posted on October 12, 2000 03:15:57 PM new
Okay, Pareau here with an amicus etherae.
Stockticker recollects a time in which certain lamentable behaviors were considered socially unacceptable. Stockticker does not state that such behaviors never occurred within the society/epoch she's remembering. In fact, it stands to reason that, in order for a standard to have been formed that found such behaviors reprehensible, they would HAVE to have occurred.
HartCottageQuilts mounts what, at first read, appears to be a strenuous rebuttal of Stockticker's perception, citing Romans even. She argues a point that Stockticker never made, to wit, that there was ever a time or place in which such behaviors did not occur. HCQ further points out that such bad behavior is "normal" to the human condition. (Insanity is not an immediate defense to murder, so that behavior appears to have a place on the spectrum of normalcy. I'll pass.)
Allow me to paraphrase:
Stockticker: "I remember that people used to have a sense of honor and fair play."
HCQ: "People were bums in the old days and they're bums now. Get over it."
Stockticker: "Feh."
HCQ: "Sheesh. Who were these goody-two-shoes you remember, anyway?"
Stockticker: "People I hung out with."
HCQ: "Oh, THAT explains it! Your FRIENDS! How could you compare them to chatboard riffraff? You picked them. Of course they're nice, decent people, they would be. But you're not in Kansas anymore, and since you've been here awhile and should know better than to say anything that makes sense, I'm declaring you illogical. Neener, neener!"
[Whereupon the gavel-happy judge seconds her emotion, and counter charges are flung...]
posted on October 12, 2000 04:17:05 PM new
Just quickly dropping in to (((((((RM)))))), Hizzoner, and say thank you for the marionberry jam and snarl at you for the mini-frisbee which Christopher is using around the house in an attempt to break all the picture glass. What a great surprise!
Tell Nathan that Jen's not home yet, I'm sure she'll get in touch herself when she arrives...
Sorry, HCQ, Pareau, Stockticker (y'all are making me laugh), my e-mail's erratic again, and wanted to make sure Ray got a thank you...
posted on October 12, 2000 06:28:38 PM new
I am gone ---disgraced. But to take my place will be 3-- 30 --300 --3000 new avid users to the internet hungering for knowledge and friendship. AW is and has been a wonderful place to interact and learn what's what! From my very first days here back in early 1999, I want to thank each and every poster here on the Message Center that has helped me learn the ropes.
Some I have agreed with, some not. Such is life.
My business on line is just too important to be sallied by people that don't know jack sh** about me and so-- I will become a lurker I will laugh and ponder with the best of posts but never post again. Again--this is my livlihood--and for it to be ruined by zealots and some with axes to grind is just too high a price to pay. AOL chats?---I don't think so--been kinda spoiled here by the high caliber of intelligence and humor here. You have castigated me--and I understand--sorta. Best to all--Jean
posted on October 12, 2000 06:52:56 PM new
Actually, all I asked was for stockticker to describe this "time" to which she referred.
Not the first time I've been excoriated for asking for something to back up a vague statement, pareau. I doubt it'll be the last. It is simply not nice to raise such sorts of questions. I should know better.
As to your "murder" red herring (are you licensed to use those, BTW? Remember, most of the injuries caused by red herrings are self-inflicted), it can hardly be considerd "normal" behavior in the statistical sense of the word (typical, or conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern)
since, historically, the vast majority of people have not personally committed murder.
However, if you're looking for examples of "normal" social behavior to cite, how about "resorting to putting words in another's mouth in an attempt to discredit him"?
posted on October 12, 2000 06:55:52 PM new
That's why I thought your earlier statement such an aberration, stockticker, and why I asked you to explain it.
Hey: jeanyu could have it both ways - say she's leaving, elicit sympathetic murmurs from the crowd, and then reappear in another guise...nah.
posted on October 12, 2000 07:05:56 PM new
HCQ, I confess: I never take kangaroo courts as seriously as I should.
Normal = "typical, or conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern," which rules out murder? Better break it gently to the FBI and all those serial murderers, HCQ.
posted on October 12, 2000 07:18:03 PM new
Ahem........considering the recent developments. I suggest we take a recess, change our AW identities, locate new proxy servers and reconvene at a later date. (gavel slam)
(shadowcat, banging the gavel is a whole other area of chat board justice and one which we might explore at greater depth in private chambers)...........let me know.
posted on October 12, 2000 07:28:44 PM newpareau, you're confusing the statistical term with the common usage of the word. Either you've spent a tad too much time up there in the ether, or your confusion is intentional. More red herrings.
