Black Star (Pet Peeve)

[Keith Ewing]

You wrote: 
>
>> >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.)

I don't think that the wording of Alden's message excludes anyone. His 
use of the word "Our" could easily include Michael Litch. ("Ours" 
sometimes equals "yours and mine") I did send Michael Litch the Email 
as Alden suggested. I felt that it was a simple request to moderate his 
tone.
I value anyone's opinion and, in the short time that I have been on 
this forum, I have noticed Michael Litch have some interesting and 
constructive ideas. I have also seen him irritate others and myself for 
no apparent reason.
I have always been a great proponent of politeness. I feel that manners 
are the grease that lubricate the gears of society. Without grease the 
gears grate on each other and sometimes break.
I have asked people around me, in the past, to modulate their tone or 
their language. I see nothing wrong with asking someone to do so on 
this forum.  It is Michael Litch's right to tell me to go to hell, but 
I will have asked him politely not to.
It is possible to disagree strongly with someone without being rude.
Check out the following two statements.
1) "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. You're an idiot." 
2) " I strongly disagree with your idea, and think that it is 
ill-considered. I'm certain that if you rethink your idea, you will 
change your mind."
Both of these statements convey the strength of your conviction. With 
either statement it's pretty obvious that you're dead set against the 
idea. The second statement contains no personal attack and no 
buzzwords. To me buzzwords are words that have a negative connotation 
by themselves. Put them in a sentence describing someone and that 
someone is very likely to be offended.
Anyway, I think Michael can air his opinions without being rude. He 
seems to have an excellent command of the language. Erudite, even... 
when he wants to be. 


>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
>
>
If I met Michael Litch I might invite him to my home and show him 
hospitality, but if he cussed in front of my Lady, or hogged the remote 
control, or was in any other way rude ( by my definition ) then I might 
ask him to leave.

Gunhilda, I don't think we're asking anyone to leave ( are we, Alden?). 
 Don't be so hard on youself. I think you are a very smart Lady.