?

I reply:

Again, the anger is only in your imagination. I merely spoke frankly.

You continued:

For example, why have you created this whole
separate thread just to criticize my little diagrams posting?

I reply:

No, it's hardly a separate thread, since my message was a reply to your 
supposed reply to my posting. Critricize it? Sure. I was entitled to reply 
to it, since it claimed to be a reply to my posting.

You continued:

If you
thought it was weird or pointless, why not just let it go?

I reply:

I wouldn't have replied to it if it had only been a weird or pointless 
posting. But it was a weird and pointless posting that was represented as a 
reply to my posting.

You continued:

If you had
genuine questions about it, e.g. about the definition of the GETCHA and
GOCHA sets, why not just ask those questions without all the talk about
drug use?

I reply:

If I had questions, I would have asked them.

You continued:


	It seems to me that you go out of your way to create these weird verbal
fights.


I reply:

It would seem that we disagree about what it means to create verbal 
weirdness :-)

And no, I don't create fights. You must surely know that you crossed the 
line of politeness, but of course you'll never admit it. Fine. I'm not 
trying to get you to admit it.

You continued:

Frankly, I got tired of that kind of thing when I was still taking
the yellow school bus.

I reply:

No, it appears that you're not tired of verbal weirdness yet. Maybe when you 
were taking the yellow school bus you were tired of negative reactions to 
your bizarre behavior. If so, then apparently you still haven't learned how 
to avoid them.

You continued:

Do you have a lot of
free-floating anger which you like to vent on people via these arguments?

I reply:

There you go with the anger again. "These arguments" implies similarity. 
Don't think that your message is like other people's messages that I've 
replied to. I got a ridiculous reply to a posting of mine. I commented on 
it. That's not an unreasonable thing to do. The more you try to defend your 
garbage reply, or object because I criticized it, the more unreasonable you 
sound.

Now it's become criticism of criticism, the kind of debate that goes on and 
on.

You continued:

Are you extremely insecure about the level of respect that people have for
you?

I reply:

That's what a typical  loud oaf would say. You're just a free spirit, and 
anyone who speaks critically of something you say must be insecure. You 
reply to me with gibberish, and now you're all defensive because I commented 
on it. Come on, you lighthearted free spirit, don't be so defensive.

You continued:

Do you feel that your seniority on the list entitles you to the
obeisance of other posters?

I reply:

When I _say_ that I want obeisance, that's when you can start kowtowing.

You continued:

At this point I'm just guessing.

I reply:

Very good. At least sometimes you know when you're guessing. But do you 
believe that posting your guesses helps to end this conversation?

You continued:

But I do wish
that you wouldn't initiate these fights.

I reply:

I don't initiate fights. But I let others choose the politeness level. You 
chose a low one, with your gibberish reply to me, and apparently you've 
decided to stick with it.

You continued:

how about you just cut it out with these personal attacks?

I reply:

If I made personal criticisms, they were appropriate for the impoliteness of 
your gibberish reply to me.

You continued:

If you feel uncomfortable about a posting that was made, please try to
express your discomfort in a polite way

I reply:

But the posting of yours that we're talking about was definitely not polite. 
You're perceiving impoliteness from others, but not your own impoliteness. 
Therefore you're wondering why someone else is impolite to you.

You cotinued:

don't take it as an excuse to spray random insults at
people.

It isn't random.

You continued:

P.S. Of course I noticed your subject header with the name "James A.", an
abbreviation which I have repeatedly asked you not to use. Dude, that's
really, really childish, because it's obvious that you're using it for no
other reason than the fact that I asked you not to. What on Earth are you
trying to achieve with that? I honestly feel like I'm back in the third
grade...

I reply:

But didn't you already have that feeling, and didn't it influence your 
gibberish posting? You're unable to perceive your own failings. The person 
who posted the message that I criticized is the last person who should be 
calling others immature. Oh wait, for you it's just being a free spirit, 
expressing yourself as is your right. But others shouldn't express opinions 
about your impolite free expression. Free expression: Were you one of those 
unpleasant kids whose parents encouraged him to shout in libraries, and cry 
& whine in supermarkets. And so you're not used to any unfavorable comments 
on your free expression.

You continued:

except that it's doubly weird because this is all on the
internet, and I've never even met you in person. Why hurl pointless
insults at people you've never even met?

I reply:

...How long have you been experiencing the Internet? :-)

Yes, it's better to not be impolite to people you've never met, or to people 
you've met.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/