Re: OT: writing style

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <44005158$0$11068$>

Mark Johnson wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>>No, it wasn't. So I asked him for some clarification, as you can see
>>>above. And then you butted in. And why you try to clog up this ng with
>>>such pointless messages as this, is still beyond me. 

>>He is not clogging up this ng, he is trying to tell you something.
>>Read carefully: he is /not/ calling you a troll.

> I recall that you asked me to apologize to Spight,

Your recollection is wrong. I pointed out that he had shown patience and given nice explanations and that you called him a troll. Though I did not ask you to apologize, I would have liked it if you had done that.

> because you weren't
> sure he had fallen to calling people names. Shortly after I mistakenly
> apologized,

You did not apologize to Marshall Spight. You said something about standing corrected, but it was not a personal apology to Marshall Spight.

> apologized, his intention became clear. And I also realized that I had
> made a mistake, and should have followed my hunch and instinct on
> that. And I'll try not to repeat that mistake again.

> You don't give any indication of having discovered
> that, yourself, by the existence this very message.

This may make perfect sense to you - but it doesn't to me - I am not talking about the missing 'of'.

> So I said what I thought needed to be said to him,
> at that time, when he finally said that. I'm not going to repeat it.
>>If you are not you should find out WHY you get this criticism.

(If you are not a troll)

> It's not honest criticism. It's outright abuse. It's the pot calling
> the kettle black, when the kettle isn't even scorched. And you should
> be on my side, in this. As for the reason, it's something about which
> I can only guess.

You don't have to. Just read what several people wrote to you before they turned around and started calling you troll.

> I suspect that they found themselves in a corner
> defending the indefensible.

Not my impression.

> They were embarrassed by that and decided
> to just lash out. I've said that. But that's just a guess. I don't
> know why they have behaved like this. But again, this is never a test
> for whether something is true, and particularly on something like
> Usenet which is known to harbor cliques of all sorts. They do this
> because they know they can get away it. Perhaps they've never been
> told, before, that they ought not to behave like this. And they do
> this, perhaps, because they think some will imagine that a complaint
> is justified simply because it is mindlessly repeated by more than one
> person. But something doesn't become true just by repetition.
> You need to consider the subject, any arguments, the facts as such -
> and not personality, nor popularity. Popularity is a very fickle
> thing. It's no kind of reliable standard. Many things which need to be
> said, or questioned, are not initially popular with some clique. Need
> I state the obvious?
Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 13:46:23 CET

Original text of this message