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

Re: [lambengolmor-d] Re: puzzled

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    ... **The way you edited my message is unfortunate but I should have made it more explicit. My remark that there was [n]othing about the methods and
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

      >>"This group exists to serve those interested in the scholarly study
      >>and discussion of the invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien."
      >>
      >>
      >>Nothing about "the methods and practices of Tolkienian linguistics as
      >>a scholarly discipline".
      >>
      >>
      >
      >Again, I disagree with your apparent premise. "Interest in the
      >scholarly study ... of the invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien"
      >clearly includes "the methods and practices of Tolkienian linguistics
      >as a scholarly discipline". In fact, the latter defines the former.
      >
      **The way you edited my message is unfortunate but I should have
      made it more explicit. My remark that there was "[n]othing about
      'the methods and practices of Tolkienian linguistics as a scholarly
      discipline'" was meant to comment the description of elfling-d not
      the description of lambengolmor. For convenience I will quote the
      first part of the description again:

      "This group serves as a meta-discussion list of
      the Elfling group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling),
      including the policies and practices of its
      manager/moderator."

      Since I was familiar with this statement and thought
      this was the purpose of elfling-d, I was puzzled with
      your editorial note in Patrick's message. I did not
      suppose that "the policies and practices of [elfling's]
      manager/moderator[s]" were among things that can be
      discussed/mentioned on lambengolmor.

      As I wrote in the previous mail, I think it would be
      good to update the description of elfling-d and/or
      lambengolmor and to let the lambengolmor members know
      to avoid further confusion. Maybe I have gotten it
      wrong but from Patrick's comments on my lambengolmor
      post entitled "puzzled" I have gotten an impression
      that even Patrick did not think it was on-topic. He
      mentioned three reasons why your note was perfectly
      reasonable, but had he known it was on-topic he would
      have mentioned it in the first place, would he not?

      >It seems to me that you're just finding different ways of saying that
      >you don't share my judgment of what my words mean and what is germane
      >to the list that I created and moderate. So noted.
      >
      **Carl, I know you have rather bad experience but not each and
      every message is meant to attack you. Mine certainly are not.


      Ales Bican

      --
      What's in a name? That which we call a rose
      by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... I did not edit your message in any way; it is still right there in the archives. All I did was quote parts of it, and show where and how I disagree with
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:40 PM, Ales Bican wrote:

        > **The way you edited my message is unfortunate

        I did not "edit" your message in any way; it is still right there in
        the archives. All I did was quote parts of it, and show where and how I
        disagree with your contention.

        > I did not suppose that "the policies and practices of [elfling's]
        > manager/moderator[s]" were among things that can be
        > discussed/mentioned on lambengolmor.

        They were not and have not been discussed on Lambengolmor. Linking to a
        discussion of matters of scholarly practices, or lack thereof, in the
        field of Tolkienian linguistics may be tangential, but it is not
        off-topic, nor does it constitute discussion. You disagree. Fine. As I
        said, so noted.

        > I think it would be good to update the description of elfling-d and/or
        > lambengolmor and to let the lambengolmor members know to avoid further
        > confusion.

        I don't see any confusion in evidence, save your own, which I do not
        find well-founded. Furthermore, I feel no need to detail every
        permissible and impermissible type of communication, even if it were
        possible. I prefer to leave such details to be exemplified by the posts
        approved for the list, and to my judgment as editor, founder, and
        moderator of Lambengolmor.

        >> It seems to me that you're just finding different ways of saying that
        >> you don't share my judgment of what my words mean and what is germane
        >> to the list that I created and moderate. So noted.
        >>
        > **Carl, I know you have rather bad experience but not each and every
        > message is meant to attack you. Mine certainly are not.

        I don't understand how your statement is justified by anything I have
        written. Did I say you were "attacking" me? No. I said I see that you
        object to my judgment on this matter. I disagree with you, but that's
        your prerogative. And mine. Again, so noted.
      • Ales Bican
        ... **We are not going to pursue one another for each and every word, are we? What I meant (and I think you know it) is that having cut parts you did not want
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

          >>**The way you edited my message is unfortunate
          >
          >I did not "edit" your message in any way; it is still right there in
          >the archives. All I did was quote parts of it, and show where and how I
          >disagree with your contention.

          **We are not going to pursue one another for each and
          every word, are we? What I meant (and I think you know
          it) is that having cut parts you did not want to comment on,
          you left two parts, the second of which was not meant to
          relate to the first, which might have blurred my original
          intentions.

          >>I did not suppose that "the policies and practices of [elfling's]
          >>manager/moderator[s]" were among things that can be
          >>discussed/mentioned on lambengolmor.
          >
          >They were not and have not been discussed on Lambengolmor. Linking to a
          >discussion of matters of scholarly practices, or lack thereof, in the
          >field of Tolkienian linguistics may be tangential, but it is not
          >off-topic, nor does it constitute discussion.

          **Thanks for information. However, it seems to me that you and me
          are taking about something else: I was talking about practices of
          elfling's moderator(s) but you are talking about scholarly practices.

          >>I think it would be good to update the description of elfling-d and/or
          >>lambengolmor and to let the lambengolmor members know to avoid further
          >>confusion.
          >
          >I don't see any confusion in evidence, save your own, which I do not
          >find well-founded.

          **So Patrick was not confused? Another of my wrong evaluations of
          the situation?

          > Furthermore, I feel no need to detail every
          >permissible and impermissible type of communication, even if it were
          >possible. I prefer to leave such details to be exemplified by the posts
          >approved for the list, and to my judgment as editor, founder, and
          >moderator of Lambengolmor.

          **That is of course legitimate as far as "every permissible and
          impermissible type of communication" is concerned but I had one
          specific thing in mind: a question of relevancy/topicity of the
          elfling-d mailing list (as a group serving "as a meta-discussion
          list of the Elfling group [...], including the policies and
          practices of its manager/moderator" for the lambengolmor mailing
          list.

          >>>It seems to me that you're just finding different ways of saying that
          >>>you don't share my judgment of what my words mean and what is germane
          >>>to the list that I created and moderate. So noted.
          >>>
          >>**Carl, I know you have rather bad experience but not each and every
          >>message is meant to attack you. Mine certainly are not.
          >
          >I don't understand how your statement is justified by anything I have
          >written. Did I say you were "attacking" me?

          **No, you did not. And I did not want to create impression that
          you did (if I did nevertheless, I apologize). However, judging
          from your phrasing, I got such a feeling. Maybe it is simply my
          bad experience instead. My remark holds true, nonetheless.

          > No. I said I see that you
          >object to my judgment on this matter.

          **Object is not the right word to describe what I did. I was puzzled
          and hence I asked for explanation. I thought I could.

          > I disagree with you, but that's
          >your prerogative. And mine. Again, so noted.

          **No problem with that.


          Ales Bican

          --
          What's in a name? That which we call a rose
          by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.