atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriter

Just flaming ridiculous

2009/4/25 Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> 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
> **************************************************
>



-- 
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6312 5399

Other related posts: