Re: What Insults on the list?

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> I'm not a list minder, so perhaps it's not my place to say so, but just
> the same I want to say that as a list member, I am offended by this
> gratuitous indirect slur of a colleague. It's not necessary, it's not
> attractive, it's not informative, it's not anything that's useful to the
> group. Perhaps being the target of several personal remarks lately makes
> me extra sensitive to this, but I just want to remind us that our forum
> is supposed to be free of personal insults, innuendos, and imputation of
> nefarious motives to people whose only offense has been to disagree on
> issues. Thank you.

I think it's necessary to disagree here... while the message did seem a
little personal (I even thought it might have been sent to the list by
accident, instead of offlist), I see no *insult* or even "slur" to either
Ryuji or Richard (tho my insult threshold may be higher than Katharine's--
I didn't notice those "personal remarks" she says have been directed at
her, either).

My take on the message was that it was quite valid -- whether or not Ryuji
is always, sometimes, or never correct, he shouldn't be, at the tender age
of.... what is it, 13?, 46?, the ultimate arbiter of fact, nor should his
"findings" (as often as not from a book) be more important than others'
experiences or even suppositions, as he presents them to be. Nor do I find
any "nefarious motives" in the declaration, no matter how intently I look.
I see the remarks, rather, as concern for "the list."

If all those quotes were real.... could they really be? Then it was a
service to the list to flag the development. In fact what I got offlist
from another subscriber was (among other less repeatable comments),
"putting 'respect' above truth is offensive to me."

(If *respect* is due here, it's due equally to the fellow raising the
issue. In fact more -- there's little personal risk in citing arcane
"facts", known perhaps -- or perhaps not -- to a PHD in chemistry, though
not to the rank and file on this list -- perhaps, you might say like a
professional football um, what do they call them? quarterback???,
throwing his weight around on the playground.)

I see the special energy and depth of this list as in no small part due to
"community," EXACTLY the personal relations and interaction among the
group. If the lowest possible threshold for insult, or slur, let alone
"nefarious motives," of one person's great sensitivity became the rule for
all, folks might not dare to (or care to) disagree, or even venture an
opinion.

So --- who was it? who did this dastardly act? (Sorry, my mind is on the
evils of Photoshop blur filters today). I appreciate it as -- not very
discreet of course, but harmless, in fact thought provoking, and *healthy*
-- clearly more good than harm (if any) to the list.

Judy
Received on Thu Nov 18 20:54:01 2004