- ... vitriol elsewhere. Don t be an optimist, Graeme. I ve been in no hurry to comment on this, since I didn t want to send too much off-topic material to theMessage 1 of 6 , Aug 27, 2004View SourceGraeme wrote:
> I was beginning to think the great Carl had reformed and had taken hisvitriol elsewhere.
Don't be an optimist, Graeme.
I've been in no hurry to comment on this, since I didn't want to send too
much off-topic material to the list. But I probably owe the Elfscript
subscribers some clarifications.
Yes, when I emphasized that the latest VT didn't reach me before August
(the first autumn month by my definition), I did of course allude to an
exchange back in January. Arden R. Smith had announced his upcoming
analysis of the Tengwar samples in the Etymologies, and I responded: "In
autumn (?) I will be reading Smith's explication with interest." This
should not be very insulting to anyone; it was simply a straightforward
extrapolation based on half a decade of experience. Making a new issue of
Vinyar Tengwar typically takes at least as much time as it takes to make a
baby (I am not referring to the brief initial part of the process, of
VT editor Carl F. Hostetter ought to know better than anyone how much time
he normally needs to put together a new issue; yet he responded to me in an
insulted tone: "Good for you. Of course, everyone else will be reading it
long before then." Thanks to this overbold remark, which he didn't have to
make, he cannot win no matter what definition of "autumn" he prefers. For
as it turned out, he was not able to place VT46 in my hands before August,
and that is hardly "long before" autumn -- by any definition.
Incidentally, CFH in the same posting also claimed that VT46 would appear
"long before...anyone else reads David Salo's book on 'Sindarin', a mere 5
years in the promising". Wrong again; I believe David's book will be
available in October, only a couple of months after VT46 appeared. And
though David has long hinted that he was writing a book on Sindarin, he
never once made any false or over-optimistic promises about when it would
appear. The VT editor could learn something.
Eris Caffee, after admitting that I was "was right about the timing of the
issue", added: "For the record, I myself have no complaints about the
publication schedule. I once published a monthly newsletter for a
non-profit organization and am familiar with the problems and annoyances
that can come up."
Well, I didn't complain either! I have never said that I thought VT46 was
late. Quite on the contrary, it appeared about the time I expected it to,
so how could I be disappointed? In the most recent years I don't think I
have complained very much about the publication rate of the Editorial Team
at all. There was a time when it frustrated me, but by now the capacity of
the group is well established, and I have kind of gotten used to it. The
Team can no longer disappoint me, for I just don't _expect_ very much more
than one VT a year. From time to time there may be positive surprises, as
when the last issue of Parma appeared at least one year before I expected
it to, but there cannot possibly be any disappointments anymore.
I can well imagine that back in January, CFH sincerely thought that he
would manage to publish VT46 with Smith's analysis already in spring, or
maybe even before winter was over. But since it turns out that others have
achieved a rather more realistic appraisal of his abilities, maybe he
should adopt a somewhat more humble tone than calling me an "ass" for
vaguely alluding to his overbold statement in January? (Though "ass" is of
course a mild and unsophisticated insult compared to some other things I've
had to hear from him over the years...at least he isn't comparing me to
Morgoth this time.)
- ... I d say that apologies are more the order of the day, especially as your clarifications typically amount to still more desperate attempts to twistMessage 2 of 6 , Aug 27, 2004View SourceOn Aug 27, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> I probably owe the Elfscript subscribers some clarifications.I'd say that apologies are more the order of the day, especially as
your "clarifications" typically amount to still more desperate attempts
to twist reality to your liking.
> "Good for you. Of course, everyone else will be reading it long beforeAnd so they have, it _still_ not being Autumn, and indeed not for
nearly another month yet.
> Thanks to this overbold remark,There's nothing overbold about a perfectly true statement, esp. when
measured against your own perfectly false statement.
