On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Keith Schreiber wrote;
> >It is doubtful that banishing (silencing) one of the combatants has really
> >put an end to the conflict in a meaningful way.
"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 *onlist* [emphasis
added] 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 [onlist]
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 only at 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, also, that 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
vendetta?
In sum, you seem to be 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?
PS. Sunday afternoon: no answers yet...
Judy