quote: Are scientists big on hostile takeovers? I think a board loosely modelled on the supreme court would be, if nothing else, a lot more effective than our current system.
I just worry that if you did something like this, it would rapidly become politicized in much the same way that Supreme Court appointments are -- and for much the same reason. I can hear it now: "I can't vote for Bush because he'd appoint another pro-Creationist biologist to the board."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, there's that danger inherent in any appointment system. I just think the process still yields better results than our current unchecked Science Advisor appointments, where the guy giving the advice my have been a C student at Georgia Tech but is the president's second cousin.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think the issue is that, if the public isn't educated well enough to sort this out, how can we expect our leaders, who are (in theory at least) chosen from the public, to be able to do the same?
If the "experts" aren't smart enough to understand the data and make intelligent decisions, how can we expect our leaders to do so?
It looks like we're basically at the point of the blind leading the blind, seeing that we're all so uneducated.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure there were parts that were aggressive, but I don't think that the overall tone was. After reading it a third time, I still don't take the portion that tern quoted as an attack.
tern's quote in particular shows that a single sentence can be either interpretted as a shield or as a sword.
Tom, I agree with you that Card is such an effective communicator that he could say the same things without the barbs. ::shrug:: Everyone has their own personality. I'm idealist enough to think, "Oh man, if he were just a bit more PC, then everyone would see the sense in what he saying about morality and community and family."
........................................ I'm projecting here, but I think that one of the reasons we're so sensitive to his posts is because we want the best of both worlds. On one hand, we want him to be the author who drew us together and on the other hand, we want him to be just as accountable as any other poster.
But, if he were just another poster on the board, we wouldn't expect that he has more hope than we do of changing the world.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
To go back to your original question, which I interpret as 'does anyone else find they agree with many of what they can decipher as the building block of OSCs internal logic but then dramatically disagree with his conclusion?'
For me the answer is a definite yes. When it first happened I was so very dissappointed ... I felt I had been betrayed. That was nearly 10 years ago, as a teenager, when perhaps it is harder to accept that people really can have very different drivers.
For example, I like civilisation, I understand that marriage, monogamy, fidelity are cornerstones of civilisation. But I do not think it is the role of any organisation (religious or political) to dictate the communities behaviour. Rather, I would aspire to live in a community that is educated enough to understand the cornerstones and where each individual chooses to adopt these mores individually.
Another example. I agree that promiscuity, drugs use, excessive drinking, cigarettes are all signs that as individuals we haven't reighned in our base desires and animal instincts. But again I believe it is for the individual to choose to abstain from these.
Hope that helps!
PS. If this post sounds as though I have no ability to examine and challenge my own beliefs, please consider that it might be because I am not as practiced with the written word.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Marc's question seemed to me to be "does anyone else find they disagree with what appear to be the building blocks of OSC's internal logic, but then mostly agree with his conclusions?" The explanation's the same, though, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths.
And the comparison to others' questioning of their own beliefs was utterly unnecessary for that explanation.
I don't think it was intended as an attack per se. After all OSC basically said he didn't think any better of those who support him over those who oppose his stances on the issues he talks about. I got the impression he was more frustrated than anything (by the fact that people on the forum pick sides blindly without thinking things out very well).
I'm too new to know how well written and rational the arguments of most people here are, so I don't know if that's actually true or not. But I think I see what he was trying to say: it is not worth wasting brainpower arguing about his politicial or moral positions here. If we have the intelligence, we should be presenting the arguments to those who have the ability to actually do something with them. And if all we can say is "he's wrong" or "he's right", there's no point in arguing at all. Could be possibly be saying that we actually need to work together to make positive changes, instead of fighting against each other? (I'm not asking that rhetorically, btw.)
To everyone's credit, this thread has not devolved into a discussion of nitpicking OSC's values, just the style he uses in his essay. So maybe we're not as bad as he thinks.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't agree with some of OSC's conclusions. I think he's wrong. But I don't argue about them here because a) I want to be sure before I say something, so I'd have to do lots of time consuming research, b) all that effort would be wasted if I just dumped in a paper citing 20 sources here, and only here, and c) because I have more fun reading about speculations and theories about the upcoming Ender books.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't need any amount of experience here before drawing conclusions about whether the arguments presented here are rational and well-written. The rest of your life should have provided you with that skill already.
Although this isn't always the case, I realize.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You don't need any amount of experience here before drawing conclusions about whether the arguments presented here are rational and well-written. The rest of your life should have provided you with that skill already.
