paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (10/11/84)
[But it's *cold*!]
Complaints about Ken Arndt in net.motss tend to take one (or all) of
three directions: he's not supportive, he's unintelligible, or he's
rude. In response to the complaint that he's rude and unsupportive,
some have argued that he appears to be knowledgable and perhaps, at
times, even reasonable. In response to such responses, others have
denied the possibility that he may be reasonable, argued that his
rudeness is the main point to be considered, and/or suggested that he
attempt to become intelligible that his points, if there be any besides
a hypothetical one atop his head, be better understood.
Let me reject the "not supportive" complaint out of hand; why someone
must be supportive to be heard escapes my understanding. (After all,
I tolerate liberals in net.politics -- though it appears some have
great difficulty tolerating me.) And I think that most net.motss
readers, gay and otherwise, agree. (Let me also reject the complaint
not noted above, that he has no answers to the problems he raises.
Who does?) Leaving, of the three types of complaints I noted, that he
is frequently unintelligible and rude.
On to intelligibility. I frequently find such luminaries as Sartre,
Connell, Eliot, Hamsun, Lagerkvist, Pynchon, Brecht, Ionesco, and
Baudelaire... unintelligible. On the other hand, I sometimes find
them intelligible, which sustains me in reading their works. And I
have found that it is generally true that just that which makes them
so often unintelligible makes their message, when I am hit with it,
so forceful. Now, one need not include Ken in the list above -- i.e.,
as of the same rank -- to consider the possibility that his style suits
him as the best to get across his points. To make a point, it may
sometimes be necessary to strike the listener in the face with a dead
fish. Would you reduce the efforts of, say, Ionesco to that which would
fit on a bumper sticker? (It would save a lot of trees; "The Lesson"
could be reduced to "Communication is Fraught with Difficulty," and
certainly everyone would understand that communication.) Would
you wait till the author died, and read the books of criticism about
the author's work? It's usually easier than reading the work itself.
Would you have the author write an essay as dull as this one (albeit
in better prose, no doubt)? Or would you admit the possibility that the
author embedded his meaning as much in the form of his work as in the
words? That in order to understand it, you had to do more than
intellectualize? (I remember, from Personality Theory or Abnormal
Psychology, when the professor explained "intellectualization" as
the defense mechanism which enabled 150 male students to hear him say
something like "All males hate their fathers because they secretly want
to have sexual intercourse with their mothers," busily write it down,
and wait for the next point. Having missed the last one.)
Not that I think I've convinced anyone of anything, but let's get on
to rudeness. Really not getting on at all, since the same point
raised above -- that attention may be better commanded by striking
the listener in the face with a dead fish than by writing a deadly
boring essay such as I am now doing -- applies here. Maybe you
should regard Arndt as an onion in the stew of life, and not expect
your reasoned arguments to turn him into a carrot.
The suggestion has been tendered that someone, not Ken, who reads
an Arndt message and espies some redeeming quality there, translate
the message for the edification of the remainder of the crew. A bad
idea, I think, but since I am filled (indeed, brimming over) with
polite language (rather gray, but it doesn't disturb anyone as long
as I don't mention National Review), let me try an example. Ken
recently wrote in an article that when in boot camp he felt sorry
for a crying recruit who was kicked by every other recruit who passed
him, including, when Ken got to him, Ken. Some net.motss readers
read this as a brave "coming out of the closet" on Ken's part,
others as an expression of Ken's wimpiness/rudeness/brutality.
Enter Mr. Explain-it-in-all-gray-tones! Ahem. "In the message from
Ken, which you are not reading because its style, nay, its very
language, was deemed inappropriate, Ken related an anecdote, or
perhaps a parable, to the effect that today's polite sympathy may not
translate into polite actions on the morrow." Really grabbed you, eh?
Thought so.
(You know, as I was mentally composing this essay, I kept hearing
Muzak playing when I thought of the brave new world we all expect
when everyone talks and writes ever so politely, and reasonably,
like, say, me. I couldn't figure out why the damned Muzak was
playing for a couple of hours, when I suddenly was hit by the
shopping market scene at the end of "Stepford Wives." I'd explain
the scene in words, but I'm afraid I'd gray so far as to disappear.)
