René, I object to 1) your allowing a discussion begun on Lambengolmor to be imported onto Elfling, which I understand is a violation of Netiquette, and wouldOct 1, 2005 1 of 4View SourceRené,
I object to 1) your allowing a discussion begun on Lambengolmor to be
imported onto Elfling, which I understand is a violation of
Netiquette, and would be even if Pat and I COULD respond to Helge's
charges. (I note that Helge is free to respond to whatever topics Pat
or I bring up on Lambenglomor on the Lamb. list, since unlike David
Salo and the rest of you fine Elfling folks we don't silence people
who happen to disagree with us.) And I object to 2) the fact that you
allow Helge to continue to make snide remarks and characterizations
of what I and Pat have said elsewhere, in a forum in which we are
prohibited by you and David Salo from correcting his lies and
rhetorical sleight of hands.
I further object to 3) your allowing Helge to insinuate that there is
no difference in kind between Pat's laying out all the evidence
pertaining to a set of apparently homophonous forms and _suggesting_
that a later may have replaced an earlier form; and Helge's
_asserting_ that one form "certainly obsoletes" another while
_suppressing_ the evidence _against_ that assertion. And contrary to
what Helge says, that _does_ constitute the formation of a canon of
forms, whether anyone has previously called it that or not. Just as a
lie is a lie before it is ever called a lie, and even if it is never
called a lie.
Shame on you.
Carl F. Hostetter
... Why? Truth is truth no matter who responds in defense of it. And those of us who care about truth -- which pronoun alas you continue to make exclusive inOct 2, 2005 1 of 4View SourceOn Oct 2, 2005, at 12:53 AM, René Vega wrote:
> I found it odd that you were the one to object to Helge's (orWhy? Truth is truth no matter who responds in defense of it. And
> anyone else's) critique of something Pat wrote. ... That you would
> respond for him is peculiar - taking on his pain?
those of us who care about truth -- which pronoun alas you continue
to make exclusive in this context -- can and should defend it
wherever we see it coming under attack, regardless of to whom that
attack is nominally directed.
_I_ find it odd that you continue to address people and personalities
in all this -- you know, the very _opposite_ of what a true moderator
is supposed to do -- instead of addressing any of the points I have
raised in my posts highlighting the unfairness of your/Elfling's
> Do recall I chose to let your posts through albeit briefly. And,And yet again YOU conveniently and immoderately fail to "recall" to
> please recall it was you who closed that window ahead of time by
> sending a number improper posts to elfling.
_what_ those posts were a response, and WHO let those provocations on
the list in the first place. AGAIN, you are seeing this only in terms
of WHO is involved, not of WHAT is being said; AGAIN you exercise and
display _essential_ unfairness in your "moderation" by ignoring and
clearing provocations and then reacting to and censoring RESPONSES to
those provocations, and by failing to address in ANY manner the FACTs
of those provocations and the responses to them, but focus only on
people and personalities.
Thus, for example, ONCE AGAIN you have not made ANY response to the
three points I listed in my post, preferring instead to ignore them
in favor of your own focus on ME, on sniffing about what you find
"odd", and various other _ad hominem_ attacks, instead of on what I
actually _objected_ to and _why_.
> Carl, you amaze me by your ability to destroy any attempt atClearly, you are NOT willing to help, since you continue to approve
> normalization, and I am amazed that you would trash me considering
> I was quite willing to help that process along.
Helge's provocations while ignoring any points of fact or objection
raised in response to them. How on earth you think that constitutes
"help" of any process but perpetuation is beyond me.
> At this point I consider you nothing but a trouble maker; I give upRight back at you (see above and below); except that I won't stop
> on you.
highlighting your bias and illogic, or stop defending the truth
against assault by you, Helge, David Salo, etc.
> BTW, since I am receiving complaints from Helge on the matter ofAh, so complaints about being moderated from an agent provocateur
> his moderation, I take that as a sign of balanced moderation.
whose posts you nonetheless clear for the list, are just the same in
kind as specific objections to violations of netiquette that YOU
permitted to be made, and to censorship of response to charges about
other people that YOU clear to a list that you are party to
preventing participation in? (Objections to which I note you have
made not ONE response to?) And from this you take away only
encouragement in your job performance. Amazing.
... P.S. Considering the nature of the trouble I make for you, Helge, etc., I consider this a compliment. And considering to whom and on account of what I amOct 2, 2005 1 of 4View SourceOn Oct 2, 2005, at 12:53 AM, René Vega wrote:
> At this point I consider you nothing but a trouble maker;P.S. Considering the nature of the "trouble" I make for you, Helge,
etc., I consider this a compliment. And considering to whom and on
account of what I am "troubling" -- facts and truth always being
"troubling" to political, anti-scholarly fiction-makers like
yourselves -- I should be very happy indeed to be "nothing but" a
... I most certainly did not. I quoted selectively _from_ your (_single_, btw) e-mail to me, namely those parts pertaining to a matter made public on ElflingOct 2, 2005 1 of 4View SourceOn Oct 2, 2005, at 12:57 PM, René Vega wrote:
> Why Carl, you really bad, bad boy! You took several of my privateI most certainly did not. I quoted selectively _from_ your (_single_,
> emails to you and published them on elfling-d,
btw) e-mail to me, namely those parts pertaining to a matter made
public on Elfling by you, for the purposes of illustration and debate
in that matter, and for purposes of conveying your evasion
(continuing even now) of the objections raised in the open letter I
addressed to you on this list, which occasioned your e-mail; to which
I added considerable amounts of my own commentary in response to your
points and claims. All of which is amply covered under Fair Use.
(And all of which is considerably "shy" of the "standard" of "ethics"
set by the original founder of elfling-d, Dorothea Salo, who
announced the formation of this list with these words <http://
"Be aware that a separate list, elfling-d, serves as a public record
of insulting or abusive comments to Elfling’s moderation team. Any
such comment sent to the elfling-owner address or any of the private
addresses of the moderation team is subject to posting to elfling-d,
where it will be world-readable.")
> Again, I ask you to reflect on the damage your continued tirade isIt's not doing the slightest bit of "damage" to me, nor would I care
> doing to you,
if it were so long as it gets the truth of the matter aired.