Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [elfling-d] Banned from yet another site

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    Yes indeed, and once again it was for defending myself against false charges, and for standing up for the scholarly method. I m happy to do it. --
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes indeed, and once again it was for defending myself against false
      charges, and for standing up for the scholarly method. I'm happy to do
      it.


      --
      =============================================
      Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

      ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
      Ars longa, vita brevis.
      The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
      "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
      a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
    • Aaron Shaw
      ... Sorry to hear that Carl! Their loss. People are so worried about being politically correct and seeing all views that they fail to see that some views do
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>

        Sorry to hear that Carl! Their loss.

        People are so worried about being politically correct and "seeing all
        views" that they fail to see that some views do not hold much water.

        Aaron
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        Thanks, Aaron, for seeing the truth of the matter. My only regret is that I did indeed make a mistake in interpreting one of the moderator s remarks.
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Aaron, for seeing the truth of the matter.

          My only regret is that I did indeed make a mistake in interpreting one
          of the "moderator's" remarks. Happily, Thorsten Renk agreed to forward
          my apology for that to the forum. Otherwise, I'd do it all again in a
          heartbeat in the same circumstances. And, alas, will no doubt have
          occasion to do so, given the widespread misconceptions out there.

          As with David Salo and Elfling, being censored by such a one, for such
          a thing, is nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary.


          On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:26 AM, Aaron Shaw wrote:

          > --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
          >
          > Sorry to hear that Carl! Their loss.
          >
          > People are so worried about being politically correct and "seeing all
          > views" that they fail to see that some views do not hold much water.
          >
          > Aaron




          |======================================================================|
          | Carl F. Hostetter http://homeage.mac.com/carlhostetter |
          | |
          | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
          | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
          | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
          | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
          | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
          |======================================================================|


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kenneth Chaij
          Carl, I ve tried to get to the specific forum and comments but haven t been able. Do you have or know of a usable link?
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Carl,

            I've tried to get to the specific forum and comments but haven't been able.
            Do you have or know of a usable link?



            >From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...>
            >Reply-To: elfling-d@yahoogroups.com
            >To: elfling-d@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [elfling-d] Re: Banned from yet another site
            >Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:56:26 -0500
            >
            >Thanks, Aaron, for seeing the truth of the matter.
            >
            >My only regret is that I did indeed make a mistake in interpreting one
            >of the "moderator's" remarks. Happily, Thorsten Renk agreed to forward
            >my apology for that to the forum. Otherwise, I'd do it all again in a
            >heartbeat in the same circumstances. And, alas, will no doubt have
            >occasion to do so, given the widespread misconceptions out there.
            >
            >As with David Salo and Elfling, being censored by such a one, for such
            >a thing, is nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary.
            >
            >
            >On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:26 AM, Aaron Shaw wrote:
            >
            > > --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
            > >
            > > Sorry to hear that Carl! Their loss.
            > >
            > > People are so worried about being politically correct and "seeing all
            > > views" that they fail to see that some views do not hold much water.
            > >
            > > Aaron
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >|======================================================================|
            >| Carl F. Hostetter http://homeage.mac.com/carlhostetter |
            >| |
            >| ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
            >| Ars longa, vita brevis. |
            >| The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
            >| "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
            >| such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
            >|======================================================================|
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            Try: (If the URL ends up split across multiple lines, and
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Try:

              <http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?
              ForumID=42&TopicID=162889&PagePosition=1>

              (If the URL ends up split across multiple lines, and if clicking on the
              result doesn't take you to the thread, then copy and paste the parts
              together into your browser's address bar.)

              If we're going to discuss this, then let me note that my involvement in
              this thread began when the so-called "moderator", "Protoguy", saw fit
              to drag me into it with this little attack:

              "I seem to recall reading that the ’expert’, Mr Hostetter had been
              asked to leave certain sites over arguments about who’s right. How is
              his vehemently proclaiming his theory correct all that much different
              than proclaiming who knows more and therefore who’s the ’expert’?"

              Never mind that I had not posted in the thread. And, of course, never
              mind that this statement is flatly and multiply false.

              Seeing this, I replied that this was both false and uncalled for, and I
              also took issue with such statements by "Protoguy" as:

              "aside from what you’ve told me and what I’ve read here, I have no way
              of knowing whether you or any other person here is an ’expert’"

              "I’ve seen and read enough arguments over language and who has the
              right information or the right to dictate what is the right information
              to know that a bunch of codwhollop. Isn’t that what this whole thing is
              all about? Who has the ability and right to be the "correct" source and
              guide?"

              "there are two groups there as well. "Experts" and those who merely
              call themselves "Experts". We are not going to involve ourselves in
              deciding who is and who isn’t regardless of how often you post or how
              much information you hold. I don’t care if you are or you aren’t -
              that’s so far beside the point - we aren’t going to pick and choose who
              is and who isn’t."

              All of which, to my mind, is tantamount to deciding that there is no
              way to determine the truth or falsehood of any given claim about
              Tolkien's languages, or any way to distinguish between Tolkien's
              languages on the one hand and "Grelvish" on the other, or between fact
              and theory/assertion. Whereas my position is that there is indeed such
              a means: reference to Tolkien's own writings.

              For daring to say so, I was branded a "purist" by one participant, and
              the "moderator" saw fit to characterize me as thereby displaying a
              "tenacious need to enforce your will upon every other member of this
              forum by maintaining that we are somehow ’wrong’ for wishing to discuss
              something you do not agree with" -- which anyone who cares to read the
              discussion can readily see is not supported or reflected _anywhere_ in
              my actual words, but instead derives from a mental caricature wholly
              the invention of "Protoguy's" imagination, which for some reason he
              clearly preferred to debate.

              Sound familiar?



              On Dec 15, 2004, at 3:58 PM, Kenneth Chaij wrote:


              > I've tried to get to the specific forum and comments but haven't been
              > able.
              > Do you have or know of a usable link?
              >
            • finsen@optusnet.com.au
              but instead derives from a mental caricature wholly the invention of Protoguy s imagination, which for some reason he clearly preferred to debate. Sound
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                but instead derives from a mental caricature wholly
                the invention of "Protoguy's" imagination, which for some reason he
                clearly preferred to debate.

                Sound familiar?
                ---------------------------------

                Sure does sound familiar. Sounds familiar in the sense that one _common_ person
                seems to receive similar attention in what: Tolklang, Elfling, Elfscript, CouncilOfElrond
                and now LotrPlaza, not to mention the various rec.books....

                Obviously it is a cleverly constructed conspiracy between David, Helge and **Lisa
                because surely, just surely all those _different_ people out there, on those different
                boards, could possibly, maybe, be correct in their assumptions or attitudes?

                Nah, of course its a conspiracy....only possible explanation :-)

                caio
                Graeme
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... I said nothing about a conspiracy . What there is, however, is a widespread misconception that what David and Helge have to say about Tolkien s languages
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Dec 15, 2004, at 4:59 PM, finsen@... wrote:


                  > but instead derives from a mental caricature wholly the invention of
                  > "Protoguy's" imagination, which for some reason he
                  > clearly preferred to debate.
                  >
                  > Sound familiar?
                  > ---------------------------------
                  >
                  > Sure does sound familiar. Sounds familiar in the sense that one
                  > _common_ person
                  > seems to receive similar attention in what: Tolklang, Elfling,
                  > Elfscript, CouncilOfElrond
                  > and now LotrPlaza, not to mention the various rec.books....
                  >
                  > Obviously it is a cleverly constructed conspiracy between David, Helge
                  > and **Lisa
                  > because surely, just surely all those _different_ people out there, on
                  > those different
                  > boards, could possibly, maybe, be correct in their assumptions or
                  > attitudes?
                  >
                  > Nah, of course its a conspiracy....only possible explanation :-)

                  I said nothing about a "conspiracy". What there is, however, is a
                  widespread misconception that what David and Helge have to say about
                  Tolkien's languages is a "theory" that is just as good as any other
                  "theory"; coupled with a belief that anyone who argues for citation of
                  evidence from Tolkien's own writings, rather than simply relying on the
                  "authority" of David and Helge, as the basis for deciding what is or is
                  not authentic Elvish -- i.e., for deciding what the actual evidence for
                  Elvish is -- is a "purist" who thinks it's wrong for anyone to try to
                  compose in Elvish (despite having done so myself and repeated explicit
                  disavowals of any such attitude -- but facts obviously have no impact
                  on such minds as those -- or yours).

