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

Re: Banned from yet another site

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.