Anyway, by your logic (?), a serial killer is "normal". Murder - single or serial - is not a statistical norm. Unless, of course, you describe something that occurs 6.8 times per 100,000 population - less than once in a million - "commonplace".
In that case I can only imagine your keen disappointment when you lose at Lotto.
posted on October 12, 2000 07:39:35 PM new
LOL, HCQ, that's spectrum of normalcy, not "normal." And I think that we're using different definitions of the word.
I have to tell you that my cats are reading these posts, too, and are getting very upset with all the mention of "r*d h*rrings." They haven't seen any around here and think I'm holding out on them.
Lotto is one of the worst deals on the planet, odds-wise, so I don't play. It wouldn't be logical.
posted on October 12, 2000 07:50:00 PM new
Hmmm, I wonder what the statistical norm is for the volume of pompousity achieved in a single thread. Betcha there's a jackpot coming up!
posted on October 12, 2000 09:49:16 PM new
Your Honorness Eminencey Judgeship RM,
The pomposity is a byproduct of attempting to fulfill the productivity statute imposed on us by the higher circuit court. If it pleaseth the court. (I guess a certain gavel meister doesn't read his administrative handouts, does he?)
Respectfully submitted,
Your humble servant *snort*
- Pareau
posted on October 12, 2000 10:03:31 PM new
I don't remember the question either. Here's my take on this one. One party wields the sarcasim stick beating the other party heavily about the head and face demanding submission and total agreement with the stick wielders point of view of the world. It stinks, it's rotten, always has been, always will be, get it?
The other party reacts with calm, humor and wit.
I think both parties views of the world past and present are exactly right, from their individual perspectives. Course, I'm partial to rose colored glasses.
Pareau If you can be snort can I be grunt? I had an aunt and uncle that we lovingly referred to (behind their backs) as grunt and snort.
P.S. I don't know what happened with Jeanyu Was that for real?
posted on October 13, 2000 09:37:48 AM new
You got it, snowyegret.
-------------------------
feh!
This juicy expletive cannot be enlisted without its exclamation point. "Feh" is the Yiddish replacement for exclamatory expressions of disgust such as "Phew!" "Pee-oo!" and "Ugh!" It strikes me as a crisp
and exact delineation of distaste. In saying "Feh!," you may bare the teeth and wrikle the nose, in visible reinforcement of the meaning.
- attributed to Leo Rosten, who wrote The Joys of Yiddish
------------------------
N.B. The nondenominational version excludes the exclamation point, at least at AW.
posted on October 13, 2000 10:28:31 AM new
Probably one of the words my grandfather used to mutter under his breath at certain times... A perfect word
Feh! AOhell chat room!
posted on October 13, 2000 12:31:07 PM new
Feh! is what you utter upon smelling a three day old red herring in the courtroom.
Oddish: I know what the accepted interpretations of Job are. That doesn't change my opinions that Job got screwed simply to prove a point and God does not come across in a favorable light in response to Job's questions.
RM: Continuance it is, then. When you're ready to approach the bench...
posted on October 13, 2000 12:41:27 PM new
I just don't get the "Salem" reference, pareau. In the threads you cited, the party "on trial" voluntarily made a statement of opinion with which other posters disagreed. The follow-up "thief" thread was, I think, poorly begun in that the question should have been not "is this person a thief?" but "do you consider this stealing?" - you know, address the post/act, not the poster/actor. Exceptionally bad judgment on the thread-starter's part and, I'd venture, on AW's part for permitting the thread to continue - except that as far as I can see, none of the threads degenerated into ad hominem attacks on the person in question.
The Salem trials (and the idea of a "witch hunt" in general, for that matter) involve (a) charges levied in the absence of corroborating evidence and (b) the simple levying of those charges being considered evidence of guilt. I can't find any post that would indicate that this wsa the case in any of the threads in question.
One of the realities (oh no, that word again) of making a public statement is the risk of being disagreed with, even to the point of outright flaming (which I'd suggest did not occur in the threads in question). Everyone has the "right" to state an opinion. Nobody has the "right" to have that opinion stand unchallenged.
Particularly in an environment where one's earlier (and archived) statements can easily come back and bite one in the ass, it's only prudent to THINK about whether one's willing to take the heat his statement may make before one hits the "post" button.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 13, 2000 12:43 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 03:27:27 PM new
I guess I missed the chapter in the Rules of Civil Procedure (not to mention in Emily Post) on Bronx cheers. I would not be surprised, however, if they are indeed the norm at "witch trials". Why waste time using reason when you can simply tell your opponent to p*** off?
What a great surprise!