Listen, I suspect two things: That Ken is damned nigh well unique
(certainly on this net), and that the kind of person many net.motss
readers think he is, is not. It's the latter you've got to look
out for and try to sway. Run off to mod.motss if you will, where
the moderator will protect you from immoderate opinions -- but
if everything turns to shit, and the world comes tumbling down
on your head, please refrain from asking "But they all seemed so
nice! What happened?"
I can sense that some of you (most of you?) are still unconvinced.
Very well, in better polite language than my own...
"Perhaps there is really no such thing as a Revolution
recorded in history. What happened was always a Counter-
Revolution. Men were always rebelling against the last
rebels; or even repenting of the last rebellion. This
could be seen in the most casual contemporary fashions,
if the fashionable mind had not fallen into the habit of
seeing the very latest rebel as rebelling against all
ages at once. The Modern Girl [this written in 1933]
with the lipstick and the cocktail is as much a rebel
against the Women's Rights Woman of the '80's, with her
stiff stick-up collars and strict teetotalism, as the
latter was a rebel against the Early Victorian lady of the
languid waltz tunes and the album full of quotations from
Byron; or as the last, again, was a rebel against a
Puritan mother to whom the waltz was a wild orgy and
Byron the Bolshevist of his age. Trace even the Puritan
mother back through history and she represents a rebellion
against the Cavalier laxity of the English Church, which
was at first a rebel against the Catholic civilisation,
which had been a rebel against the Pagan civilisation.
Nobody but a lunatic could pretend that these things
were a progress; for they obviously go first one way and
then the other."
[From G.K. Chesterton's "Saint Thomas Aquinas," Image Books, Garden
City, New York, pp. 76-77, 1956. Which is, of course, irrelevant
because it was written by (a) a conservative who (b) is dealing with
a religious topic.]
Of course, Ken may be simply as you see him: a rude and unintelligible
boor. Yes, Ken could be exactly what many of you think he is, a bad
boy so typical of the religious right. So typical.
Keep your eyes on him.
Stew without onions? None for me, thanks. Mais, chacun a son gout.
Regards, Paul Dolber @ DUMC (...duke!phs!paul).rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/12/84)
Come off it!! Are you serious?? That the complaint(s) is Arndt is
"unsupportive", "unintelligible", "rude"? Do you actually read
either Arndt's or anyone else's postings in net.motss? (I'm get-
ting tired of asking this rather rhetorical question, but the
myopia on this net is just unbelievable!)
SOME of the complaints against belligerent f*ckups like Arndt & Brunson
are that they're bigoted, insulting, exhibitionistic in really loathsome
ways (like, for example, street psychotics), filled with hatred and
self-hatred, etc. etc. And this adds up to merely "rude"? Is it
merely "rude" to call a group of blacks "filthy niggers" who ought
to be "hung from the nearest available tree" AND then launch into,
say, "rational" discussion of race relations and the legislative
agenda before Congress? And then swerve into a polemic denouncing
funding for sickle cell anemia ("Let 'em die! We'll finally have
social peace!"), and discourse repetitively & at great length about
the genetic disposition of black men to commit rape (of white women,
that is)?
"Unsupportive", "unintelligible", & "rude". Are we even speaking
the same language (English, that is)? Sometimes I really wonder.
No one would make coherence or "supportiveness" (whatever that term
means) a criterion for posting messages on this net, considering the
character of much net mail.
A newsgroup moderator won't function to "translate" rant into
a kind of rational filtrate: the whole point about the Arndt
Phenomenon is that bigoted and deliberately offensive postings
are totally unacceptable. NO exchange will occur unless parti-
cipants observe MINIMUM standards of civility & respect for each
other. And indulging, revelling in, something as vile as blatant
and uninhibited bigotry on the net simply won't be tolerated, at
least not in this newsgroup.
Here's a suggestion for assigning "penances" to offenders who "repent"
(fat chance!): ban them from publication or even summarizing in
mod.motss for as long a period as they've been "sinning", in the case
of Arndt, one whole year (so Ken can't expect to rejoin the fray until
November 1985). Of course, for Arndts & Brunsons it would be entirely
just to ban them permanently, & I don't mean to argue against this
option at all.
