Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: "danny boy" <janeqatar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jul 2006 07:10:01 -0700
Something not somethink! - own proofing thanks everyone.
and a person who rather than that. ditto.
I guess I should have previewed the review but my children deserve my
time now.
Also, please: I would like to know whether it is considered acceptable
to do private lookups on people on this forum. S has raised that issue
for me and I did find it unnerving that he did his own searching and
posted some details publicly. At the least it seems tacky and at
worst, dangerous. Is this one of the other tactics performed regularly
by people on this forum. I am perfectly happy for people to know me by
my name and ask me what they will but I am concerned about privacy for
safety reasons.
danny boy wrote:
A short review:
Liz has her own flair for writing and has developed her own style. She
shows passion and energy in her writing - she has developed her own
voice and she isn't afraid to take risks. Unfortunately Liz sometimes
does not show patience for the work of others; this means that many of
her sentences are crudely formed and she uses language defensively and
erratically. This characteristic drags her writing with the result
that it would probably not find a wide market, to the contrary her
market is likely to be quite narrow. It is a pity, because she might
otherwise be able to express herself clearly and succinctly.
Perhaps the fatal outcome is that passion appears to turn to obsession
in several instances. While Liz criticises she is at the same time
presenting her own character as somethink akin to a Steven King
character - someone who is unable to use the English language to their
advantage.
This surely is a misrepresentation, given that Liz seems to be most
obsessed about people who live in the United States and the US seems to
be the target of her disdain.
In contrast, Q, an American, presents himself well and is an intriguing
character, a person that may hold differences in opinion and who
expresses these differences rationally. The difference between these
two people is clear and ironic, given that Liz presents herself as the
very character she perceives Q to be, and Q is someone quite different,
bearing the courtesy that is often claimed by the English to be
English.
Liz wrote:
Q wrote:
"Liz" <pandora@xxxxxxxxxxxx> got on her trampoline and wrote:
Every so often someone(s) comes along who suffers from uncontrollable
managerial syndrome and starts trying to lay down the law about how the
newsgroup should behave and be run, how humour may be defined and what
is deemed acceptable ot not.....
Asking people not to be rude about one's country is hardly "uncontrollable
managerial syndrome." Is this how you respond to suggestions in real life?
You 'asked' unsuccesfully. And I respond to suggestions based on their
merit.
Well, there is no way of stopping that. But equally, dear reformers, and
do read this carefully, THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO IMPOSE YOUR WISHES ON
THE NEWSGROUP.
You don't need to shout. Saying nasty things about me and about the United
States is really unpleasant enough.
I have not actually said anything about your country. But you are a
piss-poor ambassador for anywhere .....
There is no person in charge, the charter is maintained only by
consensus, and thus often bent out of shape. There are no sanctions
available for you to wield.
Actually, sometimes people are in a position where they do have recourse,
although it is in a different form that what you expect. I'm not some sort
of usenet snitch, although I suspect that a lot of reporting of others goes
on here. That kind of thing would go with the bully mentality that so many
here are exhibiting.
Oooh! Veiled threat time .....
You cannot even bore us out of existence, though ably qualified to do
so, because you would be killfiled first.
In other words, the normal conventions of civility don't apply to you and
your chums and you've given yourselves permission to behave in as nasty a
fashion as you please in this public place.
You are not getting it, are you? There is not some cabal of chums who
have made any kind of collective decision. That is a fantasy. Some of us
who have been around for years have had time to form opinions as to who
we respect (or don't), who has most knowledge to share and on what
specialised areas, who amuses us (or doesn't). We argue with each other
on matters of fact and matters of opinion. All of us were new here once.
But perhaps the difference is that when we were new we took the time to
sort out who was who and did not launch ourselves into new territory by
attempting to denigrate those who were already there. You seem to be
demanding a respect that you haven't begun to earn......
I hope that when you killfile me you will make an announcement, just like
Juvenile Jill and Kindergarten Kay. IMO, killfiles are a good thing, but
announcing who is in your killfile is really infantile.
I never killfile. But I stop reading/replying when I reach my boredom
threshold.
Q and JAP are just 2 voices of the many. As with everyone else you will
find some who are in agreement with you, others who are not.
May as well be fatalistic about the fact that everybody doesn't share your
low standards of courtesy, right?
It's a newsgroup. Standards of courtesy will vary. But you rarely get
courteous responses to bullying. Still, the hearts and minds bit is
always difficult for your lot, isn't it .....
So if you really hate this newsgroup so much why be masochists? Go forth
and multiply in someone else's space.
This is *everybody's* space so I don't feel that I'm trespassing. And I
don't "hate this newsgroup" either. Only the behavior of some of its
loudest members. I think I can step gingerly among you, as one avoids
cowflops in a field, without getting my shoes dirty.
It's too bad that you feel so threatened, now that your collective -- and
extremely stupid -- bashing is no longer unanimous.
Love the cowflop bit. But, although you may wish to have threatened me I
feel no fear. Prats like you come and go on a regular basis as the years
go by. You clearly have no interest in genealogy and have blown yout
chances of getting any help from the most useful sources anyway ....
As for your 'supporters', I'm afraid they are already discredited in the
case of JAP and incoherent and hysterical in the case of dannyboy. But
you'll grab anyone for a 'coalition' won't you?
Although now you have met each other I must confess to a soap-operish
desire to watch the relationship between the Ugly American and the
Prissy Aussie develop ......
What do you mean by "Ugly American?" Are you an "Ugly Brit"? Nevermind.
I don't think I want to know anything about you.
The Ugly American is a literary reference. Surely it didn't go over your
head?
I get to say that. You will say something back. It's a newsgroup.
Whatever I say back probably won't be as rude as what is said to me.
You have used the excuse of some perceived insult to your country to be
exceptionally rude and unpleasant to many people. You are not excused.
Off to do some genealogy now ......
Good for you to mention genealogy in your post. It shows you're a true
insider. -- Q
Nope. It shows that I can vaguely remember what I'm here for. What are
you here for?
Liz (Greenwich UK)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: Dave Mayall
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: Jeff
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- References:
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: Eve McLaughlin
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: granitegriz
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: Q
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: "JAPhilip"
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: Liz
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- From: danny boy
- Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- Prev by Date: Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- Next by Date: Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- Previous by thread: Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- Next by thread: Re: Apologising for one's ancestors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|