Final Thoughts on Vickie's Rant

[caen!bsbbs!nrc@harvard.harvard.edu (N. Richard Caldwell)]

I have said relatively little about Jorn's recent orgy of personal
insults and censorship proposals up until now.  I felt that the 
group's disapproval of the kind of blatant censorship that Jorn was
proposing was universal enough that it wasn't necessary to afford
Vickie the opportunity to inject her invective feelings toward me
into the debate. 

Of course, I could not let the debate pass without weighing in on
the side of free expression in Love-Hounds even if it was only as 
an aside in an unrelated post.  Such a statement was evidently all
that Vickie needed to sharpen up the long knives and have at me.  

Many newsgroup readers were fortunate enough to avoid  Vickie's
attack because of some glitch in the moderation software caused 
it to appear only in the mailing list.  I wish that there were 
some way I could respond to her nasty comments and venomous 
accusations without propagating this nonsense to the newsgroup 
but I know of no way to do that.  Vickie has made these remarks 
publicly so they must be rebutted publicly.

I'm sure that some of you are tired of this subject by now.
After all, most of this is water (albiet bitter water) under the
bridge by now.  Before you begrudge me this one admittedly long
post, please bear in mind two things:  First, this is my first
post devoted to this specific subject, while Jorn and Vickie have
posted several each.  Second, I expect that this will be my only
public post devoted this specific subject.

Are you sitting comfortably?  Good. 

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie) {Vickie} rants:
> (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> 
> > Hopefully this post will get through before the Love-Hounds
> > Thought Police make any progress toward squelching the free
> > exchange of ideas here in Gaffa.
> 
> Soc.women has a thread that I haven't been keeping up with, but I love
> the title of the thread. It's called "Clue Time Child" and now, when-
> ever I see asinine statements like the one above, it automatically pops
> into my brain. It's clue time, child (not that I think for a moment you'll
> understand what I'm talking about, children are hard to reason with).

Vickie's intentions become very clear from the outset.  Whatever
points she may have will be taking a back a seat to simple ad
hominem attacks.  
 
> It's not about censorship, it's about simple, human, courtesy.

This has been Vickie and Jorn's battle cry for this thread.  You
are rude and insensitive, they say, and that is not acceptable.  

No matter how Vickie might arrange quotation marks around the
word, people do indeed have the right to be rude and insensitive
if they please.   How others respond to that is up to them and may
eventually affect whether the person finds it desirable to
continue to be rude and insensitive.  That is how simple human
courtesy works.   As long as Jorn reacts to what he sees as
rudeness and hopes that reaction will encourage the offender to
modify their behavior, we have an issue of simple human courtesy.  

Jorn tried that approach and not enough people thought Steve's
behavior was especially rude to have the affect Jorn desired. 
Jorn then had a fit and proposed drastic measures, two of which 
amounted to censorship in its purest form.  At that point it 
became an issue of censorship.   Virtually everyone seemed to 
recognize it as such and many people said so outright.  

Beyond the fact that Jorn turned this into a censorship issue,
Vickie and Jorn are not on the firmest of ground when they make a
stand for "simple human courtesy."  It seems to me that their 
notions of simple courtesy and sensitivity depend on whether or 
not they like or agree with the human in question.  

There are many of examples of this, this flame of Vickie's being
the most recent.  As I have said many times, I do not wish to be
rude or insensitive, only fair and frank.  My original post, for
instance, was an attempt to sum up my thoughts on _Rocket Man_ in
a fair and frank way without being confrontational.  

Generally, I think I managed to do that (although Boris Chen's
response completely befuddles me).  One might suggest that I went
a bit awry with my "thought police" remark (although I felt it
entirely justified by Jorn's proposals) or Madonna quote (which
really was just a joke).  Even at that, I think it's clear that
Vickie's response is completely out of proportion to anything I
have said on this matter.

Jorn's proposal to lock out of the group people whom he finds 
offensive seemed to me to be irreconcilable with 
any of the views that Vickie has expressed about censorship 
in the past.  Yet she did not openly object to any of Jorn's 
overt censorship proposals or his continuously escalating 
string of insults.  Again, Jorn's abusive manner was completely
out of proportion to Steve's joke.  

One of the best examples of how Vickie's notion of rude and
insensitive depends on the views you express occurred late last
year.  I posted a message disagreeing with a post of Jorn's,
attempting to be fair and frank about my views on his points and
the state of Kate's art in general.   Several people from both
sides of the "us" and "them" classifications (as Jorn and Vickie
imagine them) responded to that post, thanking me for bringing up
interesting issues and expressing them without belittling anyone.

Vickie didn't see it that way.  Her first cast on my post was
that it was bitchy, cynical and revealed my "steel hardened
heart".  After allowing my views to stick in her craw a bit longer
she posted the same sort of venomous rant as the one I'm
responding to now, claiming among other things that I was being
hateful and scornful toward Kate.  I asked and nobody else seemed
to feel that characterization was valid.

Jorn and Vickie seem to consider themselves nice, sensitive
people who occasionally become filled with righteous indignation
while those they flame are just simple assholes.  One need only
look at the archives to discover that they and some others who
complain about rudeness and insensitivity have not only failed to
practice what they are preaching but have consistently overlooked
or even supported the rudeness and insensitivity of those whose
views they share.  

No, I am not claiming to be perfect in this respect.  I am
simply pointing out that Jorn and Vickie are not standing on firm
pedestals of "simple human courtesy," they are down here on the
ground with the rest of us.  There's a mud hole here of rudeness
and insensitivity that we've all rolled in from time to time.
Who we chose to roll with has often been based on ideological and 
personal differences.

> I HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT KATE WITHOUT YOU ASSHOLES BUTTING
> IN AND THROWING UP ON EVERYONE!!!!
> 
> It's not censorship to want to throw a party and not invite all the
> abusive boors. 

Both of these statements reflect a fundamentally flawed view of
Love-Hounds.  Love-Hounds is an open forum.  Nobody is butting in
here if what they are talking about is pertinent to the group.
Further, Love-Hounds is not a private party where you get to
chose who you will or will not allow in.  It is a public forum
and proposing to lock someone out based on what they have to say
or how they express themselves is pure censorship.

Of course, now that Jorn is throwing a private party he may feel
free to lock out whoever he pleases.  

> This might seem contradictory to what I said in my other post, I agree.

In fact, to me it seems contradictory to nearly everything 
Vickie has ever said about censorship.  

> "Free exchange of ideas" ?? Everytime someone complains about rudeness
> here, your kind *always* bring up "censorship" and "thought-police" 
> bullshit. You just don't have a clue do you? Not a fraction of one. Not
> a sliver. We're complaining about being *rude*, not your difference of 
> opinion.

The phrase "your kind" is a convenient tool for attempting to 
plaster me with views that I have not expressed because Vickie 
happens to categorize me with those who have.  If Vickie is 
objecting to something I have said, she should be specific.  If 
she is complaining about someone else then she should address it 
with them, preferably in Email.

I do not believe that I have ever expressed the idea that
pressure of any kind, including pressure not to be rude,
constitutes censorship.  I have said that pressure to conform to
the popular views of this group are not in this group's best
interest and I may have occasionally argued that something was
not as rude and insensitive Vickie seemed to feel that it was.

> You didn't learn a thing as you were rifling through the Ecto archives,
> did you? You were trying to prove me a liar when I said that Ecto is
> friendly and flame-free. 

This accusation is completely without basis.  I fully explained
my reasons for checking the Ecto archives in my previous posts here.
I was told that Jorn had mentioned such a scheme and inquired about it
first in email and then here.  If Jorn had done Love-Hounds the courtesy 
of responding to my queries about the News Briefs project -- a project in 
which he ostensively represented Love-Hounds -- it wouldn't have been 
necessary for me to check for myself.  

I gave Jorn several opportunities to respond.  Either Jorn was completely 
out of touch with Love-Hounds or he ignored them all.  I certainly hope 
that Jorn is more open, responsive and conscientious in moderating his 
private mailing list than he was in handling his News Briefs project.  

> I guess you were too busy picking out things to send
> to Jon Drukman, 

I don't doubt that Jon would take issue with some of the things said
about him in Ecto.  As long as the Ecto archives are publicly available,
however, there is no reason that Jon should not have access to that 
information, no matter how embarrassing it may be for Vickie to have
her rude and insensitive remarks revealed.

> I guess you failed to notice 
> that Ecto is a large group of diverse people, with diverse opinions and 
> that Ectophiles just seem to lack the childish need to be rude and 
> interject sarcastic and cutting comments whenever someone says something 
> they disagree with.

This is another example of how Vickie holds those she agrees with
and likes to a different standard.  While Ecto is indeed
generally friendly and flame free, it is simply not correct to
suggest that there are no rude, sarcastic or cutting remarks.
The difference is that when these remarks do occur they are often
directed at those outside the group and generally without their
knowledge.  It is thus no surprise that flame wars do not ensue.

> I'm only being rude myself now because your kind seem 
> to think it *is* acceptable and since "niceness" is lost on you, it's the 
> only way I know how to get my point across.

Vickie is responding to my only comment on this subject and
already she has abandoned the high principles of sensitivity
and courtesy that she claims to hold so dear.  While Vickie 
suggests that this is a tactic of last resort for her, her 
history shows otherwise.

> Your kind have this "no one can hurt me psychologically if I don't allow
> them to" which, turned around, makes it perfectly ok for you to be as rude
> as you happen to feel like being that day. 

Once again Vickie uses this "your kind" generalization.  I have
said many times here that it is not my desire to be rude or
insensitive.   I do put things sharply from time to time when I
feel that it is necessary to make a point.  I try, however, to
attack ideas, arguments and positions, something Vickie seems 
to eschew in favor of attacking me or "my kind."

 About Andy/IED:
> 
> > A wise decision since that's not what I was saying to begin
> > with.  I was saying that Andy is so dedicated to the
> > proposition that all of Kate's works are perfect that we can
> > only wonder whether it is even possible that he could find
> > _Rocket Man_ to be any less than perfect.
> 
> How long have you been here? Surely long enough to know that Andy
> (almost) always posts as "IED." You refuse to believe in IED, so
> you keep saying "Andy." 

I am fully aware of IED's status as a net persona.  No, I don't
believe in IED any more than I believe in Santa Claus.  Yes, I do
think that net personas are silly.  I have tried to always respond
to the person and not the persona.  If Andy wants to play a
character that's fine, if anyone has earned the right to indulge
their eccentricities here, Andy has.  

Still, I have little interest in the views of a fictional
character and I can only try to discern Andy's views.  If Andy
wants to point out when I err by attributing a view to him that
was actually a product of his IED persona, that's fine with me.

> >              "Yes, but you know that we're in a conservative
> >               town.  And that is another reason to not want to
> >               live in Chicago, aside from the fact that Oprah
> >               Winfrey lives here."
> 
> >                         - Madonna, "Truth or Dare"
> <sarcasm mode on>
> Richard! Hey RICHARD!! Knock-Knock! Anyone _in_ there! What are you
> drooling on about? I have serious doubts that Ms. Ciccione's opinions
> in re Chi-Town (_My_ kinda town) are having much effect on property
> values, but now that I know, I'll start packing my bags immediately!

Note that previously Vickie made a point of apprising Love-Hounds
of her disdain for the State of Ohio with no provocation from me.
While I personally have nothing against Chicago I did find it
genuinely amusing that Madonna considered Vickie's Mecca to be a
"conservative town". 

> Where should I move? O-"Kent State"-hio?
> <sarcasm mode 405 off>

It is at least encouraging that Vickie's notion that the Buckeye
State is unsuitable for habitation is based on such an extensive
knowledge of current events.


"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.UUCP