From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 10 13:39:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 31658 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2006 21:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Nov 2006 21:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2006 21:31:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GidxI-0001CB-7X for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:30:32 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GidwZ-0001Ab-Uz; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:51 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gidw8-0001AH-48 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:20 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gidw4-0001A6-MB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:19 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so608845ugf for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.20.3 with SMTP id x3mr4006806ugi.1163194155097; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.216.14 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:29:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:29:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_40091_21724965.1163194154971" References: <4553A799.5010907@lojban.org> <20061110061200.GF23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <45542D8E.9090605@lojban.org> <87d57vnx5a.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-archive-position: 13048 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Hugh O'Byrne" From: "Hugh O'Byrne" Reply-To: hobyrne@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: livejournal discrimination X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=N2jAW1FZaQQ8WIJgk6GTf_bDX9niP4sVjZGnyevVCWXe2yvEWg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27485 ------=_Part_40091_21724965.1163194154971 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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 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.) *-- You wrote that you support what Bob has said. ... 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. 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. You dodged that escape route, for reasons I don't understand, but your reasons are not as important as your answer. Tell you what, I'll even help you strategize on your answer. I'll tell you what my next step will be after getting your answer. Just answer, please. 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, and there's no point in continuing. If you answer 'no' to the question, I will take it that your statement of support for Bob was intended to support *parts* of what he said, not *all* of what he said. What I will do then is ask for help figuring out which parts are still debate-worthy. It will either advance or terminate the discussion you and I may have, but either way it won't get stuck in one place. As it is stuck in one place because you didn't answer my question. And that's my motivation for asking, and why I think it's an important question. It will either illuminate a possible path of progress, or demonstrate that there are no paths of progress. Now. You have my reasoning, you have my game plan for the next move, and you have my motivation. You *had* my question, but it seems that was not enough, I hope it is now. Please answer: 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? ... 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". So this is a bigger issue than "between me and him", and that's what I meant by "he will disregard the welfare of this community". As for ignoring outbursts from Bob... he is a very disciplined orator. I'm not sure I can tell the difference between what you would call an outburst, and his regular tone. He doesn't go ALL CAPS OMGZ WTF?!!1! 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. Unless, as I suggest above, you (or someone) can help me figure out which parts of Bob's posts can and should be ignored. In that case, the burden would fall to you to convince Bob he's out of line. Good luck with that. I tried starting easy. This post, as my previous pose, has only one question. 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? Please consider answering it. mi'e .xius. -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! ------=_Part_40091_21724965.1163194154971 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 11/10/06, Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrn= e@gmail.com> wrote:
> "If my expressions get people so pi= ssed 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?

Th= e issue of substance has to do with serving the interests of
language in= ventors vs. the interests of speakers of one particular
language, Lojban.

Peripheral issues of personality politics or e= motions, 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 s= top any
discussions. That means it hardly merits your outrage. The
unenforca= bility makes his statement easy to ignore as an outburst of
momentary pa= ssion.

I suggest you join me in ignoring outbursts. You might also w= ish to
ignore the ones that come into your mind, rather than typing them. I'm<= br>just saying it's an option available to you.

You di= dn't answer my question.  I'll lay it out more explicitly, feel free t= o jump in at any point.

*-- Bob wrote "If my expressions get people so pissed off at m= e that they don't want to talk about LOkadin any more, then my purposes wil= l be served".

I hope we can agree this is fact.

Good.

*-- I believe that Bob meant what he wrote.  (I'm trying to ma= ke *very* small steps here, because somehow the two of us seem to be gettin= g 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 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 go= al.)

*-- You wrote that you support what Bob has said.

...<= br>
Now, the logical conclusion I draw is that you share his values, tha= t you prefer people to be emotionally agitated rather than to be discussing= certain topics.  I would like to think that this is not true, so I pr= ovided you a very direct escape route from the conclusion I was heading tow= ards: I asked you if you prefer people being angry to people discussing cer= tain topics.  You dodged that escape route, for reasons I don't unders= tand, but your reasons are not as important as your answer.

Tell you what, I'll even help you strategize on your answer.  = I'll tell you what my next step will be after getting your answer.  Ju= st answer, please.

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, and there's no point in continuing.  = If you answer 'no' to the question, I will take it that your statement of s= upport for Bob was intended to support *parts* of what he said, not *all* o= f what he said.  What I will do then is ask for help figuring out whic= h parts are still debate-worthy.  It will either advance or terminate = the discussion you and I may have, but either way it won't get stuck in one= place.

As it is stuck in one place because you didn't answer my question.<= br>
And that's my motivation for asking, and why I think it's an importa= nt question.  It will either illuminate a possible path of progress, o= r demonstrate that there are no paths of progress.

Now.  You have my reasoning, you have my game plan for the nex= t move, and you have my motivation.  You *had* my question, but it see= ms that was not enough, I hope it is now.

Please answer:

Do y= ou support the idea that a group of angry people not discussing a topic is = preferable to the group of people discussing a topic?

...

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 is= sue", he said (paraphrasing) "I would prefer to make people (any = person) angry rather than have them discuss the issue".  So this = is a bigger issue than "between me and him", and that's what I me= ant by "he will disregard the welfare of this community".  A= s for ignoring outbursts from Bob... he is a very disciplined orator. = I'm not sure I can tell the difference between what you would call an outb= urst, and his regular tone.  He doesn't go ALL CAPS OMGZ WTF?!!1! = ; Selectively ignoring sections of argument without good foundation for doi= ng so is poor debating style, I don't want to do that.  Add to that th= e fact that Bob doesn't acknowledge they are 'outbursts', and out of order,= and there's just no way for me to win.  Unless, as I suggest above, y= ou (or someone) can help me figure out which parts of Bob's posts can and s= hould be ignored.  In that case, the burden would fall to you to convi= nce Bob he's out of line.  Good luck with that.

I tried starting easy.  This post, as my previous pose, has on= ly one question.

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?

Please consider answering it.

mi'e .xius.
--=
Good night, and have a rational tomorrow!

------=_Part_40091_21724965.1163194154971--