Black Star (Pet Peeve)

[I. Marc Carlson]

<Gunhilda<Leslie Miller <miller at pp.okstate.edu>>>
>> 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.)

So he's right sometimes.  So what?

This whole thing is really not about Litch and his abusiveness, or even
about me and my being a "Pompous Ass" to paraphrase a listmember.  This
is about whether a society of individuals has the right to regulate the
behavior OF its membership.

Yes, Litch comes in and "tracks mud" all over the nice clean illusions
the Society has built up around itself.  I can respect that, and would like
to think that I've left a few seeming "faux paw" prints on the floor as well
since I tend to lean in favor of the honest appraisal rather than the
self delusion of hypocrisy (and to be honest, I don't always succeed).
Therefore I have, personally, *never* objected to his doing that.

There are times, however, when his approach is not what I would consider
appropriate (and I am aware, I have been known to tread that line myself,
rather finely at times).

Should he (or even I) cross that line into crass and boorish behavior,
slathering us with his vitriol, committing personal attacks, whether on
the list or off, should we, as a society of people, just sit back and
*ignore* it?  No *wonder* we have people stealing from each other at
events these days.

Once upon a time, you could go to an SCA thing and assume that you would be
respected enough to not be attacked, or stolen from.  Now we have these
little "problems" starting to arise because of the attitude that "well, we
don't want to interfere with their fun"...

Where does OUR fun, and OUR rights begin?  One can bend over backwards to
be kind and courteous to others, and that's a good thing.  However, if you
bend over far enough, you become a doormat, and in my opinion *that*'s NOT
a good thing.

I'm not intending to pick on you specifically, Gunhilda, it's just that 
you were the one who sent out the message that triggered it.
 
>...Really, is it OK to stomp on somebody because they stomp on others?
>(Not necessarily a rhetorical question, there, either.)

That's a personal decision.  For me, it depends on if their activities are
an intermittant bubble of rudeness that can be ignored without harming my
feelings of self-worth any.  If their behavior is a regular attack on what
I consider civilized behavior (and to let you know how low my standards are,
I consider academic debate to be civilized), then, Heck yes, I feel it's OK
to be stomped on.  *EVEN* when the stompee is ME (the stomper had just better
be certain that their ducks are in order :) ). 

>I'm willing to put up with Michael's sh*t for the occasional rare 
>gem he brings in as well....

Ah, just wait until you receive one of his off list "Love notes".

>The real trick is to teach the people who he offends to ignore him before 
>they are driven off.   

Why?

>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.

You're not an idiot, Gunhilda, but you *are* at times a bit to nice for your
own good...

Diarmuit