                  So yes, the fact that I seem to be the only one willing to go to the
                  mat on these matters in so many forums is obviously _not_ an
                  insignificant fact. Your attitude is rather like deciding that homicide
                  detectives cause murders, because they're present at so many murder
                  scenes.
                • finsen@optusnet.com.au
                  What there is, however, is a widespread misconception that what David and Helge have to say about Tolkien s languages is a theory that is just as good as any
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What there is, however, is a
                    widespread misconception that what David and Helge have to say about
                    Tolkien's languages is a "theory" that is just as good as any other
                    "theory"; coupled with a belief that anyone who argues for citation of
                    evidence from Tolkien's own writings, rather than simply relying on the
                    "authority" of David and Helge

                    ---------------------------
                    So there _is_ a conspiracy organised by David and Helge. Whew, glad to have
                    cleared that up.

                    ---------------------------


                    So yes, the fact that I seem to be the only one willing to go to the
                    mat on these matters in so many forums is obviously _not_ an
                    insignificant fact. Your attitude is rather like deciding that homicide
                    detectives cause murders, because they're present at so many murder
                    scenes.


                    ---------------------------
                    I like how you consistently make (false) assumptions about peoples attitudes :-)
                    Maybe if you weren't quite so willing to do that, maybe Peeg wouldn't banned you. O
                    well, no great loss. Keep tilting at those windmills, they need it...

                    But forging on with one of your famous non sequiturs (actually I am surprised that you
                    didn't include more latin and _overuse_ _of_ _underscores_ in the above), maybe you
                    should be saying:
                    "Your attitude is rather like deciding that an arsonist cause fires, because they're
                    present at so many arson attacks".
                    or
                    "Your attitude is rather like deciding that an serial killer cause murders, because
                    they're present at so many murder scenes".

                    For a computer scientist, your grasp of cause and effect is rather poor. I hope that
                    you weren't involved in the Shuttle programme.

                    caio
                    Graeme
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:28 PM, finsen@optusnet.com.au wrote: ... Thus Graeme yet again provides a clear example of the deductive powers and absurd conclusions of
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:28 PM, finsen@... wrote:


                      I wrote:

                      > What there is, however, is a widespread misconception that what David
                      > and Helge have to say about Tolkien's languages is a "theory" that is
                      > just as good as any other "theory"; coupled with a belief that anyone
                      > who argues for citation of evidence from Tolkien's own writings,
                      > rather than simply relying on the "authority" of David and Helge
                      >
                      > ---------------------------
                      > So there _is_ a conspiracy organised by David and Helge. Whew, glad
                      > to have cleared that up.


                      Thus Graeme yet again provides a clear example of the deductive powers
                      and absurd conclusions of someone unwilling to engage a debate on its
                      own terms, and to give any consideration at all to what their
                      correspondent actually writes, but instead uses every statement only as
                      an invitation to repeat their talking points.
                    • finsen@optusnet.com.au
                      but instead uses every statement only as an invitation to repeat their talking points. ... Hey, you said it, and you _still_ don t understand why you get
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "but instead uses every statement only as an invitation to repeat their talking points."

                        -----------------------------
                        Hey, you said it, and you _still_ don't understand why you get banned?

                        caio
                        Graeme
                      • Aaron Shaw
                        ... attitudes :-) ... wouldn t banned you. O ... surprised that you ... above), maybe you ... because they re ... murders, because ... Graeme I have nothing
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I like how you consistently make (false) assumptions about peoples
                          attitudes :-)
                          > Maybe if you weren't quite so willing to do that, maybe Peeg
                          wouldn't banned you. O
                          > well, no great loss. Keep tilting at those windmills, they need it...
                          >
                          > But forging on with one of your famous non sequiturs (actually I am
                          surprised that you
                          > didn't include more latin and _overuse_ _of_ _underscores_ in the
                          above), maybe you
                          > should be saying:
                          > "Your attitude is rather like deciding that an arsonist cause fires,
                          because they're
                          > present at so many arson attacks".
                          > or
                          > "Your attitude is rather like deciding that an serial killer cause
                          murders, because
                          > they're present at so many murder scenes".

                          Graeme I have nothing against you personally but I do heartily
                          disagree. If a man causes fires in support of the truth is he guilty
                          of a crime?

