Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 11:54:53
Okay, let's have this admin discussion, about Lar not feeling protected on Babble. Let's look at an example of it.
There are two posts in question. They are a connected pair.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/652427.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/652434.htmlHere is the entirety of their text content:
Re: guiding principles
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 13:58:56
Are sophistry and overwrought prose uncivil?Can they be?
******
Just plain
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:50:06In reply to Re: guiding principles, posted by Gabbi~G on June 3, 2006, at 15:23:14
inexcusably rude. sorry.
So, she clearly was replying to me, but not according to Babble rules. No, she didn't put that little direction flag on it. But, there's no doubt about her intent.
Let's just look at the meaning of the word sophistry. Here's one such meaning: "An ingenious statement and arrangement of propositions devised for the purpose of misleading." Ouch! Here's another meaning: "A fallacy, whether or not intended to deceive." Here's another: "Specious reasoning."
Now, the post that was hyperlinked to hers, the one she was speaking to, was one of the most difficult posts I have ever tried to write. I believe a grave injustice was done to a good-hearted and good-intentioned person. That person was not me, this time, but I'm thinking that what happened was not fair. In the ultimate irony of life, what happened to her is proof of her premise. That's how I see it, anyway.
But it was a very difficult argument to present. It was at the edge of some very great ideas. The proposition was posed by a philosopher. That is what she is. A philosophical proposition was laid down, for consideration. And people over-reacted. They projected something onto her. It was just an idea to consider. A very respectful one, in my heart, because it does ask one to distinguish between religious rules and regulations, and the underlying faith that empowers them. They are not inseparable. She just posed her own feeling, about her own proposition. She preferred pure faith.
Now, back to that sophistry implication.
Now, I did not feel comfortable at all, having my totally *un*sophistic argument stood on its head like that. The personal implication was that I was not sincere. That I was intentionally misleading people. The new proposition, that Lar and sophistry were together in there, was not a civil inference to make. I'm just going to forget about the prose comment. Whatever, I don't even need to raise that. An intelligent experienced Babbler was not speaking about chesterfields. She didn't accidentally use the word sophistry.
Her next post melded the subject line with the body text. It reads: "Just plain inexcusably rude."
Now, what could the precedent subject be? What was rude? She could have been saying that I was inexcusably rude. But, even if not, her declaration that what she had said was rude? (Is that what she meant?)....merely states the obvious. I don't think anybody missed the rude. But think about the colloquial use of such a phrase. It can be used dismissively. To trivialize the known hurt that has just been ladled out. There is no soothing in what she said. There is no empathy, at all. But then, she added a magic five stroke key sequence. S O R R Y.
Sorry? For what? To Whom? Why? Couple that with colloquial use of the preceding phrase, and see if it feels anything like an apology. I discern no apology in there. I discern no regret. No, it is a magic keystroke sequence, here on Babble. One that an experienced and intelligent woman had figured out would allow her to walk away from what she'd said. Like flipping the bird, ya know?
Excuse me?
Excuse me for feeling like anybody can say anything they want to, to me. Not one deputy said a thing. Why am I not under that umbrella with y'all? Why is that?
Silence is not the absence of a decision. It is a conscious decision, to say nothing. And nothing was said. And all this under the confusion of the dorky weird DNP rule? WTF?
I am still staggered by the silence. I get blocked for things I never said. For thoughts that I never even entertained. Why doesn't Bob just change the text of what I said to suit him, because he's treating me as if he did that, anyway. Blocking me for a thought I never had. If I'd have meant something else, you can be bloody sure I'd have said something else. Let there be no doubt about that, a'ight?!?
But Lar just has to stand, and take it. Lar's f*cking tired of that.
Stop making rules, and start doing the right thing.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:659182
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/659182.html