Although this isn't always the case, I realize.
What I meant is that, I haven't read any of the threads that carry the major debates. Nor do I have a desire to go out and look for them.
And I do recall a professor of psychology telling me that most people do not think rationally in their day-to-day decisions, even if they have the ability to do so. Really makes you wonder...
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc Forrester, there is no human classification scheme, and it's futile to even try and get one. There are patterns of human nature and behavior, and we can try to the best of our ability to understand others, but that's about it. As Card posted, the reason you agree with many of his ideas is because those very traits that religion promotes are the same traits that are needed for a civilization to succeed.
But then you state that some things he says you strongly disagree with, like deeming those who do not adhere to social taboos unacceptible. You don't accept this because some of the great revolutions of the world have been a result of people going against social customs. For instance, say someone in the South were to help slaves get to the north during the Civil War. I can't have an opinion on this idea of Card's because I haven't read the context that he wrote it in, but I have read some of Card's essays on civilization and believe me, such an idea is necessary for a civilization to succeed. So you actually have to do the research and look at the things he's read, and trust me he's read a lot. Besides, many of Card's readers have to learn to distinguish his ideas from his opinions. For instance, an idea of his may have been the one you stated, about the social acceptance, but his opinion on it may be quite different. His idea: that civilizations which have a population which adheres to its own rules because of responsibility and guilt MUST deem those who do not follow the rules inacceptible. If this isn't followed, a civilization will eventually become a collection of tribes. His opinion: if the rules the civilization has instituted are those of cruelty and indecency, then going against the rules is acceptible. I'm not saying that is Card's opinion, I'm just saying that's an example of what it could be.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I struggle with frustration at similar things. People learn I'm a Mormon, and then surprised when stuff comes out of my mouth that sounds reminiscent of Harry Reid, when he's not ranting at the top of his lungs.
As if I were supposed to be some kind of Utah Republican! As if!
I've tried out some of OSC's ideas elsewhere. In one case, I got the context wrong and ended up slapped quite completely by indignance junkies who equate ultra-low-rise pants and a saucy attitude with feminine goodness.
In some others, people just respond, "buh"? And in only one case, when I paraphrased OSC with, "so caught up in American property rights that you probably can't understand the Doctrine and Covenants" was the listener completely floored, in that enlightened kind of way one likes to get.
But mostly, it's the "buh?", which has led me to conclude that many of OSC's ideas are definitionally rareified; they require a study of history most people aren't doing, in order to get his points.
Maybe that's why you don't see a lot of back and forth on the things you have to say.
posted
I agree with Tom that some of Scott's asides help to incite the sort of reading that Scott complains about.
I agree with Scott that Tom's response addresses an ancillary stylistic issue, distracts from Scott's valid point, and closes down the discussion by imputing "victimization" motives.
I understand Tom's explanation that it's hard to respond to Scott's points when one agrees with them, and can sympathize with the need to say *something* in response to a short, sweeping, and profound metadiscourse. I've printed out Scott's essay and have read it through a few times, and so far can't think of anything to say that doesn't sound trite. But I submit that a stylistic critique, at this point, however accurate, was worse than saying nothing at all.
As for imputing motives of victimization ... I'm not sure anyone could have calculated a statement more likely to drive Scott away. I don't think that was Tom's intent here. But if Scott does show back up, could y'all please keep the compulsive psychoanalysis to a bare minimum?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ghenghis, who are you? There are very few people, who call OSC in the familiar, and I have to admit I find it rudely jarring when you are a stranger in his living room, unless you have an intimate real life acquaintance with him.
One of the prevailing themes of Hatrack, whether or not OSC is posting, is that how you say something, is of equal importance when getting your point across as *what is actually said*. What you think you say, and how someone else interprets what you say are equally valid realities. The trick to effective communication is to get the two reality gaps as small as possible.
Even if what OSC meant was closer to Lady Dove's interpretation if most people interpret it like tern, twinky, Dagonee and myself, (and among the four of us you've got a huge spectrum of political beliefs so there is no way you could accuse the negative interpretation to be the result of a specific political bias) then effective communication has not taken place. Effective communication has to be taking place, before you are going to change anyone's mind.
If however you think changing people's minds is hopeless, than I can understand a more inflammatory rhetorical position, to attempt to inflame those who might already agree with you to action. However it may weaken the loyalty those who agree with you but are still trying to persuade others through reasoned discourse.
quote: But I submit that a stylistic critique, at this point, however accurate, was worse than saying nothing at all.
Except that, in the long run, I think that at least part of this conversation is ultimately ABOUT style -- or, rather, tone. Card has a lot of valuable things to say, but a lot of people tune out his arguments precisely because he's deliberately inflammatory and/or insulting. That's the specific point I'm trying to make, and so I can't think of a way to say that without addressing "an ancillary stylistic issue."
In other words, I don't think the "stylistic issue" is ancillary at all. I think the "stylistic issue" (by which I mean a tendency to insult a broad audience for no obvious reason) strongly detracts from the points he's trying to make, and raises hackles where hackles do not need to be raised.
I did not reply to OSC's essay in order to merely say "something" (or "anything.") I replied specifically because his complaints of ill-treatment by his critics ignore (and have ignored in the past) the very real possibility that his tone breeds criticism where there otherwise would be little, and I felt that this possibility was worth mentioning.
Ultimately, I would like OSC to be able to make his best points effectively to the people who might most benefit from them -- and in my opinion, using perjoratives like "shibboleth-watchers" makes this more difficult than it needs to be. For that matter, I think a lot of the frustration he feels about not being understood by his audience would evaporate if he engaged them on a different level, one not as sharply defined by "essays" and responses from the peanut gallery; it's my feeling that his arguments are better-understood (at least by Hatrackers) than he seems to realize.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are quite a number of people who call Scott in the familliar, and many more who understand the distinction between "familliar" with "intimate." But if it makes you more comfortable for me to call him OSC, I'll do so. I'm not a stranger to him, nor am I an intimate friend, but you are a stranger to me, and I'm not sure why you are dictating the terms of what you call OSC's living room. Who are you to challenge how I refer to OSC?
If things have become as bad as you say on Hattrack, and style has become equally important with substance, then I can understand OSC's disgust with those who have taken possession of his living room.
I have not accused anyone of specific political bias, and yet you are sticking those words into my mouth. Is this what passes for effective communication here?
Since I don't have followers or groupies, I don't worry about weakening others' loyalty with me. I don't intent to change minds, but I do think I can clear a few cobwebs that you have spun around yourselves:
You make up little rules about style and substance, and you might enforce them on each other and on me, like the pissing that Orem got in the cages in Hart's Hope. But OSC, as you call him, owns this site. OSC is not subject to the social rules and pecking order that you have constructed in his living room. Some of us would appreciate it if you would stop demanding that OSC bow to your little tin gods.
I happen to like OSC's style. I can think of a thousand things I'd love to discuss with him, online or in person, and all some of you can do is nitpick and fault-find.
I've had substantive arguments with OSC where we both got red in the face, and neither of us ever bitched about the other's style, or whined that our feelings were hurt.
These stylistic nitpics cause you to miss out on a lot of interesting discussions with OSC. You also squander the opportunity for the rest of us.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the "stylistic issue" (by which I mean a tendency to insult a broad audience for no obvious reason) strongly detracts from the points he's trying to make, and raises hackles where hackles do not need to be raised.
I agree, but so what? It's still an ancillary point, and your timing really stunk, Tom.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ultimately, I would like OSC to be able to make his best points effectively to the people who might most benefit from them -- and in my opinion, using perjoratives like "shibboleth-watchers" makes this more difficult than it needs to be. For that matter, I think a lot of the frustration he feels about not being understood by his audience would evaporate if he engaged them on a different level, one not as sharply defined by "essays" and responses from the peanut gallery; it's my feeling that his arguments are better-understood (at least by Hatrackers) than he seems to realize.
May I suggest how to better communicate this idea?
Next time, take the essay, remove parts you consider unnecessary and inflammatory, and repost it as your summary of what OSC said, on another thread. Try to start a substantive discussion based on that summary. If that turns out to be a great substantive discussion, then you've got real fuel for your argument that the phrases you dislike, cause all the ruckus, and you can make that point to him privately, linking to the discussion.
Of course, both of us might be wrong, and everybody might still jump in and shriek about style, in spite of your expurgation.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genghis, there is a fundamental difference between text, and in person communication. OSC himself acknowledges this, when he talks about how everyone creates a different story, their own unique story, in their minds, even though they are all reading the same book he wrote. He's admitted to being mystifed details people have insisted were in the book that only were in the stories in their heads.
This is why the pen is mightier than the sword.
The interaction in prose in forums happens at a different level of brain cognation than a normal water cooler conversation between people at work.
If I was talking to a grammar nut, and wanted to get under their skin, and provoke them, even if the topic had nothing directly to do with grammar, I'd use oh-so-subtle misusages on purpose. If I was talking to a grammar nut, and wanted them to listen to me and respect what I said, I'd deliberately keep my grammar squeaky clean, and even use a grammatically correct but perhaps slightly more awkward construction, simply because they'd appreciate it.
It's not flattery. It's talking in the way your intended audience is most likely to understand you, in order to get your desired result.
I tutored chemistry for five years. If someone wasn't getting the concept I intended to convey, I *always* assumed the fault was mine, for not finding the correct method of conveying the information for that person. Should I have written them off as learning disabled, because they couldn't understand me? Or should I have used every means at my disposal in order to narrow the commnication gap and increase comprehension?
posted
I just want to add that this is not an issue with which I'm unfamiliar. Fairly recently, I seriously upset Mr. Card by starting a thread on the IGMS -- I'm a subscriber, and love the content -- that expressed my concern about what I considered, very close to its official start date, a worrisomely unprofessional site design. I rather flippantly referred to it, tongue slightly in cheek, as "just shy of eye-crushingly ugly."
In retrospect, it's easy to see why he took offense. And had I approached the issue in any number of other ways, I believe it might have been possible to engage him in a useful discussion on site design; because my approach was so poorly chosen, however, I alienated him and eliminated that possibility. Even an apology doesn't negate the fact that I carelessly, callously, and thoughtlessly insulted his "child," something he'd invested a lot of time and work into preparing. The fact that we both would like to see the site prosper was lost, dismissed as ludicrous; clearly, anyone so hostile had to be an enemy and opposed to his goals or motivated by uncharitable impulse.
So tone is very, very important. In persuasive essays, in Op-Ed pieces, it's practically all you have. And when Card dismisses the life's work of an environmentalist with an accusation of groupthink, or a long-term same-sex relationship with a tossed-off reference to "playing house," he closes doors that might otherwise have led him to interesting places. Clearly, his readers think, anyone so hostile has to be an enemy; they have to oppose your goals. To my mind, what gets lost in the shuffle is that both Card and that same-sex couple probably have surprisingly similar goals and intentions; that they disagree on specific points of policy does not mean that it's safe to assume that one has been misled into or is deliberately attempting to destroy everything the other holds dear.
The kind of language used in Card's essays -- and in some of his posts -- can force people into adversarial relationships with his opinions.
-------
quote:I've had substantive arguments with OSC where we both got red in the face, and neither of us ever bitched about the other's style, or whined that our feelings were hurt.
It's been some time -- and here I mean around five years -- since I've seen OSC engage in a substantive argument with anyone on this site. He just doesn't seem to want to do it much. The last time I saw him reply to someone in this vein was back in 2000, regarding Clinton's missile attacks on Afghanistan. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you; it's certainly not uncommon on authors' websites, which are more often blogs nowadays, anyway. His involvement with us has generally seemed to consist of light (often marvelously funny and insightful) banter sprinkled with the occasional precis. The reason you see only newbies post ill-considered, rambling diatribes about Card's political essays is that it becomes apparent over the course of a few months here that actual dialogue on those essays will not occur; most people who've been here for a while would be absolutely astonished to see Card reply to a specific refutation of a point made by one of his essays. And even calling attention to this is dangerous; the last time I (light-heartedly, even) expressed frustration about the fact that he appeared to completely ignore a point I'd made that seemed to render one of his assertions invalid, it apparently bothered him so much that he decided I was an obsessed fan determined to stoop to lower and lower levels to provoke his attention and reaction.
There's a thick line walked on this forum all the time between people who know the Card family well, people who've run into them occasionally, people who correspond with them over email, etc. And then you have people who know Card only as their favorite author, or that guy who wrote this great (or infuriating) essay they saw linked from Slashdot. In this environment, it would be somewhat unrealistic to assume that Card would necessarily be able -- or want -- to maintain the kind of relationship that would make possible civil but red-faced arguments with every poster here.
So I'm sure we are missing out on a lot of interesting discussions. I don't disagree. But I reserve judgement as to whose choice that has been, or even how practical it would be to expect otherwise.
--------
quote: Next time, take the essay, remove parts you consider unnecessary and inflammatory, and repost it as your summary of what OSC said, on another thread.
