Re: Bitchiness

[brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

     Does anyone have any recommendations for a good Kate book as far as
photography is concerned?  I'm not really interested in text (love-hounds
has more info than any author ever will have (besides Herself,)) just
photography.  Any stand-outs?
     Unless I get hordes of mail (relative to the terrabyte bandwidth my
mailbox gets every day :-)/10) saying "NO!!!  NO!!!"  I'll post a short
little description and info blurb on The Moon Seven Times, which I've
received some requests for.  I'll cross-post this to WarmRoom and Ecto as
well, to cover the requests.  Get those negative ballots in soon!  :-) ;-P
     Finally, has the video for Rocket Man shown up on 120 Minutes yet?
Drooling...minds...want to know!

     Now on to a response to Cynthia.  Skip at _least_ at will.  ;-)

Cynthia writes:
[...]
>You figured wrongly on that.  If _you_ or anyone else feels
>something I say is childish or mean or whatever, you have a
>right to that feeling.  But no matter how much you try, I will
>express my opinion any way I see fit.  I'm not trying to be

     I understand what you're saying, but I've got two completely neutral
fact-requesting questions.  What is your general standard for social
behavior, and what inputs effect this?
     What you said translates into answers of "None" and "None" from what I
interpreted from your point of view.  I just want to make sure this is indeed
what you are implying.

[...]
>> If you don't like it, go to WarmRoom.
>Haa - No thanks, WormRoom sounds too controlled and contrived
>in its stated goals.

     Objectively, I have seen no grounds for controlled or contrived
characteristics.  Do you have unbiased examples?

>>      Now, obviously saying "I'm a bitch," etc. is playing on the people
>> who called you that, fine.  If you can tell me with a straight face that
>> you have taken into consideration the _reason_ you were called a bitch, I
>> will be satisfied.  I don't need to be satisfied, but it would make me
>> feel a lot better.
>If you're referring to the signoff quote, it's "I_can_ bitch,
>etc."   It _is_ playing on the fact that someone called me
>that, and a couple others picked up on it, and since it
>doesn't offend me, I play off it too.

     First, you didn't answer my question.  I already new all of what you
said.
     Second, I can easily understand why you wouldn't be offended by someone
calling you a dorkhead or a bitch.  Not very witty, original, or nasty.  I
agree.  Offended isn't what I expect.  If you aren't interested and thus
ignore the reasons you are called a dorkhead or a bitch, you're going to be
called those names forever, and on not such slippery footing as you may
think.  This doesn't mean change, it means awareness and responsibility for
yourself and what you say.
     I'll say that's my opinion, but there is nothing that has ever told me
that this is not an accurate summation.

>The reason I was called a "raving bitch" was due, I think, to
>a post I made regarding Jorn's "Womanly Hours of Catherine
>Bush" post.  I said something to the effect that I found it to
>be writen in an adolescent schoolboy style, very sicophantic,
>quite presumptuous, and it made me roll my eyes severely.
>Well, in retrospect, I still feel the same way, and if you ask
>me now what I thought of that essay, I would say pretty much
>the same thing.  It was my opinion.

     Wonderful.  Really.  That's not, has not, and never will be my point, as
I have stated many, many times.  The comments I made above sum up the ENTIRE
discussion as far as I'm concerned.  We agree on the definition and treatment
of opinion.  That part's done, over with, concluded, etc..

>However, beond that, I believe I have rarely started any
>discussion that led to flamage.  I have participated, joining
>in once something is in progress, for instance, I "defended"
>or "supported" Ben Haller during a censorship discussion (not
>my idea, but it interested me, so I joined in).  I "defended"
>or "supported" Melissa Caldwell in an assertion that a
>statement about rape - physical vs. psychological, was sexist.
>Not my idea, but it interested me, etc.  I "defended/suported"
>Stev0 in his earth shattering KateFans mock, that it wasn't
>all _that_ rude.

     Pouring gasoline on the match didn't start the fire.
     Not accusatory, just a reminder.

>Also, Ken you've implied that my Kate postings have been of
>questionable nature?  I don't think so.  I've posted what  I
>think was a flameless opinion of Rocket Man and CandleIn The
>Wind, I've asked the odd wuestion about her here and there, I
>answered another Love-Hound regarding a question he had about
[...etc...]

     One post that is outside the charter of the list is all it takes.
Examples have no beneficial effect for your argument.  Note that I am not
claiming perfection, merely pointing out a perceived lack.  As an example,
a murderer doesn't have to kill everyone he sees to be a criminal.  Much
more extreme an example, but identical reasoning.  Bundy could say "I
didn't kill my Aunt Wilma, so I'm not a murderer: I didn't kill _her_!"
     Not.

>flme free opinion of Happy Rhodes, and while I made a naughty
>remark or two at the end, they were clearly jokes, and aimed
>at Vickie, who seemed not to take offense.

     Clear being defined anywhere between vaccuum and obsidian?  Again,
what you opine as clearly is completely dependent on others' impressions,
which you claim you ignore outright.  How can you make that judgement without
knowing what the subjective "clear" means to your audience?  Objectively
speaking, no offense intended.

>I've posted about movies and ice skating, as KateNews was slow
>and it seemed okay for others to digress a bit into other
>media.

     Sure, we're a family of sorts.  I don't care about "digress[ing] a bit,"
I do care about digressing completely.  Talking about X only, when there
exists a talk.X newsgroup is NOT a "bit" of a digression.  Period.

>I really do not think my Kate posts have been "questionable"
>or whatever term you used.

     No, they weren't "questionable" at all, that was the point.

[...]
>I'm truly touched that you'd like to know what Cynthia Rosas
>is all about.  But you cannot know what a person is all about
>thru electronic means.  However, you seem to think that I'm

     No?  Not in one letter, or even five.  Nothing will let you completely
know a person.  Nothing.  This is as good as it gets without meeting,
depending on the willingness of both sides, IMHO a big problem recently.
I'm willing.  You, apparently, are not.  Please never again claim that I
am tight or inflexible as far as sensitivity or respect of opinions and
personality is concerned.  The problem you perceive with me may be yourself.
Make sure that's wrong before you take the second step.

[...]
>sometimes even cynically about certain subjects.  But I'm
>always honest, if not always tactful.  Tact has much less
>importance to me than honesty or a freeform exchange of
>attitudes & ideas.  To alot of people, that's a "bitch".
>It's not, to me, but hey, life is but a dream, I just keep on
>rolling with it, to mix a few metaphors.

     You degrade your honesty and free will because of that "lack" of tact.
Not that this is ideal or desired.  Without tact, a lot of people will either
ignore you (which I'm trying not to do (*sighs* from the peanut gallery ;-))
or get mad.  I'm not saying change, but you can do yourself a favor by being
tactful, whether you believe in the necessity or not.
     100% of what I'm saying is that tact can support and augment what you
have to say.  That, finally, is your choice, but it has nothing to do with
_what_ you're saying, but _how_.  It's not a comprimise, it's a choice and
decision you have made, apparently without knowing _how_ you choose or made
that decision.

>If there's anything I can cover mo' better from your email, I
>will, and I will certainly give you a response, tho it may not
>be for a few days.  I think Richard has told you. my access is
>sproradic.

     Yes.  If I could ask, please take this to email.  I've made more than
a passing attempt, please, PLEASE, please, for these innocent folks, take
it _completely_ to email.  This is a flameless ball of drool that will have
no negative impact on you, for it was not intended.  You have, as you have
expressed many times, the right to respond publicly.  I haven't had a choice
until recently, although the attempts were made.  I took the first step,
please take the second step into email.
     Thank you.
     Netiquette not only allows taking public discussions/flames to email,
it condones it strongly to avoid worthless havoc among innocent people.  I
really can't fathom what you could gain from taking advantage of your right
to reply publicy to this sordid discussion.  It only involves us.  If you
want the audience, say so.  If not, email is but a keystroke away.  The
answer should come very easily.  You are a very honest person, after all.

>I don't know why some of you have had trouble emailing me.
>Please try again, and if it bounces, maybe tell Richard
>Caldwell, who fixes stuff I don't even understand very well.
>In other words _I_ couldn't tell ya why your email bounced!

     The reply address that news gives for Cynthia is:

	caen!bsbbs!cynthia@harvard.harvard.edu

     I assume this will work for any Big Skyers, replacing cynthia with
their user names.  Same with the address I posted before.
     Doesn't UUCP suck?

>Cynthia Rosas <cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP> <{n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia>
[...]