> >It is doubtful that banishing (silencing) one of the combatants has really
> >put an end to the conflict in a meaningful way.
Excuse me Keith, folks, whoever. I'm at a loss here... "Silencing one of
the combatants?"? Which "combatants" do you speak of?
Was I, am I a combatant? Does one get to be a "combatant" by being
attacked? I was subjected to an agonizing campaign of character
assassination over a period of several weeks, in response to NO
provocation on my part, except my existence, and to which I said not one
word in response. I don't recall any onlist protestations from you at the
time, although perhaps I missed them -- there was so much disruption that
one message more or less could have been lost.
Perhaps you failed to notice the extraordinary strife that erupted, and
that the list was in danger of coming apart. Now it seems you think that
should have been permitted to continue? For how long? A week more? A
month more? Indefinitely? How much "list" do you suppose would be left?
The "conflict" now, it seems to me, is about an action to *stop* an
ongoing, escalating, virulent, unprovoked, and in fact bizarre attack on
one of your colleagues. I would have expected it to be the other way
around -- that you would have cried out instantly, hey, we don't allow
that, we don't slander folks on this list -- or anywhere in a civil
society. (Although needless to say, where such behavior is permitted, the
society is no longer civil.)
I find it strange (and painful) that your protest begins with the move to
STOP the slander. Which makes it seem, Keith, that you and others defend
the assault, instead of condemning it -- certainly you made no detectable
move to end it that I recall. I would think, Keith, if just ONE of the
statements made about a colleague in good standing was a lie (instead of
every single one) it merited serious sanction... And even if NONE of it
was a lie, is this what the list has come to -- personal vendettas?
In sum, I read your message as saying that unprovoked (or even "provoked")
assault is to be tolerated, in effect *honored* indefinitely, at least
against some people, or one person, at least by some people, or one
person, while stopping that assault is subject to interminable
recriminations.
I wonder, Keith, if you and others now voicing such laments for my
tormentor would have had such laments for me, if, in despair at being the
center of so much disruption, I had again left the list, as I was on the
verge of doing. And if you did not lament my loss (as you did not once
before, as I recall), why not? Am I so unworthy? So much *less* worthy?
I beg those who wish me, the list, and each other well NOT to reply or
comment on this further on list. I have now said all I will say on the
subject onlist, and I apologize for that -- but I could not bear watching
yet ANOTHER fiction in the making. However, "the conflict", as far as I
can tell, remains because some folks wilfully renew it.
Judy