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

Re: OT: Helge misdirecting the discourse (again)

Expand Messages
  • mach
    ... I believe the same applies to you. If your deliberate calculation were to miscredit Helge Fauskanger, then you re on the wrong way, since with your posts
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 6 5:08 AM
      Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
      > I'm willing to believe that you are not _aware_ of your rhetorical faults,
      > that they really are just conditioned reflexes, not deliberate calculations

      I believe the same applies to you. If your deliberate calculation were to
      miscredit Helge Fauskanger, then you're on the wrong way, since with your
      posts full of rhetorics against him you're miscrediting yourself.

      You seem not to be aware of the effect you posts have on people not involved
      like me: On one hand I see Helge Fauskanger, a normal contributor to this
      list; on the other hand I see you writing one post after the other full of
      hate against him.

      Of course, Helge Fauskanger uses rhetorics, but rhetorics are natural and
      even very helpful as long as they're used to miscredit arguments, not
      persons. Of course, he makes misinterpretations, but that's natural as well.

      I wouldn't even deny that he possibly might make more misinterpretations
      than other people; but if that's what you're trying to demonstrate in your
      posts, then you should know that this demonstration has failed (at least on
      me) because it's drowned out by your hate.

      Just to make it sure: I don't want to know the reasons of your hate, and
      after all I don't want to take anybody's sides. I'm just trying to show you
      the effects your posts have on me because I believe they have similar
      effects on other people. Yet I fear I'm trying in vain.

      mach
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... Rhetoric is useful when it furthers the goal of finding the truth. The sort of rhetorics Helge employs are directed towards obscuring the truth. That is
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 6 5:44 AM
        On Nov 6, 2003, at 8:08 AM, mach wrote:

        > Of course, Helge Fauskanger uses rhetorics, but rhetorics are natural
        > and even very helpful as long as they're used to miscredit arguments,
        > not persons.

        Rhetoric is useful when it furthers the goal of finding the truth. The
        sort of rhetorics Helge employs are directed towards obscuring the
        truth. That is not helpful to anyone but Helge.

        > Of course, he makes misinterpretations, but that's natural as well.

        Nor is the mere fact of his misrepresentation the (sole) issue. The
        most serious issue is that, _even when his errors are pointed out_,
        Helge steadfastly refuses to correct them, because it serves his
        purposes to maintain the falsehood.

        > then you should know that this demonstration has failed (at least on
        > me) because it's drowned out by your hate.

        I don't hate Helge. I don't even know him. But I do hate his
        self-serving, truth-obscuring rhetoric and his unwillingness to correct
        his errors.

        But that is _your_ error: that you can't separate criticism of methods,
        claims, and deeds from hatred of a person.
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... P.S. My goal neither is, nor ever has been, to discredit Helge. My goal is simply what the goal of scholarship is, and what the goal of anyone claiming to
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 6 5:52 AM
          On Nov 6, 2003, at 8:08 AM, mach wrote:

          > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
          >> I'm willing to believe that you are not _aware_ of your rhetorical
          >> faults, that they really are just conditioned reflexes, not
          >> deliberate calculations
          >
          > I believe the same applies to you. If your deliberate calculation were
          > to miscredit Helge Fauskanger, then you're on the wrong way

          P.S. My goal neither is, nor ever has been, to discredit Helge. My goal
          is simply what the goal of scholarship is, and what the goal of anyone
          claiming to be a scholar should be: the search for truth.
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          Since Helge seems not to have noticed it, I want to set forth these simple questions again in plain sight. In his article on Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 6 6:53 AM
            Since Helge seems not to have noticed it, I want to set forth these
            simple questions again in plain sight.

            In his article on "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"
            (<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm>), Helge writes:

            "By this system we would have [past-tense] forms like *ebid "spoke"
            (ped- "speak"), *ewidh "bound" (gwed[h]- "bind"), *idir "watched" (tir-
            "watch"), and *onur "ran" (nor- "run")."

            Note the short vowels in each form.

            To this, Helge has now appended a note that begins:

            "NOTE: Carl F. Hostetter argues that the final vowel should remain long
            in the Sindarin words, since it was long at an older stage (e.g. *onúr
            rather than *onur, because the older form would be *onôr-)."

            As anyone can plainly see from what I actually wrote
            (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2783> and
            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2794>), and as I have
            detailed elsewhere
            (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>), this is a
            complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I argued only that
            original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_; I said
            precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_ position,
            such as in the

            Questions:
            ---------

            For Helge:
            ---------

            1) Do you still maintain that your statement, quoted above, is factual?

            2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?

            3) If not, will you correct your misrepresentation?

            4) If you will not correct it, why not?

            For Mach:
            --------

            1) Having read the sources, do you find Helge's statement to be factual?

            2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?

            3) If not, do you find it acceptable for Helge to attribute absurd
            positions to me and then to leave them uncorrected when his
            misrepresentations have been pointed out?