                          Honestly, though, I think the problem lies with those who run these
                          sites more than anywhere else. Carl certainly doesn't hesitate to
                          correct those who make comments about him without knowing him or the
                          situations surrounding the rumors that fly around the web. That's more
                          than fair.

                          Second, do you honestly support what this mod was arguing for deep
                          down inside or are you arguing for its own sake? Clearly Carl's
                          opinion that in referencing Tolkien we can get a more accurate and
                          possibly correct (situation dependent of course) analysis has more
                          than just basic merit for those "purists." Does this mean that
                          everyone has to be involved with the theoretical analysis of language?
                          No, not really. If people want to compose then they are free to. No
                          one has any problem with that. The problem arises when, on TOLKIEN
                          websites, people actively support ideas which can be rendered obsolete
                          by reference to Tolkien's text or deductive reasoning. There is no
                          harm in bringing these situations to light. Clearly one cannot claim
                          to be correct with a _theory_ but that should not stop us from
                          striving for the stars. In composition assumptions will have to be
                          made. That is fine so long as the person composing _understands_ that
                          there are multiple opinions on any given topic and can explain the
                          reason for their choice. Tolkien's languages aren't something that
                          can be used by just any person - regardless of how politically correct
                          it may seem to be to claim so. We CAN'T use the language(s) without
                          assumptions so an introduction to theory is absolutely imperative for
                          anyone who wants to learn these languages. It's not French and it
                          never will be so we can't treat it as such.

                          Claiming to support Grelvish because it is remotely based on Tolkiens
                          work doesn't do anything for those who visit the site. People want to
                          learn _elvish_ which in this case is what *Tolkien* came up with. If
                          they want to learn "grelvish" there are other places to do so or at
                          the very least the distinction should be made IMPLICITLY clear.
                          People have an odd tendency to overlook obvious things. Best to just
                          can the grelvish idea IMO.

                          Aaron

                          >
                          > For a computer scientist, your grasp of cause and effect is rather
                          poor. I hope that
                          > you weren't involved in the Shuttle programme.
                          >
                          > caio
                          > Graeme
                        • iavasj
                          ... I have to whole heartedly agree with this statement having seen it first hand. Not all posts are written with an attitude, but far too many are read with
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Shaw" <AaronShaw@m...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > Honestly, though, I think the problem lies with those who run these
                            > sites more than anywhere else.

                            I have to whole heartedly agree with this statement having seen it
                            first hand. Not all posts are written with an attitude, but far too
                            many are read with one.

                            > The problem arises when, on TOLKIEN
                            > websites, people actively support ideas which can be rendered
                            obsolete
                            > by reference to Tolkien's text or deductive reasoning. There is no
                            > harm in bringing these situations to light.

                            However, there are quite a number of places where they would much
                            rather these situations not be brought to light and will actively
                            silence those who make an attempt to do so.

                            > We CAN'T use the language(s) without
                            > assumptions so an introduction to theory is absolutely imperative
                            for
                            > anyone who wants to learn these languages.

                            Absolutely. The technical and theoretical aspects of the languages
                            should not be (indeed, cannot be) separated from the study of them.
                            New comers should not be sheilded from the discussions simply out of
                            a desire to avoid confusing them. True, they may feel overwhelmed and
                            confused at first, but those who are truly interested will learn and
                            get passed it. Even if their only desire is to compose poetry, they
                            still should understand where Tolkien left off and assumption and
                            theory pick up.

                            Tracy
                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                            ... This is it exactly. I don t know where people ever got the idea that learning a language -- or, in the case of Elvish, and other poorly-attested dead
                            Message 13 of 16 , Dec 16, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:51 PM, iavasj wrote:

                              > Absolutely. The technical and theoretical aspects of the languages
                              > should not be (indeed, cannot be) separated from the study of them.

                              This is it exactly. I don't know where people ever got the idea that
                              learning a language -- or, in the case of Elvish, and other
                              poorly-attested dead languages, more accurately learning _about_ a
                              language (indeed, ESPECIALLY in such cases) -- wouldn't involve a lot
                              of often technical study and discussion, and impose demands of
                              precision and rigor: just like any other scholarly endeavor.

                              --
                              =============================================
                              Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                              ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                              Ars longa, vita brevis.
                              The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                              "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                              a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.