HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Jul 2001 to 26 Jul 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:34:30 -0400
There are 12 messages totalling 875 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. bootleg tapes & more (10)
2. Alphabetti Spaghetti (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:47:41 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
Annie--
>I believe it was reported on in a recent People magazine.
Which, of course, is where ALL the really important legal news is
reported....
Leah--
> If Person A killfiles
> Person B, and Person B, knowing that they have been killfiled by Person A,
> continues to make personally insulting and deliberately baiting comments
> about Person A
So, basically, you want ME to kill-file YOU, too, Leah? Nah--it seems more
prudent to keep an eye on you.
And, I'd really like you (or anyone) to point to exactly where I insulted
you, compared of course to the repeated vicious comments you make here about
me (despite the fact you keep telling us all you don't read my posts). Note
that I'm not complaining about your comments, just pointing out their
existence & your need to make them. It's rather like Carmel's recent
vicious personal attacks on me, that were far uglier than anything of _mine_
that she was supposedly reacting to--but that at least was partially
explained by her oddly proud self-declaration as a hypocrit.
> It doesn't look like an issue of where you draw the line, Wendy. It looks
> more like 'for whom.'
Ah--now Wendy gets tarred for consorting w/ the enemy. Somehow, I don't see
this as rocking her world overmuch.
> Since the theoretical purpose of maintaining a list to is promote civil
> behavior
Really? I thought the purpose of HIGHLA-L was HL discussion.
> why is that standard being applied toward every other individual
> but one? There is a flaw in the logic here somewhere that can only be
> explained by bias. An individual who seems to devote their sole
participation
> on a mailing list to provocation and maintenance of the latest battle, to
the
> point where the perception of that individual's disruption is almost
> universal among other list members, well...that begs the question as to
where
> the problem actually lies.
So, it's all the list owner's fault? (1st Wendy, now Debbie--it's a
conspiracy!) For the record, I don't know Debbie, other than by (rather
awesome) repute. We're not real life cohorts, cyber pals, or even Canadian
cousins--just no connection at all.
Wendy--
>So..how does A know he has been insulted?
Maybe Annie tells A.
>I suspect that many people who *say* they have killfiled someone really
haven't.
Me, too!
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:49:44 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
John--
> ... Nina's style of posting is reminiscent of a lawyer in action....
> out to WIN/PROVE an argument rather than have a discussion where it's
> perfectly okay for both sides to have different viewpoints - or, at least,
> diffeent conclusions from the same set of facts.
I've lost track of the number of recent posts where you've felt the need to
critique my posting style. I tried ignoring it, in hopes that you would at
some point, well, get a life. But, maybe you need reciprocity, so ... what
can I say about _your_ posting style?
Often, what you write is so studiously PC that I find myself dozing off.
Now--what does that mean to you? Absolutely nothing, which is exactly what
_your_ comments on this point mean to me, so let's move on.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:10:28 EDT
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
In a message dated 7/25/01 11:29:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
<< So..how does A know he has been insulted? He doesn't - unless he 1)
really *is* reading B or 2) see the comment repeated or referred to in C's
post, or 3) someone sends it to A privately. >>
Er, perhaps because other people are quoting the message? Perhaps that's the
same reason why "A" might respond to something in a continuing discussion
that was originally brought up by "B"? Because it comes up in the discussion
from another source. You know, I can killfile half the people on this list
and I'm still going to see their comments sometimes because other folks quote
them. There's no way around that... and I certainly feel no "moral"
compunction against answering any comments I choose to, no matter where they
came from. For some reason, you (Wendy) seem to feel that I should. Well,
please, feel free to behave in the manner which you find most comfortable and
"right" and I shall continue to do the same for myself. I don't feel any need
to embrace your morality (nor do I expect you to embrace mine). The fact that
I choose to continue to participate on this list and to continue
participating in discussions that interest me while ignoring people who have
insulted me repeatedly for months on end, launched blatant personal attacks,
not to mention twisted my words repeatedly when I *did* attempt to engage in
discussion with them, is just that. My own choice. I have no obligation to
listen to them and I have just as much right as any other member of this list
to continue to listen to other participants in the discussion...and to reply.
