Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!killer!billw From: billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,alt.flame Subject: Re: Out of control (was Re: Bear novel) Message-ID: <1607@killer.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Sep-87 18:27:30 EDT Article-I.D.: killer.1607 Posted: Tue Sep 22 18:27:30 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Sep-87 02:49:26 EDT References: <3496@rutgers.rutgers.edu> <1179@quad1.quad.com> <27951@sun.uucp> <3022@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: HASA Lines: 103 Xref: mnetor rec.arts.sf-lovers:7311 alt.flame:92 Tim Maroney: >>When was this ever characterized as a nasty, spiteful insult by anyone >>besides yourself? > Well, here's what Chuq had to say: >>If you're going to make nasty comments about authors, and least give >>yourself some basis for it. OK, so Chuq said nasty. There is still a big difference in magnitude between a mere "nasty" and a "nasty, spiteful insult." > While it does appear I was incorrect in this case - friends at Locus have > informed me that he attacks the magazine frequently for no apparent reason - Chuq's idea of an attack obviously differs from Locus's idea of a jibe. I'll not inject my opinion on that matter here. > I do not accept that it is paranoia to accuse someone of repeating a prior > offense. This depends. Paranoia implies a belief that said offender is CONSTANTLY attacking you. Simple accusation is much milder. > Now, now, I don't call people names and I would appreciate not being called > any. Right - I do apologize for the unwarranted use of the appellation "Timmy." No sarcasm here; I know how "Billy" has the ability to irk me at times. > Hey, now there's a good way to discourage paranoia. Nice job. I wasn't trying to discourage anything. The intent of that sentence was to show up some of the ridiculous ideas that Mark holds. > If I'd been through what Mark has, I'd probably be about as paranoid as he > is. It's been hard enough keeping things in balance since finding, and > making public, proof of a conspiracy against me at UNC. It would almost > have been better not to know. Remember, just because you're paranoid, that > doesn't mean they aren't out to get you (as you have proven for Mark). Paranoia is fine, as long as kept to oneself. But when a person starts making completely unwarranted accusations against someone else (I've got Erik Fair in mind here) then things have been taken a bit too far. Mark didn't even have the courtesy to make sure he was flaming the right person; he just happily bashed away at Erik Fair, who has nothing to do with the administration of violet. At least, that's the idea I got from Mike Meyer. If he has a LEGITIMATE complaint, then air it, I say. But an occasional article from him really makes me want to get sick with the sheer obtuseness of it. (I know for a fact that the administrator of chinet did not yank Mark's account due to Libertarian or anti-semitic or whatever-it-was reasons, for example.) What's this about a conspiracy against you at UNC? I've never heard anything of the kind. I'm sincerely interested. > Nor did I say it is. Nothing about coercion was mentioned by me, anyway. > The issue at hand was the rudeness of asking everyone to stick their fingers > in their ears and sing the Star-Spangled Banner whenever certain people > start talking. And the main victim I was complaining about was Omega > Mosley, who I don't like much myself, but who deserves better than that. This is somewhat exaggerated; but we're all guilty of using that device to enhance our arguments. And, since I don't know of any kind of battle involving Omega, I refrain from comment here. > I don't think so. I make every attempt to keep my temper under control and > to avoid making egotistical pronouncements, and I have gotten better and > better at this as the years have gone by. (The infamous shout of "YOU > LIE!!!", which was truthful but uncalled for, was only after three people > told the same bald-faced lie: I held myself back as long as I could. These > days, I would probably have just ignored the whole thing, because I'm more > practiced.) You describe some facets of your life that you have tried to change here; this is more than many people would have done. Clap, clap. > I have seen no evidence that Chuq does the same, or even admits > that these flaws are part of his personal repertoire. Everyone has > failings, myself certainly included, but I assure you I really try hard to > restrain mine. Chuq, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with telling all > and sundry that he deserves a Hugo (he started saying this even before the > first issue of OtherRealms, and never stopped) and recommending to others > that they KILL-file people he dislikes. Many, many things can be interpreted as arrogant or egotistical. If I tried very, very hard, I could even find some in the portions of your article that I've quoted. One thing people must try to do is differentiate between those things that are truly arrogant and those things that just happen to come across that way. This can be difficult in the absence of bodily cues. > I would like to see a similarly self-critical statement from Chuq before I > retract my request. What request? > And to all those who are about to jump on me for > admitting my failings: think about how this makes *you* look first. -- Bill Wisner, HASA ..ihnp4!killer!billw 'An it harms none, do what thou will.' Everything in this message may be wrong.