"Words, words, words: I know not what they mean."
Ron Rizzosdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/12/84)
It is beyond me how so many people like Dolber will so gladly act as
apologists for Arndt's behavior. We are discussing, not "supportiveness"
(UGGH), not "agreement" (UGGH UGGH), but civility and the ability to
treat a discussion and its members seriously. Right now, there is
only one proper place for his sentiments, and that is in net.flame.
Let's get one thing clear here. If he acted this way in any other
newsgroup, he would be dismissed immediately as a crank. If he behaved in
public similar to the way he writes in net.motss, he would be dragged off
for psychiatric observation, presumably kicking and screaming still.
Why are the standards for net.motss any different than other groups
on USENET? They are not.
Arndt tried the same behavior in net.woman, and was summarily asked to
clean up his act. For some strange reason (perhaps he has fewer personal
troubles with women's issues than with gay issues) he more or less obeyed.
I suspect strongly (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mr. Dolber and Mr. Moffett
and any other private apologists for Arndt's behavior have come to this
discussion a little late. When Arndt first started behaving so bizarrely,
other contributors to net.motss attempted to take him seriously. We come
to this action now only after an exhausting six months or so of enduring
his tiresome anti-social behavior. The readers and contributors to net.motss
could not be seriously accused of intolerance by anyone who knows the facts.
Let's make another thing clear: net.motss and mod.motss are not "the real
world", they are discussion groups. It is an appalling, ignorant charge
that gay people would prefer to live in a "protected" fantasy world, simply
because the members of net.motss would like to discuss important issues
seriously in an environment free of hecklers. First, only some of the
members of net.motss are gay. Second, it is only by such apologists that
infernal caterwauling has suddenly become a virtue. It is only through
such apologists that the inability to express an idea clearly is now
irrelevant to serious discourse. It is right and responsible to expect
a certain standard of behavior in most USENET newsgroups, just as it is
right and responsible to have standards of public behavior. By no stretch
of the imagination does the history of Arndt's behavior in net.motss fit
any such standard. By Mr. Dolber's standards, we should allow children to
scream in the middle of a performance, and we should acquiesce when a
series of hecklers stand up and disrupt a lecture. Hey, that's the real
world, right?
Arndt should be judged on his own boorish behavior, not as a representative of
any movement other than Ken Arndt, Inc.
And to reiterate the subject line here, we are discussing form and not
content. Anyone willing to exercise some intellectual responsibility
for their comments are welcome, and will be taken seriously.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAgtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (10/12/84)
Okay...I'll try it this way. Maybe Ken Perlow will try another disinfected (de-Arndt-ed) version. It looks for all the world like HLTVIII is the bug responsible for AIDS. Its origins may be Nigeria (though the Kaposi's sarcoma stuff looks similar, it's a symptom rather than a near relative) by way of the Carib. Further, serum is the media that the little cyto-megalovirus lives in,' but the transmission (read vector here) is *overwhelmingly* limited to the seriously promiscous element of the gay community...with the exception of those members of the popluation (usually hemophiliac) who cannot use filtered blood, and those (usually bisexual) in direct contac with the above mentioned. What steps are being taken in the gay community to address the issue of AIDS....control, spread, etc. I am personally inclined to view it in much the same manner as any other venereally transmitted disease (save for the obvious fact that gonorrhea isn't fatal, and doesn't have a similiar etiology)...controlling the disease is a question of habit. To the extent that the gay agenda for increased civil recognition *requires* a broad-based coalition within the gay community, does the potential "self-policing" of the gay community represent a an internal threat to the coalition necessary for gay rights? If Phil Ngai and the spokesperson on NPR for the gay/lesbian coalition last night on the bathhouse closings are to be believed, the issue *has* begun to move into the political and judicial spotlight. Must the SF department of public health move to close the bathhouses because the gay community has for some reason refused to close the places themselves? ________________________________________________________________________________ Traditionele communicatie is een controlemiddel omdat het gestructureerde, omlijnde visies opdringt. Door die communicatie te versplinteren halen we ook de controle eruit, en krijgt persoonlijke intuitie weer en plaats. ________________________________________________________________________________