From: zeborah@gmail.com
Kevin J. Cheek wrote:
> Well, to be blunt, it comes across to me as being a case of selective
> criticism. What led to this was comments made by Alma about armed
> humans vs. predators that just doesn't hold up. Those assumptions are
> rather common ones among those who aren't exposed to hunting, common
> enough I made a separate thread to discuss the mechanics of man vs.
> predator.
>
> Now, what's interesting to me is that there were no calls for Alma to
> take this thread elsewhere.
The reason for that is because Tina appears to have Alma killfiled, so
she hadn't seen the thread until David posted. It was nothing personal
against David or you or any of your views. It's just that she doesn't
want this sort of controversial argument on rasfc; and it was turning
into a controversial argument no matter what your intentions were.
>Frankly, I don't particularly care that
> Alma doesn't like hunting, and as I said from the start it wasn't my
> purpose to make a convert. But when David voices contradiction in
> Alma's position, then we have your "ruling" to take it elsewhere, and
> your declaration that this topic . . . well, here's your exact words:
>
> >(I was blissfully unaware of this thread and the idiot, non-rasfc
> >relevant comments in it until you jumped in.)
>
> To say that this rubbed me the wrong way on several levels is a bit of
> an understatement. In fact, I've had to walk away from the computer
> before posting a fairly heated reply. To be quite honest, it seems
> arbitrary and, well, somewhat political in a group sense.
Oh, it rubs me up all sorts of wrong ways too, but I frequently have
that reaction to Tina (as she no doubt has to me) and in any case it's
not at all clear in what way it's political. And in *any* case, she has
every right to make the request for any reason she likes.
> If that's the case, then I have to wonder if rasfc is worth the candle
> anymore, and quite honestly I'm starting to think that it's not.
Were you here when we came up with the idea of using rasfm as a
bull-pen? Because rasfc was *not* worth the candle at the time. It was
argumentative verging on nasty, and politics had taken over to the
exclusion of writing. People had left, people were continuing to leave,
and I was ->this<- close to leaving myself.
The agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request was unanimous.
And since then rasfc has been pleasanter than it had been for a long
while, and people have been returning in droves.
I should be sorry indeed to see you leave. But I should be far far
sorrier to lose the agreement of using rasfm as bullpen and to see rasfc
return to what it was earlier in the year.
And, I repeat, the agreement to move controversy to rasfm upon request
was unanimous. *Unanimous.* On *Usenet*, of all places.
Anyway, to quote from the FAQ:
{Off-topic and controversial discussions:
Sometimes topics are introduced that seem insufficiently sfnal in nature
or that would be better addressed in another newsgroup, in which case it
is commonly requested that the discussion be moved elsewhere (and not
everyone who makes the request will do so politely). If you are not
familiar with the group, please check section 6 "Where else do I go for
help?" before posting, to make certain this is the right place for your
query/comment. Also read Section 4. "How does one start posting to
rasfc?"
Often a thread will begin on a sfnal topic but veer into non-sfnal
territory. When this happens, particularly if it is likely to be a
controversial topic, either a participant or bystander may request that
the discussion be moved to rec.arts.sf.misc instead.
A request by a bystander may consist of a post on rasfc saying words to
the effect of, "This discussion would be better suited to
rec.arts.sf.misc", with followups set to rasfm. A move by a participant
may begin with a short statement in rasfc that "I disagree, but am going
to present my arguments in rec.arts.sf.misc".
Reasons for the move need not be given in rasfc itself (and probably
should not be, as they are likely themselves to be controversial); nor
should the arguments themselves. If they are presented there, a
responder may ignore the followups and post a short reply to rasfc
saying words to the effect that "These arguments should not have been
posted to rasfc, and I will be posting a rebuttal in rec.arts.sf.misc",
with followups set to rasfm.}
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