As to "judging" their behavior. I judge their behavior by the comments being
made about them and the quotes that I see. What I see tells me their behavior
is no better than it ever was. My advice to those who have been similarly as
offended is the same as it has been for a year now: ignore them. Use the
delete key or use a killfile. If that means someone wants to killfile *me*,
btw, I say have at it. I'd rather they just ignore what I say than they cause
themself undue aggravation.
Annie CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:08:02 -0500
From: Bridget Mintz Testa <btesta@firstworld.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
I wrote:
>>>>But really, writing fanfiction and not distributing it is a silly
>idea on the face of it. The reason people write fanfic is because
>people want to read it, not just because a (smaller) group of people
>want to write it.>>>
And Nina replied:
>Really? Usually, people say they write fanfic because their muse MAKES
>them, the creative force is so strong, yada, yada, yada. (And, of course,
>because it's fun.)
I don't know what people usually say, but I know that I want to read
fanfic much more than I want to write it (reading is a heckuva lot
easier than writing). I *do* enjoy writing it, when I have time for
it, but enjoying something certainly has nothing to do with courts of
law.
Besides, the reason I stated that there is a "market" for fanfic
wasn't quoted, so I shall repeat it here: ...the officially
sanctioned supply isn't sufficient to
the demand, and I think that if they <fans> could get as much officially
sanctioned material as they like, they'd buy that up.
I still think that's the case. With the series off the air, Endgame
over and done with, and nothing else on the horizon, fans who want
additional HL content are simply out of luck unless they create their
own material.
And if fanfic keeps interest high enough so that people want another
series, and TPTB produce another series and make money from it ...
then TPTB benefit from fanfic (at least indirectly) rather than
suffer harm from it.
I wrote:
>>>>I hardly see how distributing material on
>subscription-only lists or even on Web sites is "flagrant" in any
>sense of the word.>>>
And Nina replied:
>Of course, it is. Once something's on the Net, the author has zero control
>of where it goes. The fanfic's "out there" for anyone to see, worldwide,
>indefinitely. That's flagrant (a flouting of the law or morality). I find
>it especially bizarre in light of the silliness people spew about fanfic
>keeping a low profile to avoid irritating TPTB. Low profile & Internet just
>do not go together.
We evidently have different definitions of "flagrant." I also wrote:
Putting material up on
subscription-only lists or on Web sites that interested parties have
to search out isn't flagrant at all, by any definition of the word.
It is quite possible for "low profile" and "Internet" to go together,
although most people aren't technically sophisticated enough to know
how to make their Web pages invisible (although they often manage it
anyhow because they also aren't technically sophisticated enough to
know or care how to make their pages show up on search engines).
However, simply having something up on the Web absolutely does not
mean that it's going to be distributed all over the place. Yes, it
can happen. But usually it doesn't. I maintain that posting fiction
on a subscription-only list is not flagrant, and certainly the fanfic
archives for HLFIC-L are kinda hard to get to. Running a search on
"HL fanfic" may or may not turn up much, depending on how many search
terms are incorporated into any given Web page for robots to read.
If you assume that "posting on the Internet" and "widespread
distribution" are synonymous, then, yes, I could see how you could
say that the first one is flagrant. But the two are not synonymous,
and it actually requires some work to find fanfic at all. It's also
extremely unlikely that anyone searching for fanfic could ever find
it all. So, again, using the American Heritage Dictionary (1980
version) definition of flagrant as "extremely or deliberately
conspicuous; shocking," I just do not see fanfic posted on the Net or
even published in zines as "flagrant," unless, as I wrote:
>>>> Emailing fanfic directly to Panzer-Davis or their
>lawyers--that would be "flagrant." >>>
Nina replied to this:
>No, that's suicidal. But still the more honest approach.
And I reply to Nina's reply:
It's not suicidal--that's hyperbole. It *is* flagrant--extremely and
deliberately conspicuous and shocking.
I wrote:
>>>>I write fanfic, but I also enjoy reading material that other people
>write. What would be the use of simply writing stuff that I then
>kept hidden under my pillow? It smacks of mental masturbation, and I
>don't think that's why people write or read fanfic.>>>
And Nina said:
>
>Actually, I think that IS a large part of the scenario for some.
LOL. Well, you probably have a good point there.
But, even
>if it's not the case for a given writer, I have no sympathy for someone
>whose creative muse forces her to write fanfic. The price for using a
>universe created by & belonging to others should be not being able to profit
>from her work--& that includes showing it off publicly & getting whatever it
>is people get from that, as well as $$$ rewards. If she wants to publish--&
>free self-publishing is exactly what the Internet allows now--then try
>writing something original of her own.
What people get from writing fanfic varies, depending on the person.
However, that doesn't seem to be the point here. The point you seem
to be making is that writing fanfic and then showing it to anyone
else is wrong, all wrong, and people should stop doing it.
Well, maybe they should. But they aren't going to. That just seems
to be a fact of life.
Nina wrote:
>No one cares what's in your head. Or even what you scribble down. But,
>_distribute_ stuff based on another's creative work w/o permission, & that's
>a problem.
But who is it a problem for? If nobody complains, it's hard to see
that there is a problem. I've already said that TPTB seem to have a
tacit agreement about fanfic with the fans--as long as no fanfic
writer tries to do something really harmful or blatantly conspicuous,
TPTB just seem to have decided to turn a blind eye. And here, again,
I mean all the media TPTB, not just HL. If it's not a problem for
them, why should it be a problem for anyone else? If they are not
sufficiently harmed by fanfic to do something about it, then who else
is harmed by it?
Regarding statements that "they" can't stop "us" from writing and
distributing fanfic, Nina wrote:
>
>And they could stop you again. The fact people keep stealing stuff in
>general doesn't mean society has given up & repealed all the laws against
>theft.
Well ... sometimes it seems that that's the way we're going.
However, I agree that TPTB *could* do a lot to reduce the
distribution of fanfic. Whether they could stop it altogether is
pretty unlikely, but they sure could make it very difficult and
scary. As I also said previously, fanfic writers are dependent upon
the tolerance of TPTB.
Nina also wrote about not chaining up creativity:
>No one's trying to chain up creativity. But, if the creative urge is so
>blasted strong, I do wonder how come it isn't up to creating a unique
>universe, rather than horning in on someone's else creativity?
I think this isn't nearly as crisp as it may seem. Some people who
are truly obsessed with some media franchise may not be able to get
it out of their mind and so really may not be able to write about
anything else. But plenty of fanfic writers use fanfic to practice
the craft of fiction--because with fanfic writing, you can get a lot
more comment in a short period of time than you'd ever get for a
piece of original fiction that you sent to a magazine. And I do not
just mean the "Oh, it's wonderful" kind of comments, either (those
are really nice, but useless if you want to improve your writing).
The use of beta-readers in fanfic is such a wonderful
invention/tradition that I think nearly all fiction writers would
benefit from using it. Good beta-readers can really help one learn
how to craft fiction that is original and well-written. And I know
fanfic writers who *are* writing original fiction, but who simply
love writing about a certain universe.
Ultimately, I return to what I said above: if there was enough of the
"official" stuff to satisfy the demand of the fans, then there would
likely be far less fanfic out there. But there isn't enough of the
official stuff, and there never will be. I find it hard to chastise
people for having creative ideas that just happen to fall in a
universe that's already been created--for one thing, collaborative
universe stories were all quite the rage in science fiction for quite
a while, and there is nothing qualitatively different about writing
collaborative fiction in a universe someone else created from writing
fanfic in a universe someone else created. Interactive games invite
the player to use his or her creativity in playing the game in the
game-maker's universe ... and that is also a situation very similar
to or identical to fanfic.
The only difference between fanfic and all the rest of these is that
fanfic is not officially sanctioned. Jette mentioned that Marvel
Comics allows fanfic on some of its officially sanctioned fan sites
... I think this indicates that fanfic is just not that harmful to
any "PTB" and that some media franchises are looking for a way to
deal with it.
I still think one could argue that fanfic is beneficial to TPTB
because it keeps interest in their franchises alive between events or
even when the franchise appears moribund or, in fact, has already
expired. I mean, who is being harmed by fanfic about "The Dukes of
Hazzard" or "Miami Vice"? Those shows are off the air, they're never
going to be produced again, all the money that's going to be made on
them has already been made ... if someone wants to write about them,
I doubt even the creators of the shows care. As for HL, it could
arguably be said to have expired, and so fanfic about it could also
be said to fall into the same realm as "Dukes of Hazzard" fanfic.
And ultimately, when the HL TPTB's copyrights on all this stuff
expire, anyone that wants to will be able to write in the universe
that TPTB created (really, that Greg Widen created and TPTB sort of
expanded on ... or messed up, depending upon one's point of view).
So copyright is not a matter so much of morality, but one of time.
In 2060, all HL fanfic will be completely legitimate and one will
even be able to legally sell it and make money from it.
(1985+75=2060).
As for
>sharing fanfic, the owners of the underlying creative material have every
>legal right to stop that, when & if it ever pleases them to do so.
Yes they do. But the fact that they haven't chosen to do so speaks
volumes, in my opinion.
Bridget Mintz Testa
--
Bridget Mintz Testa
btesta@firstworld.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:07:37 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
Annie wrote:
>The fact that
>I choose to continue to participate on this list and to continue
>participating in discussions that interest me while ignoring people who have
>insulted me repeatedly for months on end, launched blatant personal attacks,
>not to mention twisted my words repeatedly when I *did* attempt to engage in
>discussion with them, is just that. My own choice. I have no obligation to
>listen to them and I have just as much right as any other member of this list
>to continue to listen to other participants in the discussion...and to reply.
Are you channeling me by any chance? That's exactly my stance on the
situation.
>As to "judging" their behavior. I judge their behavior by the comments being
>made about them and the quotes that I see. What I see tells me their behavior
>is no better than it ever was.
Sometimes you make a judgement on someone's behaviour and killfile
them, then later you read something of theirs by mistake and think,
well, maybe I was a bit hasty. Let me give this person another
chance. And then of course you realise that THAT was a big mistake
too. Back to killfiling.
Not that this upsets me - this list has been more active and interesting
than it has for months, so at least this has all been good for
something. I actually look forward to reading the list again.
If only Danny and l*g*n were here...
PS, John: My flagpole is bigger! <g>
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:14:29 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
Politically correct? Me?
Jette, Carmel stop laughing. That wasn't funny (but about as far from the
truth as you can get)
Please don't mistake the tact and diplomacy and considerate tone I TRY to
use here, for other traits. I just think people get better and more
interesting responses when they ask a question politely - and to better
understand another's point of view.
John
Equal Opportunist.
(and for the record, the amount of times I've criticised Nina's style is
still in single figures and a very small ratio to the actual discussion)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:19:45 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
> PS, John: My flagpole is bigger! <g>
>
> - Marina.
Unlikely, but naturally, it does depend on where you choose to fly it.
John
Never half-mast.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:24:36 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
> And ultimately, when the HL TPTB's copyrights on all this stuff
> expire, anyone that wants to will be able to write in the universe
> that TPTB created (really, that Greg Widen created and TPTB sort of
> expanded on ... or messed up, depending upon one's point of view).
> So copyright is not a matter so much of morality, but one of time.
> In 2060, all HL fanfic will be completely legitimate and one will
> even be able to legally sell it and make money from it.
> (1985+75=2060).
> Bridget Mintz Testa
Actually, I'm guessing that's wrong. Will one of the lawyer-types confirm
that it's perfectly possible to extend a copyright if the said item is in
constant or regualr use and any time-frame might well only start after a
date the copyrighted item was last used? So, so far, it would be at least
2076 before this would kick-in, probably much later as videos, merchandise
and announced future product are still active?
John
Hoping that copyright is always a product of morality, NOT of time anyway.
:)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 07:34:34 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
In a message dated 7/25/01 11:29:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
<< Hypothetical:
A killfiles B
B writes something insulting about A<<
...from that point forward, over and over and over and over and over again.
>>So..how does A know he has been insulted? He doesn't - unless he 1)
really *is* reading B or 2) see the comment repeated or referred to in C's
post, or 3) someone sends it to A privately.<<
Why are you changing the issue from the conduct of "B" to the conduct of "A"?
Again, the answer is self-evident. You want "A" to be the one who exhibits
exemplary, passive behavior while "B" does whatever the hell "B" has a mind
to do, without consequence. When "A" has responded to "B" in over a year, I
think it's been more than proven who has a modicum of good control and
maturity in the interests of this list. Period. End of story.
>>There are only a couple of ways of dealing with people that one finds truly
offensive. One way is just *don't* deal with them - which may require one to
sit on one's hands while that person gets in a few good licks before
realizing that the other person will not rise to the bait. The other way is
to engage the offensive person and hope to come out looking better than the
person who offends you. One can even select one's battles..letting some
comments slide while addressing others. But I don't think it makes sense to
say "I killfile B" when, in fact, you engage B in debate on a regular basis.<<
That's a falsehood, and everyone here is aware of it. And it also completely
ignores the third option, which is that a list administrator....administrates
against an ongoing attempt to disrupt.
>>If you don't like Nina..fight with her or ignore her. Edit out her potions
of posts and respond to what is said by the remaining participants. Ignoring
someone can be very effective..but one has to *really* ignore them.<<
Once again, you feel the only person who doesn't have to mind is Nina.
Everyone else needs to accommodate her and behave civilly, but she is exempt,
is that it? I see. And yes, most others do, too. And once more, I will be the
reasonable one and end this boring, off-topic. Go on and enjoy the last word.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:24:27 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <Carmel@stuartfieldhouse.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
Hi all
Nina said: <<.. Usually, people say they write fanfic because their muse
MAKES
them, the creative force is so strong, yada, yada, yada. (And, of course,
because it's fun.).....Once something's on the Net, the author has zero
control
of where it goes. ... Low profile & Internet just do not go together...The
price for using a
universe created by & belonging to others should be not being able to profit
from her work--& that includes showing it off publicly & getting whatever it
is people get from that, as well as $$$ rewards. If she wants to publish--&
free self-publishing is exactly what the Internet allows now--then try
writing something original of her own...if the creative urge is so
blasted strong, I do wonder how come it isn't up to creating a unique
universe, rather than horning in on someone's else creativity?>>
Nina I have a very genuine question for you in light of the above. You seem
to have an incredible amount of moral outrage (which personally I prefer to
target at world poverty etc etc) at the fact that fanfic writers expend so
much of their energy writing about a universe and characters created by
others. As I've pointed out before, this would preclude anyone writing
anything based on the Bible or any other major *universes*....your argument
goes beyond copyright to how lazy it is to simply use something created by
another to build on.
My question for you is that you yourself recently wrote critiques/summaries
of Highlander for Eon magazine I think it was (a web Zine)? They were on the
web site for quite a while. You must have expended an enormous amount of
energy doing this which surely could have been better expended writing about
something original? Were you paid? If you were paid (in cash or kind) I
don't want to know how much - just whether you made money as a result of
characters and a universe that D-P created and own? I think that given the
amount of vitriol you have sprayed at fanfic writers that it is a legitimate
question. If you weren't paid - in cash or in kind - then why did you expend
all that energy "horning in" on someone else's creativity?
Mind you I enjoyed your critiques very much - but that isn't the point.
Nina: <<..Well, too bad Reunion disallows questions about fanfic, so people
can't ask
& find out what HL's PTB really think. So, I guess you & I will both just
continue to speculate...>>
Nina do you really have no idea how silly and childish this sounds? IMHO it
doesn't do you or your case any good at all.
Nina: <<..No one cares what's in your head. Or even what you scribble down.
But,
_distribute_ stuff based on another's creative work w/o permission, & that's
a problem...>>
I'll by-pass a comment on the rudeness since that is so clearly like water
off a duck's back to you but again take you to taks over your statement that
one shouldn't distribute stuff based on another's creative work - isn't this
exactly what you did? Ooooh - I see...it wasn't *fanfic*!! What if I write
a poem based on Blake's 'Songs of Experience'? What about a poem based on
Milton's 'Paradise Lost'? What about a poem based on...Highlander?? What
about an illustration inspired by any of the works I mentioned. I'm just
trying to get your argument clear because I thought that originally you were
ojecting to copyright owners losing possible income. To that extent that
should preclude your ire from any fanfic written about works out of
copyright. But in the quotation above you appear to villify all writers of
any work based on the original work of another - you appear to regard them
as lazy and irresponsible artistic thieves? Is it *any* fanfic you object
to?
Nina, on John's posting style: <<..I tried ignoring it, in hopes that you
would at some point, well, get a life...>>
Dear oh dear oh dear....really - what can one say?? I remember once my dear
Amelia, who was 3 at the time, deciding to experiment with how far speaking
appallingly to her 5 year old brother would get her. It got her a swift
trip to her bedroom with her left ear lobe secured firmly between my thumb
and forefinger. She was informed that when she was prepared to speak nicely
and treat people in the way she liked to be treated then she was welcome to
return to civilised company. A few trips to her bedroom later the message
appeared to have been understood. I have the distinct feeling that I am
back in the same scenario -
Nina: <<..It's rather like Carmel's recent
vicious personal attacks on me, that were far uglier than anything of _mine_
that she was supposedly reacting to--but that at least was partially
explained by her oddly proud self-declaration as a hypocrit...>>
Vicious personal attacks???? Please accept my deepest and most humble
apologies Nina. I had no idea that you were this fragile and shall temper
my posts accordingly.
my very kindest regards
Carmel (never let it be said that I was too proud or too hypocritical to not
see the error of my ways - now that I have had my blistering and vicious
style bought to my attention I shall endeavour to write only of sweet and
light things....mind you, I noticed this morning that Reunion is insisting
on our real names so any hopes I had that I would be able to continue to use
Carmel Macpherson have been dashed. The minute that drivers licence is
produced at Registration, all will be revealed. Yep - I will be the person
wandering around Reunion with a large badge noting my real name - 'Spawn of
Satan'. My friends may refer to me as 'Spawn'.
p.s. Why do so many POPOs (Persons Of Perpetual Outrage) not feel the same
level of moral indignity about *real* issues that actually impact on human
life? Racism. Poverty. Terrorism. Not enough Highlander.
p.p.s. What I always hated about Mako was precisely this black and white
approach to the law. Was justice done in any way, shape or form by the
deaths of the young boy in the flashback (Tim Ramsay) or Laura in the
present?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:25:02 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Alphabetti Spaghetti
Okay.
I'm lost.
What happens if C, D, E, F and G want to talk about X, Y and Z?
And is it O.K. if U.R. able to write write about someone as long as Ps and
Qs are minded?
U R all YY for me.
John
-talking out of his Rs.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bizarro7@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more
> In a message dated 7/25/01 11:29:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
>
> << Hypothetical:
> A killfiles B
> B writes something insulting about A<<
>
> ...from that point forward, over and over and over and over and over
again.
>
> >>So..how does A know he has been insulted? He doesn't - unless he 1)
> really *is* reading B or 2) see the comment repeated or referred to in C's
> post, or 3) someone sends it to A privately.<<
>
> Why are you changing the issue from the conduct of "B" to the conduct of
"A"?
