--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> > > > Gotcha posts are focussed on showing that the poster is dumb, > > > perverse, a rogue, and liar, and/or a hypocrite - and the post > > > focuses on these qualities, often repeatededly, and not the > > > issues raised in the post. And a sense of vengence, > > > vindictiveness and / or retribution often bubbles to the > > > surface in Gotcha posts. > > > > You're talking about *tone*, then. That's pretty > > subjective. > > Its far more than tone. Its primarily focus. Gotcha posts focus on > personal attacks. Debate focusses on futhering the understanding of > ideas. > > And it has to do with intent, though admitedly that is not always > easy to discern clearly and without ambiguity. Though for example, > on your recent post about Vaj's AMT posts, your intent appears > clearly to show that Vaj is a liar and hypocrite, nad not to > further any particular idea along.
But an idea was the basis of the discussion, i.e., whether the notion of "spiritual incest" justified calling MMY a "pervert" (assuming that he had engaged in sexual activity with followers). That in turn was an offshoot of the discussion of whether "spiritual incest" was an appropriate description in the first place. By way of suggesting that Vaj hadn't meant "pervert" in a sexual sense, Rick posted a batch of definitions of the verb "to pervert" that didn't have anything specifically to do with sexuality. I pointed out that while the verb has a lot of different meanings, the noun "pervert," which is what Vaj had used, has only one, sexual perversion. Vaj than claimed, falsely, that he had meant the term to be inclusive of the other meanings of "to pervert." That was a "gotcha" directed at me, but not only was it false, it had nothing to do with the issue about "spiritual incest." In pointing out that Vaj was not telling the truth, I was attempting to bring the discussion back to the question of whether the notion of "spiritual incest" justified the use of the term "pervert." <snip> > > > As in your recent gotcha of Vaj. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/80861 > > > > But you saw nothing vindictive in Vaj's post that > > I was commenting on, right? He wrote: > > > > "Truth is there is too much interest in the 'gotcha games' or just > > generic 'games' for this to stop. It's an old, old pattern. It's > > clear to me, if many posts actually represented stabs at finding > > truth or honest inquiry, we'd see some posts which weren't set > > ups. Of course there are times when there might be a bone thrown > > to keep obsessive chatter goin'. Gotta keep that linear flow. > > Heaven forbid context branches or expands or morphs or shifts!" > > > Well, my view is that Vaj would have been clearer and more effective > by chopping off the last half -- or editing it. But He is focused on > an idea / content -- "gotcha games". He is not making personal > attacks. He is not going for "the kill" -- al la "and therefore > person x is an insipid miserable piece of shit". If Vaj were honest, he'd tell you that was *specifically* directed at me. He's talking about *my* posts. "We'd see some posts which weren't set-ups" gives that game away. And the "linear flow" accusation (canard, actually) is one he's directed at me many times, especially on alt.m.t. I haven't seen him make it in reference to anyone else. > > And in an earlier post you said I seemed "incoherent" > > And your point in the idea that you were presenting did seem > incoherent to me. Thats fair to say -- though I am sure it could be > stated more polititely. A gotcha post would try to make the case > along the lines that, as an EXAMPLE, "Judy Stein is always > incoherent and her ideas should be discarded." I think you're trying to draw a bright line here that doesn't exist. You're vastly oversimplifying, making everything black and white. *Most* of my posts are much more along the lines of "You seem incoherent" than anything like "You're always incoherent and your ideas should be discarded." In fact, I don't think I've *ever* said anything like that. And you also have to look at *context*, which can get quite complex. > > and went on to suggest that I was "steeped in spite, > > hate and retribution." > > While that was not one of my better moments, it appeared to me that > is what you had essentially said, and I was restating it. you had > said, If there's one thing I detest more than dishonesty, it's > hypocrisy." > > I had equated increasing levels of "detest" with "spite" and "hate" > -- and equated "retribution" to your your fairly constant flow > personal attacks on those that in your view are being dishonest and > hypocritical. Oh, please. Even you must realize how weak a dodge this is. For a person to say they detest hypocrisy isn't even remotely the same as claiming to be a hateful, spiteful, vengeful person. > I then asked for collective prayers to help you rise > above such. Speaking of hypocrisy, you mean? > > Now, speaking of the subjectivity of evaluation of > > tone, you could take what I just wrote as a "gotcha," > > OR you could take it as a request for clarification > > of your views on appropriate behavior > > I really don't see how. > > You said, "That the kind of gotcha game you're talking about, > Vaj, where you get caught in a deliberate > misrepresentation, er, I mean, an inconsistency?" Not talking about what I said to Vaj but what I had just said to you, i.e., quoting your imputations to me of incoherence, hatred, spite, and vindictiveness. > "(And then pretend not to know that there's an online > archive of the posts in question and suggest there's > something peculiar about the person who has caught > you "saving" all the posts? Did you really think > nobody here knew about Google's archive but me and > thee?)" > > "Great fantasy, Vaj. I hope it keeps you warm at night." > > I don't seeany sincere request for clarifidcation, but a series of > snide attacks which appear to purport to show that Vaj is an > asshole. Again, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about *your* posts and the apparent disparity between what you advocate and your own behavior. But did you see Vaj's post, responding to my post quoting his alt.m.t "pervert" posts, suggesting that it was "strange" that I been saving months of posts, when he knew very well I'd gotten them from the Google archive? If that wasn't a "gotcha"--albeit an extraordinarily clumsy attempt at one--I don't know what is. It seems to me you're working with a pretty distinct set of double standards here, one for me and one for everybody else, including yourself. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