This is an interesting suggestion. I think it's worth noting, though, that we've had similar discussions on here -- albeit none that have in essence copied and edited Mr. Card's work for tone without attribution. (I'm not sure, honestly, how he'd react to that attempt.) It's certainly the case that most of Card's most intriguing -- and provoking -- essays wind up producing multiple threads here, many of which generate civil and in-depth discussion of the issues involved. Others start out like Pelegius' did. But it's ALSO the case that, in almost all of those threads, even the people who universally support Card's positions find it difficult to support his word choice at times -- and once the word choice issue is conceded, the discussion tends to become rapidly more civil. (In other words, I think your experiment has in some ways ALREADY been performed.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the years I have been here, I have consistently observed that OSC won't post, unless there *is* an inflammatory barb somewhere that catches his interest, even if it is negative interest. Remove all the inflammatory stuff and he doesn't pay attention.
So, if the desired result is actually *to* get OSC to respond an inflammatory barb is quite handy. For example. I wrote a very mild mannered post, with gentle concerns about Enderverse timeline, in a thread where he had previously posted in hopes he'd see it. I waited a month-ish, and went to a signing where I hoped to have my fears assuaged.
Instead, I found out he didn't know how glaring his own timeline holes were. So I wrote a thread, pretty much tearing him a new one over his timeline inconsistencies. I felt bad about it at the time even though the facts backed me up, and I quoted page numbers etc. Guess which one got responded to?
posted
Unfortunately, it really does matter how you say it, as well as what you say. It is the nature of all people, I believe, that when they read something which contains negative comments, that they will focus on the negative and ignore everything else, no matter how reasoned the rest may be.
quote:Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Alas, it's this kind of comment that makes me less willing to jump in and defend OSC from posters like Pelegius. In many respects, I'm one of those who agree with Card. We are both active and experienced members of the same religion, and I cannot understate the influence that the beliefs of the LDS religion have upon it's members. I think he makes many good points, and I enjoy the way that he lays out his support for his views. But when I say this, am I being lumped in as some sort of mindless yes-man? Do I get looked at as if I am clueless as to what Card said?
I doubt that Card meant to come across that way. Most importantly, I think that this could have been phrased much better, so that this wouldn't detract from his real point.
I remember Geoff Card posted that Card and his family deal with a tremendous amount of abuse, and most of it is behind the scenes, where we never see it.
I believe it. From what I've seen on this forum, he's taken quite a bit of abuse. I can only imagine how much nasty unfan (e)mail gets sent, etc...
But I didn't do it. And I didn't deserve this. Neither did many other people that seem to have been lumped in under this description.
And again, I don't think that Card meant to come across that way. Now, perhaps it will be taken as if I'm trying to read his mind and assign motives to him when I have no idea. But I say that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps my comments will be taken as a personal attack, or a contemptous comment, or a pretended understanding. If so, then at least understand that I don't mean it that way.
I percieve that there is anger and frustration in these posts. I know that there is a reason for it, and if our places were switched, I think that I would likely be angry and frustrated as well. But it doesn't help. All it does is detract from the message.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj, I'm not sure how the difference between text and in person communication, remotely relates to what OSC said about construction of stories. We all construct our living experiences differently, just as we construct our textual readings. God himself is probably mystified at the meaning that certain people ascribe to their real life experiences, and Card is probably baffled at the rules you impose in his living room.
The pen is mightier than the sword for some purposes, and the sword is mightier for other purposes, as you will discover if you ever draw a bic on me and challenge me to a swordfight.
quote: I tutored chemistry for five years. If someone wasn't getting the concept I intended to convey, I *always* assumed the fault was mine, for not finding the correct method of conveying the information for that person. Should I have written them off as learning disabled, because they couldn't understand me? Or should I have used every means at my disposal in order to narrow the commnication gap and increase comprehension?
That's marvelous. I wish I'd had you instead of my organic Chem TA. But consider this: if I had started my response to your post, by pointing out that you'd mispelled my screen name, that would have been pissy. It is a little pissy for me to mention it even now, even though I'm only doing it to point out how pissy it is to do so. If you blamed yourself for me not getting your point because you had misspelled my screen name, you would be putting yourself through unnecessary hearteache.
Consider this as well: This wasn't a case of Tom not getting the concept that OSC meant to convey. Tom understood, but responded with a stylistic critique.
