atw: Re: Recent flaming on austechwriter

No further questions of this witness, your honour.   The defence rests.

-PeterM
peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"He that is giddy thinks the world turns round."

>
> 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.
>>
>>

**************************************************
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: