Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#140990 03/16/05 05:36 AM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
>I haven't heard any "complaints", Of Troy.

that's just a tad disingenuous, sir. I for one specifically requested via PM that you confine your limericks to Wordplay. I believe I referred to the one in the sn*llyg*aster thread as particularly weak. (and not just because it followed immediately upon my request. I believe, contrary to your own personal views, that serious Qs about words are obfuscated by your efforts.)


#140991 03/16/05 07:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
that's just a tad disingenuous, sir.

I'm glad you said "just a tad", tsuwm.

Here is what you posted on your "snollygaster" thread after we had our very civilized exchange about this by PM.

I nearly didn't add this post, because it didn't seem to add anything to the dialectic of the forum; but then I thought of the clever, rhyming salutation and, what with the icon, I was good to go! : )

To which I replied onscreen with this:

"Well, that's a jolly good show." [with a big face]

I thought that was the end of it, tsuwm, and that your concerns had been satisfactorily addressed in my PMs in reply.

Note: This post is quite lengthy and I have been criticized for making lengthy posts. In deference to that criticism, I invite you, tsuwm, and other readers to skip directly to the bottom of this post for my concluding statements. I have highlighted those statements in bold for your convenience.

Returning to my reply:

As you know, in the last PM I sent you regarding "snollygoster", I said:

1. I thought both of your words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster" are "excellent" words worth remembering.

2. My limerick is intended as a "mnemonic tool" to aid in remembering your words while having a little fun with them at the same time. I told you I would add a lead to each limerick I posted explaining the reason for the limerick, which I did.

3. I acknowledged that my "snollygoster" limerick was imperfect, but I explained that I deliberately sacrificed perfection in the rhyme to get both words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster", along with the meaning of each, into 5 lines.

4. I said I was glad we are both agreed that mixing a little fun with learning is a good thing, not something to be discouraged.

I didn't hear further from you on this, tsuwm, apart from your complimentary post quoted above ["clever rhyming salutation ... I was good to go"], so I naturally assumed that whatever "complaint" you had about my limerick was satisfied.

Now you seem to have a different view of the matter. Your new position seems "a tad disingenuous, sir". :)

Tsuwm, I thought we were getting along just fine yesterday, and I was very happy about that. Frankly, I thought it was very presumptuous of you to say that you are "good to go" with my limerick as though you have some special status around here to decide what is acceptable and what is not under the rules as you personally interpret them.

I chose to ignore that presumption yesterday when you responded positively to my respectful and exhaustive explanations.

But now that you seem to have recanted, I must tell you very simply and directly that I do not agree with your new opinion, and, furthermore, while you have every right to express your opinion, and even to change it, your opinion on this subject has no more weight or value around here than mine does.

The fact is, tsuwm, I do not acknowledge that you have any more right to ban my limericks for arbitrary, unfair or capricious reasons than Jackie does, or Of Troy does, or ASp does. I have gone to great trouble to explain that the limericks I posted in Q&A are intended as mnemonic aids which are relevant to the word being discussed, and potentially useful and informative.

Once you guys get into the censorship business, or even think you have the right to censor other people's harmless and inoffensive posts, it's a very slippery slope from there.

Next thing you know, someone will want to censor free verse in Q&A even if it is clever and responsive to the subject under discussion. Or they may want to censor TEd Rem's "butterskotch sundaes" [mentioned earlier] which everyone loves because they are just plain fun.

If you really want to censor something in Q&A, tsuwm, why don't you and Jackie get together and ban hateful language, vulgarities and personal insults. If you and Jackie were to do that, your efforts to censor harmless, informative rhymes [good or bad rhymes or both] would look less bizarre.

#140992 03/16/05 09:28 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
> while you have every right to express your opinion, and even to change it, your opinion on this subject has no more weight or value around here than mine does.

Actually Pluto you could not be more wrong in this statement if you tried. tsuwm has earned both the deep affection and respect in which he is held by most participants on this board, through his generous sharing of his mind and good nature over many years. It is not simply some sort of capricious accident. I will not go further, in order to spare the blushes of a modest pensioner <eg>

You seem to show no understanding that you are radically out of tune with the substantive majority opinion on this board. This is most evident in these particular ways:
1. Lengthy posts tend to be seen as abnormal, and need to be particularly rich in content or perspective to appear as other than personal vanity
2. Repetitive posts tend to be irksome, and this is where the ‘one size response fits all’ nature of your limericks tends to grate, even disregarding the neutral fact that they are mostly not technically accomplished or witty
3. Legalistic arguments seem to bore most people to distraction; recognition is expected that some threads have a serious intent of enquiry whilst others are light-hearted.
4. The majority of participants here have a very high IQ and assume a quickness of wit and understanding; whilst they mostly actively welcome all new people joining discussions on whatever level appeals to them, there is an unspoken but real assumption that regular participants need to respect the intellectual level by not dragging all discussion to the most rudimentary ‘obviousized’ remarks or explanations. It is in this context that your complete failure to understand tsuwm’s bitterly heavy irony in his ‘good to go’ remark recalls the definition of sarchasm.

I am bothering to make these points explicit and public not out of any animosity, but in the probably vain hope that it may help you to understand how different some other perspectives are.

Now if you are considering a petition to limit repetitive strings of TEd’s punies… ;0



#140993 03/16/05 10:09 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
Well, I must say this is refreshing and welcome, Maverick: A carefully reasoned response which is intended to shed light not heap abuse.

It is late for me and I won't digest all you have said at this time. But I will consider all that you have said fully and carefully.

I can say this much now, Maverick. I am not aware of what "majority" you are talking about.

Are you talking about a "majority" of old-timers who know each other personally, and meet together socially annually, and chat online in their own private talkforum [which ASp has talked about]?

Or are you talking about a "majority" of all the members of AWADtalk, including those like myself who may never have met any of the members of AWADtalk personally?

Or are you talking about the "majority" which hasn't even arrived at AWADtalk yet? People who might look us over without actually joining in because the whole thing looks too much like an old-timer's Mutual Admiration Society?

Personally, I am hopeful that we will have a talk forum here which will be attractive to newcomers because the people who run the place [de facto or de jure] understand the importance of the rules of "natural justice".

What are the rules of "natural justice"?

1. That every person is entitled to a "fair hearing". What is a "fair hearing"? A fair hearing is one which is focused on facts and issues and which is not drowned out by personal insults of the sort which some influential old-timers specialize in around here.

2. The person or persons whose conduct or decisions are being questioned should not be entitled to sit in judgment on their own case. Why? Because such people have a conflict of interest.

It is not a secret that ASp and Of Troy and Jackie and tsuwm are all involved in decision-making around here, or at least they think they are, whether Anu actually gave them that power is another matter entirely.

That means, Maverick, that if there is a criticism of a decision which one of them makes, or all of them make together, they shouldn't be allowed to decide their own case. But they do. They always do. They don't even seem to know that there is anything wrong, fundamentally wrong, with this practice.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, no-one who has had a legitimate complaint about anything the favored few do or say around here has ever had anything resembling a "fair hearing". Certainly I have never had one.

Maverick, you want peace here. I want peace here. Everyone wants peace here. But we can never have any lasting peace on this Board, Maverick, nor can we ever expect to become attractive to newcomers to join us and remain, unless and until we achieve some basic understanding and appreciation and respect for the principles of "natural justice".

I didn't invent the principles of "natural justice", Maverick. They go all the way back to the Romans. They have been recognized in your country and mine and the United States for as long as we have had courts to administer justice in our countries.

But as basic as these principles are to the administration of justice in the real world, Maverick, they are totally unknown, or if known, totally ignored, on AWADtalk. And these principles have been totally absent for as long as I have been visiting and posting here, and that goes back over 3 years.

I wasn't around for the infamous "flame-war", and I have never met or exchanged a single communication with the fellow who was driven away from this Board [who co-founded another Board guided by actual principles]. But, knowing that fellow's reputation on the Board he co-founded, Wordcraft, I am almost 100% certain that there never would have been a "flame-war" if that fellow had been given a "fair hearing".

#140994 03/16/05 11:14 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
I've plenty of sympathy for your feelings about natural justice Plutarch, but most people are here for (degrees of) fun rather than legalistic arguments. I agree about the need for restraint of personal insults and it's no secret my views have been expressed clearly to my fellow interlocutors here, even if (like other mere 'umans) I am also sometimes guilty of getting carried away.

As far as 'what majority', it's beyond real debate. Like most boards, this only ever has a comparatively small number of active participants at any one time, and who is here makes it what it is. Around 40 regular contributors here also meet elsewhere, in other public and private forums. I don't pretend to speak in detail for the diverse range of individuals comprising this group, but it's equally easy to spot major divergent behaviour. The main thing is that new posters do indeed have to be actively welcomed, and we have a pretty fair record of doing just that.

You could imho fit in perfectly easily if you just relaxed a bit more - but hey, that's only my $0.02 and I've no special access to The Truth or The Rules. ~ Unlike the only person to have ever been ejected from this forum, whose insistence that he knew best about how we should all be governed makes your final statement categorically incorrect.

I won't drag this out with endless repetition or debate, because it's hijacked someone else's thread and is probably really tedious to many people. Believe me when I say that I wish you to find some peace and pleasure in any online activity you indulge in.


#140995 03/16/05 11:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
thanks for trying mav, but it is clear, plutarch thinks he is a court of law, (or perhaps that he is dickens and going to earn a penny per word) and he explains all the facts, as he sees them, adn wants his view of things to prevail, he wants to win the case about a word. he is not interested in the truth --since the english common law system that most of are familiar with is not a search for truth, but for facts. so he does seak truth, or beauty, and he fails to see the merit in our searches.

that is how it seems to me.

i think he is not interested in truth or beauty. he seems interested in distracting and muddying the waters, (as a LAWYER always is)in pretending things are simple and any idiot can see--if they just limit themselves to seeing thing his way, there is only one explaination (HIS) and one judgement to make (IN HIS FAVOR) and he WINS the case.

but we are not jurors to be weedled and cojolled and played with. and we are not bored, or scared or eager to be done with the process.. i don't see our discussions as something that leads to a verdict, I don't want to look only at the facts, i don't want to treat others here as advisaries, and for me, his tactics backfire.

he seems to wants use to quickly come to a verdict on a word. we want to philisophical discuss them, and to see the beauty, to hold and savor the word.. to enjoy them. Not to render verdicts in his favor, to he can win the case.

i suspect i would have done much better in my divorce settlement with a lawyer like plutarch on my side. but even when it was in my best interest to engage a lawyer like him, i couldn't.


#140996 03/16/05 12:04 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Now, will all of the antagonists, protagonists, and just plain agonists, go to a neutral corner and just stay the f*** there?

There are way to many overly inflated egos and bruised ids and whatever else you want to call it. I think I speak for the real majority when I say ENOUGH!!!

If you can't have fun, have an absence.





TEd
#140997 03/16/05 01:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
I feel, at last, that I have had my say.

In any case, I haven't anything more to say.
So there's no reason for me to stay. :)

Adieu. :)


#140998 03/16/05 01:18 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 619
Adieu. :)




#140999 03/16/05 01:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
W
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
W
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
Adieu.

We 3 take our leave of you. :)





Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,904
Posts228,049
Members9,150
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Zekiye, silvercity_becky, gonekrazzzy, accCngrssMRA, rexdee
9,150 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (wofahulicodoc), 110 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,807
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2021 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.26 Page Time: 0.016s Queries: 34 (0.006s) Memory: 2.9515 MB (Peak: 3.2481 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2021-12-06 08:03:34 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS