atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriter

Flaming is not just a matter of taboo words, 
but also sarcasm, intemperate language, 
an offensive tone and ridicule.

These are excerpts from posts:

24 April 2009

"But my arguments and adjectives were directed at his remarks and methods of 
making them, not at his person."

This is the dictum of this email. 


"I suggested that his reliance on his argument from an authority on high  came 
close to blithering -- that is, talking idly, incoherently, or foolishly."

The word "blithering" was used without qualification.
" ... you come close to proving -- that you are simply blithering."
is not quite the same thing (post of 18 April 2009). 

Saying "his reliance on his argument from an authority
on high" (which one?) is saying that one can not think 
for oneself. 


"I also used the adjective 'stupid'"

So that was flaming.

"Blithering" (talk nonsense),
"talking idly, incoherently, or foolishly" also
mean "stupid".  Words do not just leap
out of their own accord - they are spoken 
intentionally.


"I get the impression that Mr Randall may still be looking for the 'rule' that 
protects him from being told he's wrong ..."

Michael Lewis also made criticisms.
 

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

This is ridicule.


17 April 2009

On the subject of directing arguments at the remarks,
not at the person, in this post the word "you" appears 
17 times, and "your" and "yourself" once each.  It is 
the person who is being discussed, not the remarks.


"I don't believe I have yet yielded to the temptations offered in this 
discussion to become aggressive, but I have to admit you tempt me that way."


"To which probably the best reply would have been:  'Then what the hell are you 
doing here?'"

It is "flaming (that is, hostility warranting censure)"
to say that someone should not be here i.e. express an
opinion 
cf. "It was my response to this silly start to a 'contribution'".  


"I would have thought that rather than a venture into aggression, my response 
can be seen as an entreaty to the effect that you be polite to the person 
(Geoffrey)  who suggested the article was worth reading (a suggestion you 
promptly ignored)."

but yet:

"I haven't read your reply on this subject, but if it still suggests I am being 
aggressive, you are still blithering." 
(post of 18 April 2009)

Words are neither polite nor impolite, only a 
person is.  There are some words intended to have
an impolite meaning, and none of those were used. 


"These starting words on the subject of split infinitives displayed a blatant 
dismissal of the normal course of logical discussion, and clear evidence of a 
closed mind. It is usually expected on a logical discussion of a subject that 
you have bothered to inform yourself on the subject you are talking about and 
contemplate  arguments before you dismiss them out of hand.   Otherwise, you 
are open to the suggestion which you come close to proving -- that you are 
simply blithering."

The expression "closed mind" is a reference to the 
person, not the remarks. The word "bother" used in 
reference to someone else is derogatory. Only a 
person can "blither" (or "blather").


"How can you state with such certainty that someone is wrong if you haven't 
bothered to read their arguments or the subject matter to which their arguments 
are directed ?     This isn't even straight hubris, it's proclaimed ignorance, 
bordering on religious fundamentalism."

The implication is that "proclaimed ignorance" is a
step further up the ladder than "hubris".  "Hubris" is
derogatory, and used to describe politicians etc.  This 
relates to the person, not the remarks. 

18 April 2009

In response to a post sent to someone else drawing
an analogy with German, this was the response:

"Oh dear. Does this mean sentences with a verb generally should end?  Or is 
this not something up with which we do not have to put ?  (apologies to 
Churchill)." 

The expression "Oh dear" is a way of trivialising
what someone has said. The tone is also sarcastic.
Parenthetically, "should end" should be "end should", 
since auxiliary verbs come after infinitives when the 
verb(s) appear at the end of the sentence. 


These are the emails mentioned above:


16 April 2009


atw: Re: "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice"Thursday, 16 April, 2009 6:48 PM
From: "Peter Martin" <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Add sender to Contacts To: 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Randall:
You wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Of all the wrong-headed ideas that early grammarians developed about how the 
>> English
>> language works, the idea of the two-word infinitive is perhaps the most 
>> bizarre,
>> making even "thou shalt not end a sentence with a preposition" look half-way 
>> sensible.
>>
>
> I do not see why not forbidding placing the preposition at the end of the 
> sentence is
> not sensible. Since you have stated that you have some knowledge of German,
> "thou shalt not end a sentence with a preposition" is the unerring norm in 
> German. It
> may not be the present English usage, but is sensible.  German is also a 
> Germanic
> language (obviously), so there is no issue of shoe-horning English into a 
> Romance mould.
>

Oh dear. Does this mean sentences with a verb generally should end?  Or is this 
not something up with which we do not have to put ?  (apologies to Churchill). 

-Peter M 
 peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 


17 April 2009


atw: Re: "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" [aside on aggression 
allegation]Friday, 17 April, 2009 9:34 AM
From: "Peter Martin" <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Add sender to Contacts To: 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Randall:
You wrote:
>

> I would have thought that the email below is similarly somewhat aggressive - 
> are there
> some rules about this(?).
>
[snip]

I don't believe I have yet yielded to the temptations offered in this 
discussion to become aggressive, but I have to admit you tempt me that way.

Let's get this straight. Your contribution on this subject began with the words:

> "I have read neither the original grammar book nor Pullum's critique ..."

To which probably the best reply would have been:  "Then what the hell are you 
doing here?"

But you went on to add:

> .... but if the
> critique says that split infinitives are all right, then it is the critique 
> which is
> mistaken."

This is about equivalent in my mind of someone saying "I haven't actually seen 
a platypus or a drawing of it, but if the drawing shows that it both suckles 
its young and lays eggs, the drawing is wrong."

It was my response to this silly start to a "contribution" to a discussion 
which you find aggressive. Why is it aggressive to suggest that before you jump 
into a discussion about a critique or book, you should take the course of at 
least reading materials which are the subject of discussion?

I would have thought that rather than a venture into aggression, my response 
can be seen as an entreaty to the effect that you be polite to the person 
(Geoffrey)  who suggested the article was worth reading (a suggestion you 
promptly ignored).

These starting words on the subject of split infinitives displayed a blatant 
dismissal of the normal course of logical discussion, and clear evidence of a 
closed mind. It is usually expected on a logical discussion of a subject that 
you have bothered to inform yourself on the subject you are talking about and 
contemplate  arguments before you dismiss them out of hand.   Otherwise, you 
are open to the suggestion which you come close to proving -- that you are 
simply blithering.

How can you state with such certainty that someone is wrong if you haven't 
bothered to read their arguments or the subject matter to which their arguments 
are directed ?     This isn't even straight hubris, it's proclaimed ignorance, 
bordering on religious fundamentalism.


-Peter M
 peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

18 April 2009

atw: Re: "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" [aside on aggression 
allegation]Saturday, 18 April, 2009 9:32 AM
From: "Peter Martin" <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Add sender to Contacts To: 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Randall:

I haven't read your reply on this subject, but if it still suggests I am being 
aggressive, you are still blithering.


24 April 2009

-Peter G Martin
25 Wollumbin Drive, Urunga, NSW 2455
 peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  02 66555783 0408249113 0458281957

atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriterFriday, 24 April, 2009 4:12 PM
From: "Peter Martin" <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Add sender to Contacts To: 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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


--- On Fri, 24/4/09, Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriter
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Friday, 24 April, 2009, 4:12 PM
> 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
> **************************************************


      The new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7: Faster, Safer, Easier.
**************************************************
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: