parnel:
"RP has said repeatedly that these things should be discussed off line..."


The subject of this thread happens to be parnel, but more specifically,
parnel's behavior, and we happen to be dicussing that topic. Should
this be a public topic, or should this be all done by email? I don't
know. All I know is that it is in the "Only Randy Petersen" forum.


I'm not sure that I really should be responding to parnel's longer
post, but because it is actually civil, and because some people might
appreciate a response, I will do so in my regular, detailed style.

I'm sorry if the subject of this thread does not like this style of
response to specific points. In this case, I will parse it more
fully than I usually do.


parnel:
"Please remember that the originator of this thread has constantly and
forever been complaining of things he doesn't like here.IOW a whiner."


I'll leave this for the individual concerned to respond to, but I still
note the continued name-calling, no matter if the name-caller believes
it passionately, or not...


parnel:
"I have been involved in many threads that went on and on with intelligent debate."


I'm sure that out of the many threads, there were some with 'debate', and
some of these may have been 'intelligent'. But I suppose "intelligent"
could be defined as "agreeable", as in: 'if they agree with me, they must
be intelligent'. I don't know which threads are possible candidates...


parnel:
"In the case of the G/L debate most of those on the other side continued to hammer
away on the theme that had been discussed to death and kept returning to it and
asking me to explain my opposition which had been clearly explained very early in
a much earlier thread when you were not even a poster here, or were you?"


"Discussed to death"? We were trying to discuss parnel's reasons,
but without much co-operation or success. Clearly parnel was done
with discussing the issues being raised from his/her opinions and
reasoning.

"Clearly explained very early in a much earlier thread"? I wonder
who has the gift of anticipating every possible question or comment
from others, and posting it clearly and ahead of time "very early
in a much earlier thread"?

In any case, I did follow the several threads on the subject, even
though I was not always posting. But it is not guaranteed that any
specific poster has knowledge of all previous threads and posts, so
the courteous thing to do, if this happens once in a while, is to
respond to specific points to let both parties understand the thought
(if there is one) behind the point, argument or comment.


parnel:
"Yes, I am sarcastic at times but I'm not alone and not seeking notoriety."


Notice the spin here. Parnel is spinning away as best he/she can
to try and be credible.

Sarcasm can be applied to ideas by using other ideas, and does not
have to mean mean name-calling and vulgarity directed at individuals.
Parnel is not alone in using sarcasm, but is quite alone in the level
and way it is used - - usually referred to as 'in a class by themselves'.


parnel:
"I didn't think we had to be stirile [sic] to post here."


Sterility? You must be joking. FT is certainly not that, and parnel's
posts are routinely such that they exceed the FT norm of non-sterility.


parnel:
"BTW my insults on that thread were due to the lack of respect shown by
those on the 'yes' side of the SS marriage debate."


So it's OK to insult? You just need a handy excuse? Let the record
show that parnel admits to using insults in that thread.

As for respect, you need to respect others for them to respect you.
Talking 'tough' does not command respect from others here. I think
that most people here greet opinions and others at first with respect,
as the default option, and respect is lost or increased with observed
behavior. I think that's what happened here.

It seems we have a different level of respect 'given', than the level of
respect 'shown', and different levels of respect 'expected' between the
parties.


parnel:
"If you were not 'on side' you are automatically a homophobe according
to them and that really pi**ed me off because for the most part the
discussion with some G/L proponents was going well. But, I digress."


"Going well"? Hmmmmm. Perhaps there were one or two outbreaks of
civility, but they were short-lived.

Anyway, I personally did not get involved in the debate about what the
definition of homophobia is, or whether someone was automatically
homophobic if they were anti-gay, or anti-SS marriage, or if these
two things were equivalent.

However, I did indicate that I personally WAS homophobic to some extent,
AND that I was definitely pro-SS marriage. So I believe I showed that
homophobia and SS marriage can be thought of as two separate issues, but
I don't think this made any impression. Perhaps it was just "the noise".

Note that this did not prevent parnel from getting "really pi**ed" off.
Getting angry, even getting upset - now that's one thing - but taking
it out on the keyboard and the community - that's a while 'nother world.


parnel:
"I suggest you submit your style to this board a little longer(if indeed
you are a newbie) and you will note you get a lot of attention as well
because you seem to have a lot to say and people will make you warrant
your opinions which are too long winded IMO."


Well, parnel is usually not that long-winded. It's usually short and
sharp. There's not always a point (at least that is readily understood
by the others), but we are usually made to feel that it is sharp anyway.


parnel:
"As for my not responding to your detailed but boring questions go back
to earlier threads and see if I stated my case or not."


If I ask for clarification, or challenge a certain point, or present my
original argument, should I really expect that this would be specifically
addressed already? Anywhere? How could every possible point be already
addressed? And parnel says that perhaps it wasn't addressed ("stated").
So we are all obligated to search for possible clues to what parnel's
case is, even though we have read the threads, and it may not even be
there? Please...

And the questions were 'boring'? Really? I guess if it all sounds like
"noise", then it would get boring REALLY fast.


parnel:
"I was not under any court order to debate you in any specific format."


Agreed. But a debate (if that's what it was) needs to have responses on
specific points. Back and forth, until (heaven forbid) some understanding
is reached. Otherwise, what is it? An exchange of opinions? A shouting
match? What? I don't care about the format, just as long as the parties
communicate in good faith to explain their side, in response to questions
and challenges from the other.

Many of us agreed that this was lacking. A futile attempt at debate or
understanding.


parnel:
"As the G/L thread wore on I just wanted to maintain my opposition not
regurgitate it for every newbie to the debate. Mercifully it was closed."


No regurgitation needed. But perhaps swallowing some pride was in order,
in not being able to answer criticisms and apparent contradictions of
parnel's own logic, and a carousel of 'defense de jour'. Yes, opposition
was maintained, but a debate, or even an exchange of related points? No.


parnel:
"At the end of the day I could care less if people don't like my opinions
because they have the ability to skip any post or thread they don't like---
that's democracy and freedom of speech."


Opinions are one thing. But is that all we can do? State opinions and
that's it? Not talk about them? Discuss them? Challenge them? Back
them up? If stating an opinion is all that matters, then none of us would
be replying to another. That 11 page thread would be half a page, at most.

What people usually discuss in OMNI is the basis for an opinion. We may
not like an opinion (that's too bad, although the public expression of
some opinions are not allowed), but the basis for an opinion forms the
only bridge between the two sides. They may finally agree, or continue
to diasgree (i.e., agree to disagree), but only after confirming that a
common basis exists. That takes back and forth * discussion * of the
basic points of the opinion to discover the basis for the argument.

So while we may not like the opinions stated, we must like and respect the
process for discovering the common ground and basis for disagreement or
agreement. In other words, talk about things which are incontrovertible,
things we already accept, things we don't have to like or dislike.


So, apparently, parnel limits himself/herself to having opinions, which
we can then like, or dislike, or ignore. And likewise, parnel feels free
to like, dislike, or ignore any opinion or post. That's "democracy",
but not a free exchange of thought.

While FT is a place where opinions can be stated, I believe it aspires
to be more than just that. So parnel may state his/her opinions (as long
as they meet the TOS), and we'll just have to learn, one by one, about the
limited intent of those posts.


parnel:
"For someone who does not put forth a location or email address like the
vast majority of people here, you make yourself suspect as to your agenda
and IMO it makes me think you are some one who has been here before and
reborn with a new alias."


I usually don't agree with 'nako', except for this point: 'What happens
in FT, stays in FT'. There is no need to conduct personal flame wars
offline. If it can't be controlled here, publically, then there is no
hope of controlling it personally. One possible answer is get an email
address for flames and other nuisance email. I'm sure almost anybody can
get a bunch of hotmail email addresses, and that does not prove anything.

'nako' does not have an email address either, and I questioned why he/she
made a curious reponse to a poster who questioned an FTer's identity.
'nako' came up, out of the blue, with something that tried to mock the
idea of someone having two identities with over 1000 posts each, except
nothing even close to this was mentioned beforehand. I am still curious,
and still have had no response as to what happenned there.

Anyway, I had suspiscions too, but I don't think that just having an email
address of some kind should be a hard and fast rule at FT. Perhaps it may
help to trace people for criminal purposes, but I'm not sure about this.


parnel:
"You are trying too hard to be different including the lousy presentation
of your syntax and short lines."


Oh dear. Different. I guess that I am. But "lousy presentation" would
be equally, or more appropriate, to parnel's posts, come to think of it.
"Short lines"? Parnel often has short lines mixed in with many long lines.
Go figure. The stove calling the kettle black.

Actually, I shorten the lines because, for some pages of a thread, the width
is incorrectly set to be much longer, and results in tedious scrolling.
This is because most FTer's just let paragraphs run on and let the software
do the word-wrap for them. And then some FTer's let paragraphs run on too
long without a paragraph break...


parnel:
"My email box has been full of comments frompeople who did no want to go public
in the G/L debate becasue of the ferocious attacks by the proponents like you
who think their reasoning is sacrosanct and not subject to dissent."


On the contrary, I'm sure we all would have welcomed more participation by
'the other side', since parnel couldn't seem to relate to having a debate,
or to answer specific points or questions by others. If I can speak for the
others, we would have welcomed replies to our questions by anyone, parnel or
anyone else. But perhaps there is the possibility that there were no good
answers to some of our questions, and therefore, nobody answered.

But "ferocious attacks"? Yes, there were many posts that questioned the
anti-SS marriage opinions of parnel, however, if there was any "ferocious"
attacking, it was often in response to the posts by the pro-SS marriage side.

OK, probably a lot of us think that our reasoning is sacrosanct, but how does
that come into play here? I personally would have appreciated some attempt
to answer the points I made or questions I had (though a lot of them did not
really need an answer, they were asked in order to make my case - - since I
guess I was getting used to not having them answered, or replied to directly).
I wonder whose reasoning was more "sacrosanct"?

As for the reasoning of SS marriage being "not subject to dissent", we were
asking for parnel to answer and criticise our specific position or suggestions.
I believe that parnel chose to offer a dissenting opinion, but not much else
to go on. So which opinions on that thread were "not subject to dissent"?


parnel:
"Remember its not the length of the discourse its the quality of what is said
and being a chat line short precise comments are more the norm."


I agree that being succinct is good. But so is being clear. And I really
missed the clarity of the argument and logic. However, it was abundantly
made clear that disagreement was not welcomed because of the taunts, accusations,
profanity and other attacks on the rest of the posters.

As for Quality vs. Quantity, I favor Quality, of course. I do not try to make
as many brief posts as possible, and I tend towards fewer, but longer, reasoned
posts with original arguments and lines of thought, or with detailed, specific
responses to other posters, as in this case. Too long for my liking, but how
else does one respond to this 'spin'?

As for being a "chat line", yes, FT has a 'live chat' function, but that is
obviously not what we are doing in OMNI. Parnel may be a veteran of many
online forums, chat boards or chat rooms, but FT should remain a domain where
good faith participants can exchange information, opinions and perhaps, even
discuss different points of view to appreciate and understand our differences.


Thanks to all if you have made it through this long, torturous reply.
.
.


[This message has been edited by IJK (edited 08-12-2003).]