atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriter

Geoffrey Marnell:
You wrote:
> Hi austechies,
>
> I've had a complaint from a subscriber that flaming occurred during the 
> recent thread
> to do with The Elements of Style. I've gone through the thread a few times 
> now and,
> while I can see that there was certainly some robust and energetic argument, 
> I can't
> see any flaming (that is, hostility warranting censure). Maybe I'm getting 
> soft in the
> head as the years tumble by and missing the bleeding obvious. So let me throw 
> the issue
> over to you: did anyone who participated in, or read, the thread in question 
> sense any
> hostility warranting censure?
>
As one person who was accused of being "aggressive"  by one other person in the 
course of this thread, I suspect I am supposed to be the source of at least 
some of this. Bear with me, then, if I spell out a basic issue.

The remarks I made to which some objection was initially taken  were in 
response to a set of remarks by Ken Randall beginning:

> " I have read neither the original grammar book nor Pullum's critique, but if 
> the
> critique  says that split infinitives are all right, then it is the critique 
> which is mistaken.


My first response was directed at the argument involved (or lack thereof)  and 
suggested that Mr Randall should read up on the subject of the discussion 
before jumping to conclusions about it.    I don't see that as being personal.  
I certainly don't see it as being "aggressive".

But I venture still to suggest that an argument along the lines of:

"If someone says splitting infinitives is ok for any (unread) reason they are 
wrong because splitting infinitives is wrong. "

is far from helpful or bright.

I then offered the advice that it was better to :

>"...find out what you're arguing about in the first place, and consider 
>contrary opinions..."

I would accept that this might be described as say, "pointed".  It was and is 
not "aggressive" or "personal".  It was directed at his argument and the way in 
which he approached it.

On the basis of my first response, Mr Randall asked if there was a "rule" about 
something like this, citing my remarks as being
"somewhat aggressive".

I then responded to that suggestion in more detail, and somewhat more 
pointedly.  But my arguments and adjectives were directed at his remarks and 
methods of making them, not at his person.

I suggested that his reliance on his argument from an authority on high  came 
close to blithering -- that is, talking idly, incoherently, or foolishly.   It 
was idle talk because he hadn't bothered to read the item under discussion, and 
incoherent and foolish in that it completely ignored the way the article dealt 
with the split infinitives topic.  I restrained myself, I thought ,by not 
drawing attention
to this classic instance in his original contribution:

> All adverbs can not be used in split infinitives, suggesting that they are 
> incorrect.

..which is a classic non-sequitur (as well as a badly-constructed sentence).

I did suggest that reliance on axioms and "authority" and drawing a conclusion 
without considering arguments against it could be described as "proclaimed 
ignorance, bordering on religious fundamentalism", meaning it was impervious to 
argument.   I also used the adjective "stupid" to describe the start of his 
contribution to the discussion. I think I now regret that as being too loose a 
term to used to describe his contribution.   I should have said "blatantly 
illogical" or something similar, but note that even there, I referred to his 
remarks, not to his person.

By also labelling his remarks as "blithering", I was clearly suggesting his 
remarks evidenced incoherence.  They did, and they still do.

I get the impression that Mr Randall may still be looking for the "rule" that 
protects him from being told he's wrong or having it suggested he should try to 
follow the basic rules of logical argument.

I wish him well in his hunt for the Snark.  He is heading into the right 
territory there.



-PeterM
peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go 
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: