|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619 |
In another thread, my suggestion that "there be some sort of committee" made up of people selected "at random" or with "rotating membership" to bring some "objective oversight" to word games was denounced as an attempt to snatch power [I am tempted to ask "From whom?"] into my own hands.
Specifically, my suggestion was answered with this:
I hope you don't expect me to appoint you as dictator
I believe everyone in this forum knows what "random selection" and "rotating membership" means so I will not insult anyone's intelligence by responding to that smoke screen.
I will instead ask one simple question:
How can people who profess so much respect for "Old English roots" express so much contempt for the principles of "Old English justice" going all the way back to the Magna Carta?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
- and I'll give you a simple answer: AWAD isn't about judgements or deciding "who wins" (except in the word games run on Wordplay and FunWhen someone asks if there is a word for some particular situation or event (or whatever) he, she or them isn't setting a test. They are asking the combined intellect of this board, from lightweight comedians like myself through to people who actually know what they're talking about (I'll spare blushes, my friends!  ) for their opinions. Knowing Helen as I do, I am pretty certain that that was what she was saying - plus letting off the steam of irritation caused by your insistence that these things are put up for judgement. They really aren't, you know. trust me, I'm a doctor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
addict
|
|
OP
addict
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619 |
your insistence that these things are put up for judgement
You tempt me with that, Rhubarb Commando, but I will not turn my final post into a Parthian shot. The subject is too serious.
I have no doubt that such word games are immense fun for those who are part of the knightly throng who get to decide whose suggestions are worthy, even worthy of consideration, with their "judgments" enforced by the power of their collective privilege, but how much fun do you suppose it is for those who are not part of the court of privilege?
Of course, you can argue that these newcomers can earn their privileges by paying court to the court, but some people of principle refuse to pay court to anyone's privilege.
Obviously, such persons are persona non grata on AWADtalk.
Best regards, Rhubarb Commando.
There is nothing personal in any of this, it is simply a matter of principle.
Lest anyone have any doubts of my principles, I will take them far away from this place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
You have totally misconstrued what I have said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
addict
|
|
OP
addict
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619 |
The "principle" I am referring to, RhubarbCommando, runs a lot deeper than the adjudication of "word games" and the like.
That is only a symptom.
There was a lot more than tea thrown overboard at "the Boston Tea Party".
People, not just Grapho, resent entrenched privilege, which is sometimes benign, but oftimes capricious and arbitrary and always pretentious.
I do not need to lecture you or anyone else here on AWADtalk on the lessons of history.
If AWADtalk were a closed society, or a private club, then surely no-one would have any right to question the ruling elite.
But AWADtalk holds itself out to be more than that, even more than other Chat Rooms on the Internet. I know. I heard the vision expressed when I joined AWADtalk for the first time, as have many others.
There is no point in saying that there is no ruling elite here.
Some people close to the throne have even acknowledged it implicitly by arguing that newcomers have the opportunity to earn their way into the embrace of the privileged few.
How do they earn it, do you suppose?
In the old fashioned way, Rhubarb Commando, by paying court to the court.
Of course, this is not a concern, nor will it ever be a concern, for those who are part of the court, or for those who are prepared to demonstrate that they are congenial to the noble sensibilities of the court.
Ah, there's the rub.
Who are the "nobles" who possess these "noble sensibilities"?
How many people who have no use for "nobles" simply sniff the aroma of privilege around this place and depart, leaving the nobles to purr and pat and stroke their self-contented nobility?
We all enjoy privilege, Rhubarb Commando.
That's why no-one ever wants to let go of it.
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
grapho,
Look, I understand your being upset. And I even understand your railing about your perceived mistreatment. Whether or not you have been, I'm not prepared to say, nor am I prepared to research it. Whatever may have originally upset you cannot be the relevant issue now.
There is a group of people who have been posting since day one. Among other things they have in common, they have that. They are friends. It is not their site, but the board has grown around them, so to speak: they established 'conversation' and others, including myself, came aboard.
You might view this as a clique. But you might also view the evolving discussion as an open and evolving constitution. It is good practice to lurk for a while before joining in the discussion on an established board, to get a sense of the parameters of the discussion, of the constitution. This, as in face to face discussions, at a party, for example, is nothing more than good manners. As it is good manners, at a party, for pairs and trios engaged in a discussion to let new voices in. The process requires a reciprocity of tact. It can also require over-looking perceived minor slights.
One would not expect to be cordially admitted into a cordial conversation through the use of rams- vituperative or battering. One might, however, expect either to be isolated or to transform a congenial discussion into a brawl. Neither, it seems to me, is a desirable outcome, although the latter may have the rather strained benefit or garnering attention for the instigator.
It is clear to most of us that you are quite capable of engaging posts, ones that are simple and to the point. If other kinds of posts have not been well received, it may only mean that this is not the forum for them. Such are the limits of the place. And limits are not necessarily negative (loosely, in the sense of 'judgment'). They are, quite simply, what makes a thing what it is. They are part of its constitution.
Is a constitution subject to change? Of course. They evolve. There is really no point testing it. A happier alternative here, is simply to live within it -- let one's contributions be a part of it.
It is up to every contributor to decide how they will do this and that can be quite nuanced.
It seems to me that the main requirement is a respect for discourse. This necessarily entails a respect for those engaged in it. The way in is quite simple, really. Keep the posts about words or brief topics of objective interest. Keep them away from the subjective. There is little room for plaints. Ultimately, they are simply not matters of general interest. I don't mean this as a slight, but as an observation that might as well be directed to me, for example, as to you.
The driving 'force' behind this board is interest. And postings should be limited to that which engages it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
this really is, unfortunately, a yart; see for instance "the meaning of pooh-bah" or "ad magisterium"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
addict
|
|
OP
addict
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619 |
It seems to me that the main requirement is a respect for discourse. This necessarily entails a respect for those engaged in it.I am happy to continue this discourse because of the high quality of your own discourse, and because I happen to believe whole-heartedly in your analysis of the "main requirement" for healthy discourse. You don't wish to explore the origins of my own grievances as "Grapho", and that is perfectly understandable, but my respect for this "main requirement" was genuine and complete until it was disrespected by a predictable source. I have put that predictable source on notice before that their disrespect will be respected in kind. That is only fair, inselpeter. People who expect respect have to give it in return, and that goes not only for me, but even for those who have a built-in cheering section around here. I can give you chapter and verse on how this all got started, but I doubt you want to hear it. Nonetheless, if it will help to clear the air, I will be happy to do it. Frankly, I am reluctant to leave, AWADtalk, not only because I have enormous respect, even affection, for some of the people who are posting here, but also because I am loath to give the "predictable source" the intense satisfaction of seeing me gone. It happens that I have no axe to grind with anyone around here, and I would sooner post to all without exception with respect. I ask for respect, just as you do, but I will axe disrespect just as gladly, just as you would. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
grapho, you seem to think there is an inner circle here..
and an elite, entrenched, privledged class.
i think you are wrong.. AND I DAMN WELL BETTER BE RIGHT!
Is there an inner circle? have i missed that too? i mean its bad enough i never got the box.. you know the box everyone thinks in...i just never had a box, who knew there was a box? here i was just thinking with out a box for years and years.
and i missed the boat(funny: but when is a boat a ship, and when is ship a boat?) well it doesn't matter, because when MY SHIP came in, I missed the boat.
and i got to tell you, that pissed me off no end, because some many good things were going to happen when my ship came in!
now i have gone and missed the inner cirlce too?
DAMN, Damn, damn!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Wait, I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune. The problem with language by committee is amply illustrated by the Académie Français. A more out of touch band of old foggies, trying to dictate how and what French is, does not exist. They were founded under Cardinal Richelieu fer cryin out loud! http://www.academie-francaise.fr/Oh, and as for roots: cardinal < Latin cardo ( cardinis) 'hinge; turning point'. "There's some lovely filth over here."
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,614
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
202
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