> Again, the answer is self-evident. You want "A" to be the one who exhibits
> exemplary, passive behavior while "B" does whatever the hell "B" has a
mind
> to do, without consequence. When "A" has responded to "B" in over a year,
I
> think it's been more than proven who has a modicum of good control and
> maturity in the interests of this list. Period. End of story.
>
> >>There are only a couple of ways of dealing with people that one finds
truly
> offensive. One way is just *don't* deal with them - which may require one
to
> sit on one's hands while that person gets in a few good licks before
> realizing that the other person will not rise to the bait. The other way
is
> to engage the offensive person and hope to come out looking better than
the
> person who offends you. One can even select one's battles..letting some
> comments slide while addressing others. But I don't think it makes sense
to
> say "I killfile B" when, in fact, you engage B in debate on a regular
basis.<<
>
> That's a falsehood, and everyone here is aware of it. And it also
completely
> ignores the third option, which is that a list
administrator....administrates
> against an ongoing attempt to disrupt.
>
> >>If you don't like Nina..fight with her or ignore her. Edit out her
potions
> of posts and respond to what is said by the remaining participants.
Ignoring
> someone can be very effective..but one has to *really* ignore them.<<
>
> Once again, you feel the only person who doesn't have to mind is Nina.
> Everyone else needs to accommodate her and behave civilly, but she is
exempt,
> is that it? I see. And yes, most others do, too. And once more, I will be
the
> reasonable one and end this boring, off-topic. Go on and enjoy the last
word.
>
> Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:36:03 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <Carmel@stuartfieldhouse.com>
Subject: Re: Alphabetti Spaghetti
Hi all
John opined: <<..And is it O.K. if U.R. able to write write about someone as
long as Ps and Qs are minded? U R all YY for me.
-talking out of his Rs...>>
ROTFLMAO! U.R.
I.C.U.R.YYs.BB.PO'd.
kind regards
Carmel
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bizarro7@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more
> In a message dated 7/25/01 11:29:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
>
> << Hypothetical:
> A killfiles B
> B writes something insulting about A<<
>
> ...from that point forward, over and over and over and over and over
again.
>
> >>So..how does A know he has been insulted? He doesn't - unless he 1)
> really *is* reading B or 2) see the comment repeated or referred to in C's
> post, or 3) someone sends it to A privately.<<
>
> Why are you changing the issue from the conduct of "B" to the conduct of
"A"?
> Again, the answer is self-evident. You want "A" to be the one who exhibits
> exemplary, passive behavior while "B" does whatever the hell "B" has a
mind
> to do, without consequence. When "A" has responded to "B" in over a year,
I
> think it's been more than proven who has a modicum of good control and
> maturity in the interests of this list. Period. End of story.
>
> >>There are only a couple of ways of dealing with people that one finds
truly
> offensive. One way is just *don't* deal with them - which may require one
to
> sit on one's hands while that person gets in a few good licks before
> realizing that the other person will not rise to the bait. The other way
is
> to engage the offensive person and hope to come out looking better than
the
> person who offends you. One can even select one's battles..letting some
> comments slide while addressing others. But I don't think it makes sense
to
> say "I killfile B" when, in fact, you engage B in debate on a regular
basis.<<
>
> That's a falsehood, and everyone here is aware of it. And it also
completely
> ignores the third option, which is that a list
administrator....administrates
> against an ongoing attempt to disrupt.
>
> >>If you don't like Nina..fight with her or ignore her. Edit out her
potions
> of posts and respond to what is said by the remaining participants.
Ignoring
> someone can be very effective..but one has to *really* ignore them.<<
>
> Once again, you feel the only person who doesn't have to mind is Nina.
> Everyone else needs to accommodate her and behave civilly, but she is
exempt,
> is that it? I see. And yes, most others do, too. And once more, I will be
the
> reasonable one and end this boring, off-topic. Go on and enjoy the last
word.
>
> Leah CWPack
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Jul 2001 to 26 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-220)
*******************************************************************************