Mike,
I totally agree with you when you write:
"Puts downs simply don't work on xmca to create anything
that feels like development to me. No matter who is
involved."
But It simply amazes me that anything remotely accusatory would be pointed
at me in this context .
Here's the thread content, the present context, from my perspective:
1. Eva posts something directed at me that begins "So, Paul" Who doesn't
have enough knowledge of genre to recognize the orientation of a post that
begins "So, Paul" and ends with a comment about "your brand of marxism".
Beyond these overt markers, the message itself constituted a strong
challenge to what Eva apparently conceived my position about whether the
growth of the internet was good or bad during which she complained about "US
voices" and focused on the fact that an earlier post I had made was not
attributable to Colombine High Students but in fact had been used by
fascists, neo-nazis, as well as proponents of a wide variety of religions
and ideological orientations. Yes I read this as saying something akin to
"How stupid your are posting this".
2. within the framework of comments on middle class I respond to said
post tangentially and do not make a point-by-point response. Unfortunately I
include the word "lovingly" to indicate that I wasn't really taking the
message personally but did recognize her critique. I wrote but didn't
send a point-by-point response to Eva's "so Paul" message precisely because
I didn't think it would lead to development. I put into practice something
one list member wrote me back channel a while back.
3. Eva responds rhetorically labeling me a masochist and singling me out
for a special treatment that disregards any prevailing notions of netiquette
(rules leading to and maintaining development productive threads?). She
repeats over and over: for you only.
4. I respond to this with a query concerning the relationship of above
counter-response as a public response on xmca suggesting that this is best a
n issue raised privately (back channel). I point out that something that is
"for you only" obviously isn't for a mailing list.
5. Eva sends a response containing threats and innuendos to information
that sound akin to blackmail.
Tell me, what's up and down here? Did I miss something?
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:24 PST