From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 10 21:19:53 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GilHB-00032x-A0 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:19:33 -0800 Received: from eastrmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.240.36]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GilH5-00032p-AX for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:19:33 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061111051930.RJXU13537.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:19:30 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id lHJm1V0043y5FKc0000000; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:18:47 -0500 Message-ID: <45555D89.9040508@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:20:09 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <4553A799.5010907@lojban.org> <20061110061200.GF23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <45542D8E.9090605@lojban.org> <87d57vnx5a.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [lojban] Re: livejournal discrimination X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13057 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Well I tried Timothy's suggestion and did not answer earlier, in hope that the topic would die, but you want to persist. Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > On 11/10/06, *Matt Arnold* > wrote: > > On 11/10/06, Hugh O'Byrne > wrote: > > "If my expressions get people so pissed off at me that they don't > want to > > talk about LOkadin any more, then my purposes will be served." > > > > Do you support the idea that a group of angry people not > discussing a topic > > is preferable to the group of people discussing a topic? > > The issue of substance has to do with serving the interests of > language inventors vs. the interests of speakers of one particular > language, Lojban. > > Peripheral issues of personality politics or emotions, taking place > between you and him, are between you and him. It's not all interesting > enough to render a judgment on. He can't actually stop any > discussions. That means it hardly merits your outrage. The > unenforcability makes his statement easy to ignore as an outburst of > momentary passion. > > I suggest you join me in ignoring outbursts. You might also wish to > ignore the ones that come into your mind, rather than typing them. I'm > just saying it's an option available to you. > > You didn't answer my question. I'll lay it out more explicitly, feel > free to jump in at any point. > > *-- Bob wrote "If my expressions get people so pissed off at me that > they don't want to talk about LOkadin any more, then my purposes will be > served". > > I hope we can agree this is fact. > > Good. > > *-- I believe that Bob meant what he wrote. (I'm trying to make *very* > small steps here, because somehow the two of us seem to be getting out > of synch somewhere. Even so, it's not that many steps.) > > Jump in any time. > > *-- I infer from that sentence, that Bob prefers people to be angry > better than people talking in this forum about a topic he doesn't like. I prefer that people not be angry. But if a person is disruptive, I don't much care whether I make him angry. My purpose is to end the disruption (i.e., it is not my *purpose* to make you angry, as you seem to have inferred). People are responsible for their own emotions. If they are angry, that is their problem. If they are angry at me, I'm used to it, and can deal. Either they will get over it or they will leave (as tinkit did), since I don't plan to leave. > I frankly cannot imagine there is any other plausible inference to be > made. Please, please tell me if there is, because someone *needs* to > figure out how these misunderstandings are coming to pass, if there's to > be any resolution. (I'm assuming here that resolution is a desirable > goal.) The resolution is to end the discussion, and stop trying to provoke the community and its leadership over a difference in values. > Now, the logical conclusion I draw is that you share his values, that > you prefer people to be emotionally agitated rather than to be > discussing certain topics. As I said, YOU alone are responsible for whether you are emotionally agitated. No one else. > I would like to think that this is not true, > so I provided you a very direct escape route from the conclusion I was > heading towards: I asked you if you prefer people being angry to people > discussing certain topics. Why should someone fell obliged to choose one of those particular alternatives? I prefer neither. > If you answer 'yes' to the question I asked, then I can very quickly say > that you and I have different fundamental standards for civil discourse > and debate, The purpose of this forum is to promote Lojban and develop a community. It is not a debating society. We don't *censor* debaters who challenge the status quo, but at some point it becomes necessary to express strong disapproval, since we don't really WANT challenges to the status quo. Usually strong disapproval gets people angry; that is the way people are. > What I will do then is ask for help figuring out which parts are still > debate-worthy. NONE of it is debate-worthy. Unless are planning to debate in Lojban (in which case I probably don't much care what you talk about, because posting in Lojban is a good thing). > As for the other points you make; Bob did not say "I would prefer to > make you, .xius., angry rather than have you discuss the issue", he said > (paraphrasing) "I would prefer to make people (any person) angry rather > than have them discuss the issue". The paraphrase is not a valid reflection of the issue. It is incorrect to assume that because I use the word "people" that I am not talking solely about you. That happens to be one of MY forms of "politeness"; to be indirect and general rather than to directly insult. > So this is a bigger issue than "between me and him", No, because you are the only one arguing. In particular, I note that LOkadin is NOT arguing. He is doing what he will do, and to the extent he posts, he is posting in his variety of Lojban. I have no problem with that. Whether I like his style or not is irrelevant to whether he is allowed to use it. But when people are arguing about whether it is a good or a bad thing for him to use it, and especially when the argument goes on and on, I am entitled to express my strong opinion that it is a bad thing. And while I can't (and wouldn't if I could) "take my toys and go home", I am entitled to use whatever respect is accorded to me for my prior service to promote the position I think best for the language and the community. If you don't hold any respect for my efforts for the language, and therefore for my opinions, that is your problem. I don't work for you. and that's what I meant by "he will disregard the welfare of this community". We have different opinions as on what "the welfare of this community" entails. "Free-for-all" discussions do not promote that welfare. > As for ignoring outbursts from Bob... he is a very disciplined orator. zo'o. I am? Since when? > Selectively ignoring sections of > argument without good foundation for doing so is poor debating style, I > don't want to do that. Add to that the fact that Bob doesn't > acknowledge they are 'outbursts', and out of order, and there's just no > way for me to win. You are correct. I am not trying to give you an option to win. I am not trying to play fair. I am not trying to debate. I am trying to see lo ba'o nu casnu. > Unless, as I suggest above, you (or someone) can > help me figure out which parts of Bob's posts can and should be > ignored. All of them, or none of them. Whatever you wish. > In that case, the burden would fall to you to convince Bob > he's out of line. Why should he try to convince me of something he doesn't believe? lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.