I rarely post to the list, although I value its purposes and comraderie. I
have been uninvolved in the periodic skirmishes between you and Judy, but at
this point feel moved to share with you my response to the post which
apparently started the current one. To clarify the personal context, I'll
mention that I do not know Judy other than through the messages she posts to
the list.
When I read the message from you, my first response was, "my goodness,
that's patronizing even for Terry." You see, I, too, find your responses to
Judy to be condescending in tone, often moreso than your responses to
others. Personally, I have learned to take these things and file them under
the heading, "we all have our flaws, and some of the most interesting and
useful people I've know have been quite annoying." To expect to be able to
bring someone "into line," as Judy sometimes seems hopeful of accomplishing
with you, would be silly; her version of what is proper behavior will
naturally differ from others'. But as a disinterested observer, I can say
that I, too, see in your posts precisely what is pricking her sensibilities.
I suppose that leaves us with the (usual) conclusion that either you already
are aware of what your part is in this, in which case my comments will
interest you not at all, or you are _unaware_ that there is subtextual
content to some of your posts, whether you intend it or not. If you're
unaware, you're not listening.
If there are "experts" who have been scared off by Judy's comments, then
they are suffering from the same thin-skin-syndrome that some say afflicts
Judy from time to time. A forum of people who are passionate about the
topic at hand will _always_, sooner or later, get testy. Passion does that.
But to try to indict Judy for the disappearance of these unnamed "experts,"
is not passionate advocacy, but rhetorical dirty pool (an American phrase, I
guess, meaning that it's ouside the rules of fair play). Your willingness
to argue in this fashion is one of the things that lends weight to Judy's
accusations. Name names, that the truth of the situation may be explored
beyond your simple say-so, or leave it to them to defend themselves. To
publicly blame Judy for their disappearance but not publicly substantiate
your claim is heinous and dishonorable.
The only instance I know of, for certain, where someone on the list has,
through careless rhetoric, scared away an "expert" contributor, is the one
I'm currently writing about, that of Judy's departure because of Terry's
comments. I only wish her skin were sufficiently more thick than your
(unnamed) experts', whose departure you lament. Because I, for one, am very
sorry to see Judy go. The wit and sense of personality that fills her
writing is an important part of what gives the list its humanity, and
thereby its value in my eyes. The information shared here on the list is so
very useful, but the sense of a community is in some ways the most important
thing.
Respectfully,
MItch Valburg