> he cannot win no matter what definition of "autumn" he prefers.It certainly seems impossible to convince _you_ that neither August
(the very beginning of which month you received _VT_ 46) nor July (the
end of which month is the actual publication date of _VT_ 46, and the
month in which most subscribers -- sc., US subscribers, which are the
majority -- received their copies) is Autumn. If having fact on one's
side is insufficient to "win" against your self-delusion, then yes, I
> and that is hardly "long before" autumn -- by any definition.So _you_ say. And in any event, whether "long before" or not, the
demonstration of your assitude lies in a) your inability to avoid
making snide, off-topic provocations on lists such as these; and b)
your willingness to seek to redefine common language in order to
preserve the opportunity to make snide, off-topic provocations, instead
of simply sticking to the matter at hand; and c) your apparent contempt
for the intelligence of those to whom you subject your rhetorical
sleight-of-hands. Of which this your newest diversionary tactic is
merely the latest example.
> I believe David's book will be available in October,That remains to be seen.
> only a couple of months after VT46 appeared._If_ David's book is indeed published in October, it will be three
months after the publication of _VT_ 46, which is not "a couple", at
least, again, not in _this_ world.
> The VT editor could learn something.Oh, I think we've _all_ learned something, Helge....
- ..at least he isn t comparing me to ... Dorkhoth is a personal favourite of mine. caio GraemeMessage 3 of 6 , Sep 1, 2004View Source<snip>
..at least he isn't comparing me to
> Morgoth this time.):-)
"Dorkhoth" is a personal favourite of mine.
- ... Yeah, that is one of the more imaginative insults we ve heard from CFH over the years. Ass was so obviously an inferior effort. I don t know if you veMessage 4 of 6 , Sep 6, 2004View SourceGraeme wrote:
> :-)Yeah, that is one of the more imaginative insults we've heard from CFH over
> "Dorkhoth" is a personal favourite of mine.
the years. "Ass" was so obviously an inferior effort. I don't know if
you've seen the movie _War Games_, but there's a delightful scene where one
NORAD technician calls a general a "pig-eyed sack of shit", and the
laughing general responds: "I was hoping for something a little better than
that from you, sir -- a man of your education!" When CFH called me an
"ass", that scene came back to me...
Funny...about the worst I have ever said about CFH is that he has a major
problem with deadlines, even deadlines set by himself for himself -- and
since he has repeatedly stated these deadlines in public, this observation
must be an objective fact rather than an insult.
- ... Helge, you ve placed your own picture online: so, by your reasoning, any observations I would make about it could only be objective fact, never insult.Message 5 of 6 , Sep 6, 2004View SourceOn Sep 6, 2004, at 5:35 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> Funny...about the worst I have ever said about CFH is that he has aHelge, you've placed your own picture online: so, by your reasoning,
> problem with deadlines, even deadlines set by himself for himself --
> since he has repeatedly stated these deadlines in public, this
> must be an objective fact rather than an insult.
any observations I would make about it could only be objective fact,
Good to know.
- Actually (having finally got back on the list, maybe I should set the email option?) I would have to agree with Carl on this one. By definition their is noMessage 6 of 6 , Sep 8, 2004View SourceActually (having finally got back on the list, maybe I should set the
email option?) I would have to agree with Carl on this one. By
definition their is no deadline for VT other than what the
contributors and editors decide to set for it. Hence there is no
real "deadline" that VT needs to fulfil and it would be apparent that
any timeline posted by the ET would be an estimate.
And incidentally there is very little native fruit you can eat here
in Australia (vis-à-vis raspberries), not without much soaking,
pounding, grinding and throwing away of the fruit and eating the
implements...without dying. But this is kindof off-topic don't you
O well, back to work.
> On Sep 6, 2004, at 5:35 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> > Funny...about the worst I have ever said about CFH is that he has
> > majorhimself --
> > problem with deadlines, even deadlines set by himself for
> > andreasoning,
> > since he has repeatedly stated these deadlines in public, this
> > observation
> > must be an objective fact rather than an insult.
> > -HKF
> Helge, you've placed your own picture online: so, by your
> any observations I would make about it could only be objectivefact,
> never insult.
> Good to know.