            4) If so, why?

            5) If not, then why are you defending Helge's practice of doing such
            (instead of arguing against it, or at least remaining silent)?

            I await your answers.
          • Helge K. Fauskanger
            Until recently, one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter thinks older *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense watched would
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 10 3:15 PM
              Until recently, one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter
              thinks older *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched"
              would produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_. CFH himself
              writes:

              > this is a complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I argued
              only that original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_;
              I said precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_
              position, such as in the

              As we understand, somebody hit the SEND button a little prematurely here,
              but CFH's point is still reasonably clear, especially in the light of other
              posts of his.

              It is hardly entirely correct that he said "precisely _nothing_" about
              vowels in unstressed position. Rather he said he thought the vowel would be
              _especially_ likely to remain long in stressed position, with the seeming
              implication that he thinks it could very well remain long even when
              unstressed.

              When I wrote that I thought we would see *_idir_ rather than *_idír_, and
              he in direct response to this states: "I see no reason why the vowel would
              not remain long", then it does sound to me as if he is arguing FOR *_idír_
              and AGAINST _idir_. If I misunderstood him and he only meant we would see
              _idír-_ before some ending, then he was really begging to be misunderstood.
              Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberately
              misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if he
              could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I didn't
              express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."

              Very well, let's just be happy that some sort of clarification did
              materialize after all. CFH now claims he meant that the older long vowel
              would remain long in the _penultimate_ syllable of suffixed forms, where a
              long vowel would attract the stress. Unfortunately, there is _still_ little
              evidence to support such a view, and good reasons to doubt it. With more
              recent compounds as the main exception, the general tendency is to shorten
              long vowels in polysyllabic words. For examples, check out the Revised Note
              in my article:

              http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm

              (Search for "Hostetter argues that before"...)

              - HKF
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... I.e., until _today_, after weeks and weeks of evasion... ... And the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I never did. Helge has
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 10 3:46 PM
                On Nov 10, 2003, at 6:15 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                > Until recently,

                I.e., until _today_, after weeks and weeks of evasion...

                > one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter thinks older
                > *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched" would
                > produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_.

                And the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I
                never did. Helge has merely displaced his false, unevidenced assertion
                further down in his now longer note, and replaced it with a different
                set of false assertions (such as, that I "dismiss" agorech, or argued
                that the stem vowel would be different in "some cases" -- in fact, I
                merely pointed out that _if the sole example of past-tense formation
                exhibited by _agor_ < *_akâra_ is to be applied to other verbs_, then
                the _whole_ pattern needs to be applied, and not set aside silently as
                Helge does; and the pattern exhibited by *_akâra_ _includes_ an
                extended base with suffixed _sundóma_.

                > Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberately
                > misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if
                > he could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I
                > didn't express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."

                I expressed myself with perfect adequacy, and far more precisely than
                you bothered to notice in your zeal to attempt to discredit one that
                you view as your "opponent" (which is at least 95% of your problem as a
                "scholar": that you view it as a combative sport). No clarification was
                necessary beyond that provided by simply reading my words with the care
                and thoughtfulness due to -- and from -- any scholar.

                I reject Helge's continued falsifications of my words and of the
                evidence, and I deplore his unwillingness to discuss these issues in an
                open forum so that the truth can be reached and so that he can come to
                understand my arguments and the evidence before he falsely attributes
                claims and positions to me.

                And I say again to all readers of Helge's work: do not accept
                _anything_ he says as true, unless you can verify it independently.
                This is true even when Helge cites evidence (as he has a disturbing
                tendency to quote out of context), and _especially_ when, as
                frequently, he cites no evidence at all. His failure to quote any words
                of mine supporting his misrepresentations of my claims should alert any
                considerate reader that things are not as he wants you to believe they
                are.
              • John Cowan
                ... You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two. -- Kill Gorg)Bûn! Kill
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 10 6:18 PM
                  Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                  > I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,

                  You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
                  *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.

                  --
                  "Kill Gorg)Bûn! Kill orc-folk! John Cowan
                  No other words please Wild Men. jcowan@...
                  Drive away bad air and darkness http://www.reutershealth.com
                  with bright iron!" --Gh)Bân-buri-Ghân http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  The fact that _Helge_ misunderstood my words (if in fact he did), because he couldn t be bothered to read them with any care, does _not_ mean that I failed to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 10 6:28 PM
                    The fact that _Helge_ misunderstood my words (if in fact he did),
                    because he couldn't be bothered to read them with any care, does _not_
                    mean that I failed to "communicate"; only that he failed to understand
                    what I wrote.

                    It also takes two for a mugging to occur; that doesn't mean the muggee
                    is at fault. Don't pin Helge's failure on me.



                    On Nov 10, 2003, at 9:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:

                    > Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
                    >
                    >> I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,
                    >
                    > You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
                    > *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.