Black Star (Pet Peeve)

[Leslie Miller]

> >Nice to have such consistant personal ethics. Just how do you determine who
> >is "inviting it?" People you don't like or disagree with? How convienient.
> >In any event, the discussion (until recently) has not consisted of
> >"personal attacks" and even then there is something a bit more forthright
> >about makiing an honest complaint (which seems to be your definition of a
> >"personal attack") in a pulic forum.
> 
> Michael, I don't know why I keep doing this (guess I like beating my head
> against a wall.) However, I will (once again) attempt to explain this to you. 
>         You invite inflammatory comments by being belligerant, abusive,
> insulting, petty, and rude. You do this to people who have done nothing to
> you other than disagree with you, or object to your abuse of others. This is
> (in my observation) a singular case, only involving you. You attempt to
> justify these actions under the guise of being "honest". I, personally, know
> hundreds of honest people in the SCA, who do not need to resort to such
> measures to portray their "honesty". 
>         Allow me to point out to you a simple fact of human interaction.
> Most people (a least, those who are skilled in basic courtesy) will keep
> displays of "negative emotion" private, lest they embarass themselves, or
> start rumors, or unwittingly damage another's reputation. You, apparently,
> have no sense of embarrassment, nor a care for anyone else's feelings. This
> does you no credit. 
>         One more thing. The electronic media does not belong to anyone.
> Newsgroups, chat areas, IRQ's, and other such areas DO. Every area sets it's
> own standards of conduct, and makes that information public, so that no-one
> entering that realm will embarass themselves by acting inappropriately. (I
> believe someone as learned as you has heard of FAQ's.) You, sir, violate
> *our* standards of conduct frequently (and, I believe, willingly; perhaps
> even eagerly.) Standards that are determined by the overwhelming majority of
> our populace. 
>         If we all get together and buy a house, and invite other people into
> it; we expect them to behave as we desire. If they do not, they would not be
> welcomed back. I am sure that you don't really believe that so many of us
> disapprove of you. Or perhaps you don't care. On the off-chance that it's
> the former; let's conduct a little experiment. If any of you reading this
> thread feel that Michael has violated our "standards", please copy the
> following statement, and send it as a  ***PRIVATE***  message to
> litch at eden.com   :
> 
>            Michael: I feel that your behavior is innapropriate
>          for this newsgroup, and wish you would attempt to be 
>          more polite, and less abusive. 
> 
> If, on the other hand; you think that I'm blowing smoke; please cut and
> paste the following (also private):
> 
>         Michael, you're doing okay. Don't worry about it.
> 
> I don't want an answer, a tally, or any sort of report back. This is purely
> for your benefit. However, I've been in this group for awhile, and am fairly
> certain of the outcome. If I'm right, Michael, remember; it's OUR house. 

My, aren't we being gracious by excluding Michael from "our" house?  
Personally, I'd prefer "our" house to be open to anyone who wants to 
visit, even if they drag the mud in.  I don't like the mud, but I 
don't find it much more pleasant when people try to rub offenders' 
noses in it like bad puppy dogs to make them behave like _we_ think 
they should. As Michael has pointed out in the past, we frequently take 
a rather hypocritical "moral" high ground in our responses to him. (Or 
am I the only person in the world who thinks it's a bit ironic for 
somebody who is supposedly in the right to tell somebody in public 
that they "invite inflammatory comments by being belligerant, 
abusive, insulting, petty, and rude?"  It just seems like a pretty 
belligerant, abusive, and insulting comment to me, even 
if it may be right.  You know, sometimes Michael is right, too.)

The only "owner" of this house that I would accept excluding Michael from 
the "our" portion of "our house" is Pug.  And that would mean it's 
Michael's house, too.  And as I recall, he was here before a lot of 
us were.
 
Really, is it OK to stomp on somebody because they stomp on others?
(Not necessarily a rhetorical question, there, either.)
I'm willing to put up with Michael's sh*t for the occasional rare 
gem he brings in as well.  The real trick is to teach the people who 
he offends to ignore him before they are driven off.   

C'mon, Michael, if you want, you can share my bit of carpet over here in 
the corner until they throw us both out into the backyard;  you for 
being an ass, and me for being an idiot.

HL Gunhilda
Shire of Mooneschadowe
Stillwater, OK
miller at pp.okstate.edu