Re: SUO: SUMO / IFF
Graham Horn, solicitously attempting to mediate the vicious war of words
between "mud-slinger" Spillers and "loose cannon" Menzel, wrote:
> Dear both,
> . Having been through something a bit akin to this earlier
> on, I am disappointed it is happening again.
> . Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion that Chris sometimes
> doesn't read things fully, and sometimes sees threats/risks that aren't
> always there, sometimes as a result of not having fully considered what
> was said. I also found he sometimes uses language that tends to carry an
> implicit bias. I found this can all be most distressing and frustrating
> for the object of his ire, since it leads to a feeling of being falsely
> accused. I am still stinging from some of what was directed at me many
> months ago.
Crikey, Graham, I must say this was a surprising outburst, as I had no
recollection whatever of anything but reasonably cordial exchanges with
you, let alone any recollection of you being an object of my "ire". Given
that we're talking about the rather distant past in SUO time, it would
have been kindly of you -- especially (and somewhat ironically) in light
of your proposed solution to the tiff between Bob and me -- to provide
some documentation on which you base your rather harsh assessment of my
debating style, not to mention my character. (I should be quite happy
indeed to be shown points at which I have not read carefully, seen a
threat/risk that wasn't there, not fully considered what was said, used
language that carries an implicit bias (just how would one *do* that
anyway?), etc -- rather strong generalizations to be throwing around
without evidence!) I've tried hard to find the exchange you refer to that
so hurt your feelings. (And I must say you have done serious damage to my
Aussie stereotype!) All I could find were two sets. The first seems
-- I see I did not respond to this msg; my apologies...
The second is perhaps a little less sugar-coated, but hardly indicating
anything in the neighborhood of ire, at least to my possibly jaundiced
But maybe there's just a cultural difference here. A lot of folks (not to
say all of them) in the academic world -- philosophers, probably, above
all -- tend to be pretty, um, direct in a way that, in the business world,
would be considered undiplomatic at the least, if not outrageously rude.
Exchanges in a written medium are doubly problematic, because one cannot
rely on the usual visual and auditory clues -- facial expressions, tone
of voice, etc -- that can indicate the inner state of an interlocutor.
It is thus notoriously easy to supplement the written word with one's
own imaginings regarding the inner state of the writer. I suspect this
is how you have managed to project "ire" into some of my posts -- a
distressing prospect for one as sanguine and light-hearted as I!
Anyway, this is all pretty boring and petty stuff compared to the real
issues that concern the SUO. In the immortal words of Rodney King,
can't we all just get along? Me, I've said my piece and will leave it