I wasn't going to reply to Anthony's whining rant about me, because that isn't the topic for which I joined the EM mailing list; and also, I felt that anything that I said in reply would just be stating the obvious. But maybe I should reply, lest anyone believe Anthony's Ghandi-like characterization of himself, and the resulting implication that I've "bashed" him and others. My purpose on EM is the discussion of voting systems. That's it. I've repeatedly requested that the list be monitored and moderated, to the extent of not allowing messages to post if their topic is another list member, instead of the list's charter topic, voting systems. Rob L., what do you think? People like Anthony are, regrettably, quite common on the Internet, and everyone has some way of dealing with them. I claim that my way is as good as any. What's my way of replying to the Anthonys of this world? Well, I just don't bother to try to make my reply more polite than their posting. I claim that I'm not obligated to make that effort. That policy of mine is what leads to Anthony's charge of "bashing". Take a look at the postings that I was replying to when I allegedly "bashed" Anthony. Anthony lately has been coming out of the chute fighting. I have no use for misquotes, obviously mistaken comparisons and mis-statements, passing under the name of "parody". Reliance on those forms of expression suggests an admission that facts don't support the point that one is trying to make. In one of my replies I said that I didn't know what I'd done to give Anthony so much animosity and resentment. But Anthony's talk about "bashing" may answer my question. Anthony's recent flurry of anger seemed to begin right after a discussion with Markus. Anthony, unaware of the past context of that discussion, might have misperceived that I was "bashing" Markus. So it appears that Anthony has appointed himself the Avenger-of-the Bashed, lacking only a cape. That seems to cover all there is to say on the subject, but I'll answer some of Anthony's particular statements too: Anthony said: Everyone reacts to disagreement with some degree of annoyance on occasion.[...] Some try to deter by way of attack. I reply: I don't react to disagreement by attacking. I disagree with a number of people here on various things, without attacking them. As I said, Anthony's messages that I replied to were themselves on the attack. Anthony continues: So I face a quandary: how to respond. I reply: Allow me to solve your quandry: Write at a politeness level that you would like from replies to your posting. It's really very simple. Anthony continues: Comparable retaliation is prohibited by conscience, even if it were appealing. I reply: Here, we're introduced to Anthony-as-Ghandi. Anthony continues: If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. -- Longfellow I reply: Wise words, but not leading to feasible social solutions. Least of all feasible on EM, because I have no idea what led Anthony to be like he is. At most, I can explain his rage in terms of a misperception that I was bashing Markus, but that isn't the in depth study that Longfellow proposes. Anthony continues: We could try to reassure each perpetrator, but I don't know how to do that in an email group. I reply: Again, Anthony takes the high-road :-) Anthony, if you really want to change to the high road, then here's my advice: Stay on-topic. And if you want to discuss something, limit yourself to factual arguments rather than the various forms of mis-statements, misquotes, false comparisons and off-the-subject ramble that you tend to rely on. And get a dictionary, ok? Anyway, as I said, I didn't want to reply on this topic, but I eventually decided that maybe I should. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
