I [John M.] wrote:
>
> >I can only add that I have been politely asking Mark to knock this
> >stuff off for almost two years now. A significant number of people
> >on this list are simply sick of it at this point.
>
And John G. wrote:
> And?
And that is why I am asking Jerry to examine the question of whether Mark
should be prevented from cross-posting, or if the matter could at least be
put to a vote.
In response to Mark: I would not agree with John G. about many things. I
also am annoyed by PC in many of its manifestations.
But that is not what is at issue here. David, Roland and several others have
asked that you knock this behavior off. I have as well. You may find it
amusing, and perhaps a few others do too, or they mistake this kind of
conduct for "free speech". It is really nothing more than harassment, and by
cross-posting it here you are not only inflicting it on this list, you are
associating its members with it as well.
You know, Mark, I do not know what it might be that you hold dear, but if
someone wrote you pestering missives like this about whatever that might be,
and you patiently responded, and then one day you learned that it was all
just an attempt to squeeze a little bit of humor out of twisting you in
knots and holding you up to ridicule behind your back, I doubt you would
accept a defense of such conduct by the perpetrator's appealing to his free
speech rights, or crusading against PC. This is just boorish conduct, pure
and simple, and if I were you I would worry that Irfan may tire of it and
report you to the authorities for cyberstalking. You are really skirting a
line here with this, and saying that is not PC, it is just common sense and
common decency.
I am all for open discussion, even a heated one that involves some
intemperate language. But that is definitely not what is at issue here. This
is indefensible. Why don't you just do everyone a favor and knock it off
already?
John M.
==UNQUOTE==
Ooh, this is so much fun -- all the politics of a pre-teen girls' club
without having to listen to all that incessant yak-yak-yak!
And even with a little Geert Wilders frisson!
William T., I hate to break the news to you, but You've Been Punked!
Or, to put it in more high-toned vocabulary, you have been an unwitting
participant in a sociological experiment run by John M. to see if
he could get people to adopt a new meaning for an uncommon word,
"cloture". The key was the planting of premises by the casual way he said,
"I vote for cloture on this thread. Anyone to second the motion?"
This is a replication of a similar famous experiment from
the first half of the 20th century in which Fran Stryker, scriptwriter
for the radio (and later TV) show "The Lone Ranger", single-handedly
got Americans to think that "yesteryear" means something other than
???? (which not even GG5 translates as "yesteryear" -- Stryker
strikes again, this time in far-off Japan!). Stryker accomplished this by
having the announcer intone in the intro to every episode,
"Come back with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear --
The Lone Ranger rides again!"
I almost fell for this "cloture" ploy myself, but sometimes
ignorance can save your bacon.
Not knowing just what "cloture" means, I looked it up:
"the parliamentary procedure by which debate is closed
and the measure under discussion [is] put to an immediate vote".
Huh? This mailing list is a parliamentary body? Like, we
take votes on stuff? And there's a big vote coming up on
which someone wants to end debate? What big vote?
We're supposed to vote on something right now, without
weeks of deliberation?
I sure am glad the U.S. Congress doesn't operate this way.
A few other loose ends...
Minoru's reference to ?????? inspired me to unload
a few proverbs in reference to John G.'s rare slip-of-the-mask.
They got garbled when they showed up on my screen, so let's try again...
??????
???????
????????
?????
==QUOTE==
Potential new members may well baulk at such venal ignorance.
john g
==UNQUOTE==
John, among your many other virtues, you are a good vocabulary
teacher. I once learned "piss-take" from you, but lost that knowledge
because since then it has never been reinforced. But "venal ignorance"
is a good term: For the right price, I can be bribed into
being ignorant about a given topic. What a great concept!
I'll prepare a price-list.
Now, a little definition of terms...
==QUOTE==
No more Islamophobia.
No more spamming private mail
john g
==UNQUOTE==
"Islamophobia" is a term of rhetoric meaning "I don't like you",
but "to spam private mail" sound like it has an actual meaning.
Could someone please explain? (And does "mail" mean "e-mail"?)
And what is this "cross-posting" business? I think I know
what "posting" is (sending an e-mail message to one or more
destinations), but "cross"? Like "cross in the mail", i.e.,
two-way e-mail message-passing?
John M.'s above-quoted message is a rich source of terms
that need definition. What is "this stuff" that I have been asked
to "knock off" for almost two years now? I don't actually
remember such a request, possibly because of the vagueness
of what was asked for. Other wording -- "this behavior",
"it", "harrassment" (of whom? how?), "boorish conduct"
(how so?), "cyberstalking" (you mean, threatening someone's
life by e-mail?), "This" ("is indefensible.") "behind your back"
(What have I said to you that I have not said to Irfan?) --
is likewise unexplained. What *are* you talking about?
In my conversation with Irfan, I have been at pains to be
unfailingly polite, uswa hasana for how a discussion of religion
should be conducted. Just because you and I may think some
religious practice "humorous" doesn't mean he does.
If you ask a Mormon, "Why do you wear that funny underwear?",
do you think he would be embarrassed merely to be asked the
question? If you do, I think that is "projection". You imagine
yourself in his position, imagine yourself to be ashamed, and
think that he would be too. No, you are selling him short.
He is not like you. He might be glad of the opportunity to
explain his religion to you.
And if you ask a Muslim, "Why do you not urinate standing up,
and why do you wipe an odd number of times?", it is presumptuous
to think that he is the least bit embarrassed about following the
practices of the Prophet. Do you think there are no good reasons
for these practices? Well, there are. You are embarrassed for
Irfan's sake, because you do not know what Irfan knows.
You seem to think I have been impolite in some way to Irfan,
but you cite not a single example. Please do.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Persons posting messages to not_honyaku assume all responsibility for
their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting,
and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