One last thing to consider: This isn't the first time that some of you have lectured OSC about his style in his own living room, rather than replying to the substance of what he said. By your own principles, perhaps you should look for alternate means of communicating your point, such as the one I suggested above to Tom.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it is bad timing to get on Card about stylistic issues. But when is a good time? And if we wait until everything's cooled down, then it's going to look like we're just digging up old bones better left buried. Better to strike the iron while it's hot.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also mention that critiquing Card's stylistic issues is not a personal attack. We're not calling him any names or labeling him, we're just suggesting that he's being less effective.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This wasn't a case of Tom not getting the concept that OSC meant to convey. Tom understood, but responded with a stylistic critique.
This is because I perceived the larger issue not to be a question of how it was possible for someone to hold Card's opinions -- because, after all, Card's quite capable of holding his own opinions -- but rather why people didn't know how it was possible for Card to hold the opinions they assume he holds. And my conclusion there is that, by and large, they attribute to him opinions -- and especially motives -- he does not have, based on his adversarial tone. They misunderstand what he intends to say and do not give his logic the benefit of the doubt, perhaps because he doesn't appear in his essays to respect their own life experiences or conclusions. And I wouldn't've even mentioned that -- would have left it, in fact, with my original defense of his logic and good intentions -- had he not posted a response that contained exactly the sort of thinly-veiled attack I believe produces threads like this one.
So my observation was not, as far as I can tell, even slightly off-topic. It was not a left-field digression.
quote: The pen is mightier than the sword for some purposes, and the sword is mightier for other purposes, as you will discover if you ever draw a bic on me and challenge me to a swordfight.
Perhaps the problem is that not everyone realizes that ALL the "fights" on here are conducted with pens.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I also thought I might have had a bit of credibility with OSC as far as considering the initial gentle post about timeline discrepancies, as he chose me to be a proofreader for Crystal City and I am included in the book credits. Turns out he didn't remember me. Which is ok, he can't remember everyone nor should he have to. However, it's also why I'd never presume to address him in the familiar.
I don't know, if we all started calling him Scott then every newbie that came along would call him that. The rest of his own site generally referst o him as OSC. As a more personal friend do you think everyone calling him Scott would bother him? His own and generally his wife call him OSC, when referring to him on this forum. It seems to me he probably needs both the distance and respect because of all the nutcases out there.
For that matter, what if I am one of the nutcases? Would you want me calling him Scott?
posted
For my part, I used to call him Scott because a) I was aware that this was the name he generally used in casual conversation; b) it was how he'd signed a few emails to me, back in the day, and he'd never expressed any displeasure when I addressed him by that name in my replies; c) it was how his wife referred to him. But when Geoff -- who even calls him "Card" here -- mentioned how much it creeped him out to see people call his dad "Scott" on Hatrack, I stopped. Actually, I think OSC's one of only two people on this board for whom I do this; I tend to use people's names when possible, unless specifically asked otherwise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
and made a few snarky remarks about spelling bees and Outer Mongolia.
And if you had your wits about you to be snarky back in return... (which can be fun if done in good humor:)) no, BannaOj is not a mispelling of fruit, it is a convolution of my actual name.
posted
It's my secret hope that Genghis Cohen is actually Terry Pratchett. I like the idea of Pratchett and Card hanging out and yelling at each other about their very different politics. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure how the difference between text and in person communication, remotely relates to what OSC said about construction of stories.
Um... stories are READ. Communication in prose is READ. Reading a sentence is reading a sentence. It's the same basic cognation process in the brain, and therefore subject to the same sort of interpretation problems between different people's brains. All things considering, it's pretty amazing that any human communication on remotely the same wavelength takes place at all, considering how abstract the silent reading process is.
quote:Originally posted by tern: I should also mention that critiquing Card's stylistic issues is not a personal attack.
It's a bore, that's what it is.
I've already said that I don't think Tom intended a personal attack. Tom was just playing with your house rule that places substance and style on equal levels.
Substance is far more important than style in some situations; in others, style is more important than substance. The only situation I can think of where they are exactly equal in importance, is when you are writing a postmodern essay.
If you were in grammar school, and your grade school teacher was reading you about the wild exploits of Dick, Jane, and Spot, and you lurched into a substantive critique of Dick's choice of activities for the day, I think your teacher would scowl at you. You have injected unnecessary substance into a discussion that focuses on style.
Here, OSC took the trouble to write what I thought was an insightful and compelling essay, and rather than responding substantively, or waiting for someone else to do so, you changed to a discussion about style.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's my secret hope that Genghis Cohen is actually Terry Pratchett. I like the idea of Pratchett and Card hanging out and yelling at each other about their very different politics.
