Chris Calloway wrote:
> 
> i'm gonna put this delicately:

Why, thank you. Everyone but Chris should probably bail out now, since this is 
totally non-music and very meta-meta-analysis.

> todd:
> >Huh? How the fuck can I "control" how everyone argues? I can assert my
> >opinion, which I did.
> 
> and a little later:
> >Then don't post controversial stuff.
> 
> it's like ross said a little earlier, it's a certain chill in the air.
> you do more than assert your opinion, todd. you tell others what to say
> and not say and how to say it.

Chris, I'm not gonna let you get away with this, because it gets to the heart 
of what I think Usenet is all about. The rawness of the interaction does 
sometimes allow/encourage me to be more harsh in my language than I (probably) 
would be in real life, but calling someone on what I think is bullshit (which 
is what I was doing with James (who, btw, seems to be posting just fine)) is in 
no what "telling others what to say and not say and how to say it."

>      it's not such a literal control. it's a
> demand thing.

Which anyone is free to ignore, or address, at their pleasure. Chris, I can say 
that I think your posting style is fun sometimes, but ridiculous for carrying 
on a debate, and I can assert that I ignore almost all of your posts, and even 
that I think your "I'll post as often and as lengthily and as abstrusely as 
possible" attitude does more to "chill" newcomers to the group than my sometime 
bitchiness could ever do, and even "demand" that you stop. So? Ignore me.

Welcome to Usenet.

>  sometimes
> i wonder if you know what you're saying.

[snort]

>   it was more
> than just your addressing what james was saying. it's an ongoing thing.
> i'm amazed at how sick and pissed you are when 'we' are so indulging of
> your regular attempts at muzzling those who disagree with you.

Utter bullshit, Chris. Do you have *zero* concept of how conversation works or 
what? How on earth is my claiming to be pissed at the way you and Ruby have 
carried on your sides of the Moore discussion an "attempt at muzzling" anyone? 
Seems to me that you're doing exactly what I did--sharing an opinion, strongly. 
Trust me, I feel challenged to respond, not "muzzled".

> i'm sick too. i'm sick of people who's constant message is shut up or say
> something different or say something my way, no matter what their style of
> saying that may be.

Jesus, don't put that on me, buddy. I'm the one who just ignores people who's 
posts I don't like, remember? And if I say that your style is silly, and I wish 
you'd post in a less ridiculous way, and if I say that over and over and over 
and over again, and put it in all caps, and crosspost it to the entire 
alt.music heirarchy, that still doesn't come *close* to "muzzling" you, since 
you can tell me to fuck off and still do whatever the hell you want.

I *like* Usenet.

> we'd be missing all the writing of
> advocacy if we insisted and end to speaking for one another. yes, there's a
> lot of advocacy speech that is just plain mistaken, paternal and assuming
> even.

Right. Remember, the main reason I told James "speak for yerself" was that his 
message was *completely* unclear as to who, exactly, he was speaking for. 
Please, since Ruby didn't bother to try, go back to the message I was 
responding to and tell me who the "us" was in James' first sentence (sorry, 
James, to keep bringing this up; I'm over it with you, by a long shot, but 
Chris is making some seriously dumb accusations here and I want to defend 
myself).

 and i haven't agreed with several things ruby has
> said, or the way she's said them, i just didn't want to tell her what
> to say or how to say it.

So, um, debate about tactics is impossible? What are you saying, Chris? That I 
shouldn't point out when I think someone's being foolish? Now, who's trying to 
muzzle whom?

 i agreed with the crux of the matter, that a
> guy came into a privileged public forum ostensibly representing social
> change in league with others, and then demonstrated otherwise,

That last bit has yet to be proven, imnsho.

 that he
> would turn his back on those who'd boosted his efforts with his
> cooperation,

Again, all we have is Ruby's word on this, and I don't find her version of 
events trustworthy. YMMV.

 and that he represented no significant social change,
> that he was just using those who believed themselves to be cooperating
> with him to in instead join an old boy's network.

Huh? I think that's a lunatic thing to say.

 that they can't understand what all the ruckus
> is about with people taking differing opinions and styles so personally, or
> think that their preferences have to be catered to by everyone.

Hey, you make the call, Chris. Change the way you post, or accept that you're 
not read by me. Tough one, I'm sure, but here's what I'd do: whatever I wanted.

 and it takes
> awhile to hear these things coz the people shouting the loudest

I.e., you, if posting = volume.

[...] yow, the only thing to be taken personally is someone
> telling you to change the way you are cause they don't like it.

I think that's ridiculous. Why should someone take it personally that not 
everyone will like the way they post? Hell, I learned that as a high school 
teacher--some kids will always, for whatever reason, just plain be turned off 
by your style. You put yourself out there and you takes your chances. But, 
damn, try not to take it personally that some folks aren't enamored of how you 
put yourself out there. S'what punk's all about, non?

 anyway, i've
> heard from enough people unsolicited now to understand that there's no
> consensus here about the way people ought to post.

Which is as it should be.

> i wish i could say 'nuff said, but that would be -attempting- to control
> the conversation 'round here. 'nuff -for me- to say for now -for myself-
> except to say, hope you are doing well and call me about that heater anytime.

We need to get drunk together. I'm itching for a good drunken word brawl. What 
arei'd doing Thursday night?

todd thanks for the heater offer morman