On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Gary Klatsky wrote:
>
> Rather than being mocked, we should thank Linda for providing a factual
> response to a "superficial, tasteless, insensitive, misinformed, ignorant,
> silly, and dumb" statement that was also derogatory.
It was CLEARLY not my own, perhaps insignificant, impression that
Linda was being mocked. I have been reading the extensive interplay
and find it turned out to be extremely informative and believe that
in the emotionality of the issue much additional information was also
lost--i.e., I believe Michael's later post about animal culture, with
the statement about eventually finding what one is looking for was a
side-ways allusion (did I just make a noun for the verb alluding to?)
to finding racism where there is none, but if you look hard enough
you can find it.
Anyway, that aside, overall it's been a great discussion, when
the emotion is filtered out. Personally, I don't feel the post in
defense of Michael was in any way mocking Linda at all--in fact,
if anything, was praiseworthy. If anyone has taken a beating it's
been the originator or the thread!
annette
>
> Gary
> Gary J. Klatsky
> Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Oswego State University (SUNY) http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
> Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 341 3474
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Black
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:25 AM
> To: TIPS
> Subject: Michael Sylvester, an appreciation (sort-of)
>
> The content of this message is more personal than is usual on
> this list, but I think the topic calls for it.
>
> Michael's posts are outrageous. They are often provocative,
> superficial, tasteless, insensitive, misinformed, ignorant, silly, and
> dumb. Linda Woolf thinks they're also anti-Semitic. But are they?
>
> I concede that Michael pushes the limit, and his insinuations come
> close, or may cross the line. But when labeling a comment racist or
> anti-Semitic, a conservative approach is best. We should set the
> criterion high enough that we limit false alarms. Crying wolf devalues
> the gravity of this charge, and leaves us open to comparison with the
> politically-correct, who denounce as racism any opinion with which
> they disagree. So if a comment is to be labeled racist or
> anti-Semitic, there should be no doubt at all. Linda has no doubt, but
> others on this list are less certain. So who decides?
>
> I think Michael knows this, and has cleverly worded his posts to stay
> close to the boundary. He's doing this not because he's anti-Semitic
> but because he wants to be provocative. He likes being a gadfly and
> pushing people's buttons. And I think he knows what button to push in
> Linda's case.
>
> But the curious thing is that his posts nevertheless contribute to
> this list. Despite their ignorance and provocative nature (or perhaps
> because of it), they frequently lead to some of the best discussions
> we've had. In particular, they've resulted in expert contributions by
> Linda on topics related to Judaism and the Holocaust, posts which were
> scholarly, informative and interesting. If it takes Michael's
> provocations to produce comments of this quality, let's have more of
> them.
>
> But I find one thing ironic. While we should remember a boy who cried
> wolf, it seems that only on this list do we have a Woolf who cried
> goy.
>
> -Stephen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
> Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
> Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lennoxville, QC
> J1M 1Z7
> Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Annette Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of San Diego Voice: (619) 260-4006
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
"Education is one of the few things a person
is willing to pay for and not get."
-- W. L. Bryan