I'm not a VIP, Tom; I've never sold a book. You know me by the name "Pete at Home." Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's a travesty, but I have never read a novel by Terry Pratchett. Maybe when I get another library card, but I've been avoiding getting a library card, because if either Steve or I have one, we'd spend way too much time there, and never get anything fixed up on our fixer-upper. It would be raining buckets through the roof, and we'd ductape a waterproof tarp over our bed with a spout to direct it back out the window and keep on reading.
Steve's reading habit and our continuing accumulation of bookshelves is the only character trait of his that my mother has ever given her approval to, and even that was grudging. AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, Pete, I didn't interpret this thread that way. Here's a tongue-in-cheek summary:
Someone posts "How is it possible that I agree with Card on so many issues, when he relies on some silly religion to reach his conclusions?"
People reply along the lines of "Religion isn't silly, and Card uses more than his religion to reach his conclusions."
Card replies, posting "I do a lot of reading and research to reach my conclusions, and believe that religion and logic not only coexist but must coexist as they approach Truth. Oh, and incidentally, I can't stand all of you stupid people."
I reply "You know, that last part was unnecessary and more than a little inaccurate."
Discussion occurs.
You post "I know OSC personally, and he really enjoys a lively argument. I don't see why you should mind being called stupid, or think it's appropriate to complain about it when he does it."
---------
I know this is an oversimplification, but I think I've hit the high points. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If OSC wants to be called OSC on Hatrack, then of course I'll defer to his wishes. Thanks Tom for letting me know that.
Regarding your vicious cycle ... don't you realize that you can't control what he does, but only what you do? If you keep doing what you are doing, why do you expect to get anything other than what you're getting?
I'm sorry that you've reverted to distortion, Tom. I didn't say that your complaint was innapropriate. What I actually said is that your timing, style, and delivery sucks. Once again, Tom writes a polite, thoughtful, and accurate complaint, and then tosses it through someone living room window, tied to a rock, and cries "why does this always happen to poor me" when someone critiques his delivery.
BO, do you don't understand what I mean by track-switching? Sigh. OK. Have it your way:
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 279,000 for ghengis. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for gengis.
That suggests that Gengis 1.76% more common of a spelling than Ghengis. You want to make an issue of how I chose to spell my sig, or can we move on? Have we genuflected enough times to the tin god of style, and can we move on now?
quote: Google Results 1 - 10 of about 279,000 for ghengis. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for gengis.
That suggests that Gengis 1.76% more common of a spelling than Ghengis. You want to make an issue of how I chose to spell my sig, or can we move on? Have we genuflected enough times to the tin god of style, [Hail] and can we move on now?
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 2,010,000 for genghis. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back in the day, Pete at Home was one of the reasons why I stopped reading Ornery. It was his tone, as much as what was said that made it a less pleasant online place for me to habitate.
I wish I didn't know who you were now, the previous negative opinion destroys my objectivity. However that was long ago and far away, and as I will attempt to consider Ghengis Cohen a separate Hatrack entity, to be as fair to you as I can be.
posted
I think that it's actually a misnomer to claim that we're critiquing Card's style as if we were disagreeing with how he uses grammar or the English language.
We're not. We're disagreeing with the unnecessary negative comments, which is more of a substantive issue. It is both style and substance.
Perhaps this might be taken as if we am misunderstanding and moving the discussion on a tangent that has nothing to do with OSC's real point. I think we are. But so what? The fact is that presentation matters. I find it very difficult to focus on the message when there are unnecessary negative comments in it. As I have said, one tends to focus on the negatives. Instead of thinking, is this how Card forms his beliefs, I end up thinking, is he referring to me when he talks about those who are on his side and don't have a rudimentary understanding?
I'm sorry, but it just wasn't needed. I'm not a fan of political correctness - at all - but it is still important to avoid comments that detract from the message.
I'd really like to know what Card thinks about our reaction to the negative comments in his precis.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are so many people taking some statements of OSC personally? For example this statement:
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
When I read this I didn't take this personally in the least. I don't agree with him on this particular topic of "the possible consequences of redefining marriage" at a gut level and he's also right that I don't even understand the rudimentary principles. Wouldn't anyone entering into a debate be frustrated if the opponents of the debate were not educated on the points of a particular topic? Why should this be an insult to me? I personally would be interested in knowing more about the principles he is talking about first. I understand that he has done a good deal of research and I would like to know what he has found and why he comes to the conclusions he does. He further explains that many people who agree with him are simply of the same mind but haven't really learned about the principles either and so their motives appear to be more or less just as unsubstantiated. So on both the pro and con sides of the issue he has said people are not really talking about the issues or learning even the rudimentary principles.
and
quote: (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that, I'm speaking of our embrace of divorce, of abortion at the woman's sole option, of extramarital mating, and many other experiments that have collectively weakened reproductive security and intergenerational cultural transmission)
He is expressing that there are a group of people who have a knee-jerk reaction to something he says. Again why is this an insult, and why would you take it personally unless you were a knee-jerk shibboleth watcher? And even if you were, are you really insulted? Doesn't this simply state that there are people who instantly reply to his statements and accuse him of having a particular motive or agenda? In fact I'm sure a group of people do exist which have a knee-jerk reaction to many statements he makes.
I would very much like to learn what things OSC has found regarding this issue, and see a real debate on the issues.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are so many people taking some statements of OSC personally?
Maybe because I'm really insecure? No, I don't think that his statements accurately describe me. But what I wonder is, does he see me that way?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ghengis Cohen, there are people who habitate here, who use spelling and grammar checkers on every post they right. I am not one of them. I rarely use my backspace key, and what you read from me is pretty much a direct stream of consciousness.
I have actually been complimented on my spelling and grammar errors by those same sorts of people. Because, even when I make errors, they generally do not detract from my actual points. In fact the errors are often plays on words that enhance my point. See "right" above. However all such mistakes (including that one) are entirely subconscious and not deliberate whatsoever at my end. And, my comma usage is always a bit sketchy, but they don't seem to mind too much.
Consider that perhaps the nitpicks might be as unnecessary as his sideswipes.
It seems hypocritical to vent about someone else's venting.
Tom might come back by pointing out that I'm venting about his venting about OSC's venting. The difference is, OSC had other significant things to say, and you ditched that whole aspect of his argument. I haven't pissed on any masterpieces here.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wouldn't anyone entering into a debate be frustrated if the opponents of the debate were not educated on the points of a particular topic? Why should this be an insult to me?
Because there ARE people who are educated on this topic who are being rhetorically lumped into that same category.
Consider this sample phrase, which I've exaggerated to make the rhetorical device more obvious:
"Now those of my opponents who disagree with me, those people who have failed to understand even the most elementary mathematics and are even as we speak scheming to tear down the fabric of society, will tell you that these numbers are wrong."
You can make the point that perhaps some of the people who disagree with the author are bad at math and are seeking to destroy society. But the implication here is that all people who disagree with the author fit this category. It's up there with "how long have you been beating your wife," in that it practically forces someone to address and deny the rhetorical device before anyone can continue, instantly putting the target on the defensive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good heavens, BO, you missed my whole point! Will you stop talking about spelling already? I only brought it up as an ILLUSTRATION of how annoying and pissy it is to switch tracks on a discussion, from substance to rhetorical style, from rhetorical style to spelling, or whatever. It's pissy and breaks up the discussion. Your spelling is just fine, man. Don't sweat it.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. I also recognize in myself all the natural human tendencies - to look with favor on new ideas that seem to buttress ideas I already hold; to be especially skeptical of ideas that seem to challenge cherished beliefs; to have a harder time listening to those who are attacking instead of discussing rationally; and so on.
I saw this confession of shortcomings as Card showing that he knows his weaknesses, acknowledges them and includes this knowledge when he tests his own beliefs. In other portions of the essay, he explains that his beliefs are built on research and experience, though, at times, he will draw a conclusion with less that perfect understanding.
I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
My difficulty with finding offense in this very thoughful essay, is that Card was asked the question, "Who are you? Why can you both enlighten me and enrage me?"
He answered. He put himself out there. Her gave an explanation and he gave some emotion.
And some of the people here made it all about themselves. I don't get it.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pete, I think your use of the term "rhetorical style" is a bit vague when what we're actually talking about is veiled insults and broad ad hominems applied to entire sections of the population. If you concede that these are indeed problematic, and your only observation is that it's perhaps inappropriate for me to be bringing it up at this time, I'm afraid I have to ask whenyou -- as a friend who's happily argued with OSC until you were both red in the face -- were planning to have that talk with him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
No. It's quite specifically directed at "anyone here." I don't know if you consider yourself "here" or not, but you're otherwise clearly included in that list.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The explanation's the same, though, IMO.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
and can we move on now?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
