- FAO Dan and all, re Twirlips ban - a misunderstanding or two Archived Message
Posted by walter
on April 27, 2019, 11:03 am
|
Following a communication from Twirilp, I now realize that there has been a misunderstanding in the exchange where Twirlip was banned. http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1556266684.html First, a quick summary as I realize not everyone will want to read through this: Following the interjection by Brooks, the exchange got into cross purposes. Twirlip was perceiving the point of dispute as the difference between 'insult' and 'smear'; hence the reference to the Thesaurus Eds - Twirlip didn't have room in the subject line to put 'Editors' - not being the Media Lens editors, as may have been first thought (as indeed, I did). And crucially, by that point Twirlip was taking the subject from the beginning of the exchange, whereas Dan was referring explicitly to what Brooks said - hence they had different objects in the who-said-whats. That's the end of the quick summary...below is what I think are the relevant parts of the exchange (apologies for any errors due to sloppiness) Twirlip (to Dan) "...It's very disappointing. And the disappointment is not in you, or even in this one decision [referring to the banning of west virginia - walter] (although I agree with walter that it was a bad one), but in the way that the group collectively acts as if you were a cult leader - which is clearly the reverse of what you wanted. There should be no pressure on you because of this. It is the general abandonment of critical faculties over this issue that should be a cause for reflection." Dan: Quite a ridiculous smear - dan Yesterday, 5:42 pm Twirlip: It is beyond ridiculous to call what I wrote a "smear". Get a grip! [nm] - Twirlip Yesterday, 6:07 pm Brooks: Says what Twirlip wrote was a smear, no names mentioned. And this is important later: "It is pretty insulting and needlessly inflammatory. " [My comment: At this point there are already TWO issues: 1) Was what Twirlip wrote a smear, and 2) Who is alleged to have been smeared. In the ensuing exchange, 1) drops off and 2) is strongly influenced by confusion] In Dan's first post above he involves HIMSELF in Twirlip's complaint, when he says: "Regarding how this community is run. I will repeat this is just one of a multitude of message boards. I don't imprison this community or run it. "....... To continue: Twirlip, addressing Brooks: If you really must pursue this, please narrow it down: name one insulting thing I said about Dan. nm - Twirlip Yesterday, 10:24 pm Dan: Where did brooks say you insulted me? This is just game playing. nm - dan Yesterday, 11:00 pm [My comment: At the crux of things, we are already at cross purposes; Twirlip is still addressing DAN's inclusion of himself in the alleged 'smear'. He evidently saw no reason to think that Brooks has changed the target of the alleged 'smear'. But Dan's interjection has changed the subject in his own mind to whether BROOKS said Twirlip was smearing DAN.] Now we really need to hold on tightly: Brooks' interjection has added another twist: we have gone from 'smearing' to 'insulting'. Note that now Twirlip, who hadn't used the word 'insulting', has been accused of the same by Brooks. To him, smearing and insulting are the same. But Dan is talking about the two morphed meanings; insults as opposed to smears, and the effect of Brooks' interjection that changed the object from those accused of the cult-like behaviour to Dan himself. Twirlip's answer relates to whether a smear is an insult: Twirlip: "Roget's Thesaurus, s.867: "N. slur:... insult... smear...." Perhaps you should contact the eds? [nm] " What's this - a snip about the media lens Eds,m perahps to get Dan's goat? No, over to Twirlip who says this: "If there had been room for it on the subject line (but there wasn't - I hit the limit on the number of characters), it would have read thus: (Sigh.) Roget's Thesaurus, s.867: "N. slur:... insult... smear...." Perhaps you should inform the editors of their error? Obviously (at least I *thought* it was obvious - it is only now that it occurs to me that Dan *might* have imagined it was a jibe, referring to the two Davids!), I meant the editors of Roget's Thesaurus." My (Walter's) emphasis added there. Dan clearly doesn't realize that Twirlip is talking about whether smears and insults are the same: Dan: "you are asking brooks to show you where you insulted me. something he never accused you of" and concludes Twirlip is posting in bad faith, and announces a ban. But Twirlip's clarification shows that there has been a misunderstanding. There was no ML-related sleight, and cross purposes had crept in to the exchange. Twirlip was accused of falsely accusing Brooks of saying he had smeared Dan, but Dan's inclusion of himself amongst those allegedly 'smeared' was already present, and it wasn't placed there by Twirlip. Dan may have found Twirlip's reply (with the accidental reference to the Eds) annoying, and presumably didn't get that it was about 'smear' vs 'insult'. I hope that sheds the requisite amount of light. |