Re: Proper language (was Re: Fat is a feminist issue)

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:20:09 -0700, Alma Hromic Deckert wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:24:03 -0700, David Friedman
<ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <f4ovgm$u9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aahz@xxxxxxxxx (Aahz Maruch)
wrote:

In article <466FDF57.3040508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

While David's bluntness and direct use of language does sometimes
cause problems, in this case I think those arguing about it are more
the problem. To use the phrase in question, it may very well be true
that SOME people misuse the phrase to mean "but it probably ISN'T
true", but that's simply a misuse and one that should be called when
IT occurs. Someone using that phrase properly shouldn't be harrassed
over it.

What is "proper" when it comes to language? Do tell us where to find
the Academie Anglais.

I don't know.

But it's worth pointing out that when I got the first response implying
the misreading we're discussing, my reply to that gave a more explicit
statement of my view--that Marilee's account was probably substantially
accurate, but we didn't know it was. Replies accusing me of holding the
opposite opinion didn't stop.

But what you are constantly and consistently failing to accept is that
*in this context* it was not up to you to call Marilee on whether or
not her "account" of something that happens to her is "accurate". It
is accurate for HER, SHE is the one talking about it, and you don't
get (in normal conversation) to question THAT. You might have turned
discussion on points of perception, which is a perfectly permissible
and writerly thing to do - you can discuss on how people can perceive
and therefore transmit events that they themselves lived through - it
is an accepted point that "eyewitness testimony" is frequently very
much dependent on the eyewitness in question, that different people
observe different things, that different things are important to
different degrees to different observers - ALL OF THIS is accepted,
acceptable, and true.

But YOU turned it personal. You took a woman in this newsgroup, a
long-standing contributor whose story was at least marginally known by
a fair number of people and accepted in normal conversation, and you
said , "we have no way of knowing how accurate her version was". In
effect, you called her out onto the witness stand, and you seem to
think that it is perfectly acceptable to grill her on this as though
we were the prosecution in a court case.

And what's more, even in this post, you are STILL saying that. No
matter how many times you say "But all I meant was..." - you STILL end
up reiterating your original posit, which is that "we have no way of
knowing if what Marilee says is true", which implies that Marilee not
only has some reason to lie to all of us about her probably painful
personal history but that she is in fact doing so and has been doing
so all along. Which is, at best, appallingly insensitive.

if you don't believe Marilee, that's your prerogative. But please stop
implying that the rest of us are gullible idiots if we don't
immediately jump on her and demand to know what the meaning of "is"
is.

A.

Alma, the problem is that that principle works both ways.

I have been reading, and posting on, rasfc for quite some considerable
time, I don't really recall how long. During that period I have read a
large number of David's posts, *and I do not recall a single occasion* when
it appeared to me that he intended anything other than the simple, common,
denotative import of the words that he used, without undertones, overtones,
side-tones, or ring tones, except on the rare occasions when he attempts to
joke or join a pun-cascade -- and the latter usually fails through an
excess of literalism.

I *do* however, recall many occasions when you, and some others, have
exploded in a flurry of yarrow-stalks, chicken entrails, and tea leaves,
then announced as the result of your divination that a deep reading of one
of David's posts reveals the ghost of an intimation of an implication of
insult to somebody; then, mounting your white steed (18h 2" at the withers)
and taking up the Sword of Awful Justice, you climb upon the Plinth labeled
TRVTH and begin calling down Awful Denunciations of D. Friedman and all who
sail in her, adding to the list of Awful Crimes any attempts at
clarification, explanation, or defense by David or any other so heedless of
JVSTICE as to attempt such.

It's good exercise for your dudgeon gland, I suppose, but it can't possibly
be all that great for your blood pressure. Wouldn't it be simpler to follow
your own rule, and assume that the personalities of the various posters,
including David, are relatively constant and likely to influence the
content of their posts? In particular, when David posts something you
object to, wouldn't it be simpler (and less wearing on your keyboard) to
stop and ask, "Do I object to what he said, or to the /implications/ of
what he said? David doesn't /do/ implications." Which he doesn't, and he
isn't likely to start. Accusing David of implying /anything/ is like
accusing Lucy of admiring Warren Buffett. You cannot cancel an unintended
insult by issuing a deadly intended one.

Regards,
Ric

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Advice to a Mother Expecting a Third Boy by Mona Charen
    ... I don't recall taking you to ... taking me to task for off-topic posts either. ... Ben called out, "I'm sorry, David is ... David's face hit my hand. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: He looked beyond my fault and showed me mercy
    ... David posts is right, but in the same instance ALL of you post as you ... we all 'misbehave' on usenet. ... crossposted groups but does not ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: He looked beyond my fault and showed me mercy
    ... David posts is right, but in the same instance ALL of you post as you ... crossposted groups but does not ... And thus, whilst I myself choose not to be rude to David, if he wants to post to Usenet then he's a legal adult and is responsible for his behaviour. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: [OT} Meteorites (was Re: David: unplonked.)
    ... There are also two posters in SRQ that just post their posts about their own obsession, and fail to be particularly interested in any sort of response or reasonable discussion. ... Whilst David shows many of the above characteristics, I don't think he posts his obsessional posts to interrupt the group, and clearly he is quite interested in responses and discussion. ... I am not at all interested in anything to do with his pet subjectbut I do value his other input. ... As to the other two people who are in my killfile from this group, occasionally I toodle over to Google Groups to see whether I should remove them from my killfile - and so far I have seen to reason to do so. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Bad newsfeed, busy spell / holiday, implosion, or what?
    ... November had 2949 postings, the lowest monthly total in eight ... >the all-time lead with 19,054, which is slightly more posts than she ... of posts I choose not to respond to. ... Marilee J. Layman ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)