Re: [lambengolmor-d] Re: puzzled
- Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
>>**The way you edited my message is unfortunate**We are not going to pursue one another for each and
>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.
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
>>I did not suppose that "the policies and practices of [elfling's]**Thanks for information. However, it seems to me that you and me
>>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.
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**So Patrick was not confused? Another of my wrong evaluations of
>>lambengolmor and to let the lambengolmor members know to avoid further
>I don't see any confusion in evidence, save your own, which I do not
> Furthermore, I feel no need to detail every**That is of course legitimate as far as "every permissible and
>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.
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
>>>It seems to me that you're just finding different ways of saying that**No, you did not. And I did not want to create impression 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?
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 is not the right word to describe what I did. I was puzzled
>object to my judgment on this matter.
and hence I asked for explanation. I thought I could.
> I disagree with you, but that's**No problem with that.
>your prerogative. And mine. Again, so noted.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)