request for moderation

[Kris]

"anonymous" <anonymous at anon.com> wrote
>Defending such deeply disturbed writing,is very hard.

Nice :)

You've been (anonymously) gabbing on about Janice and "personal attacks", so 
this is likely to be the "such deeply disturbed writing" referred to:

=============================================

"Janice Caron" <caron800 at googlemail.com> wrote
> if there is anything specific you want me /not/
> to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it.


I'd intended to forego further posts on this topic, but you are asking for a
response. Pardon the delay, and I'll try to be appropriately objective:

It's a question of double-standards, Janice. Not specifically what you, I,
or anyone else says per se. While you sometimes appear to be adept at
dishing out innuendo and/or the occasional scathing remark, you invariably
cry wolf when some of that comes back to you. For the sake of illustration,
I will stick purely to the content related to this exchange. Please do not
read any more into it than merely an illustration. In that vein, I'm going
to use the same 'opinion' of yours as before and attempt to paint an
alternate viewpoint for you. Here it is:

------
Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style
guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and
only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just
purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish;
if the latter, it was petty.
------


You can argue the following observations all you like. However, you've
effectively asked me what you might do, or not do, in order to avoid opening
yourself up to criticism - here's how things look from one perspective:

1) Your message is making strong assertions about the intent and
capabilities of the targeted individuals. Think, for a moment, about how
you'd react if the tables were turned? Going by past behaviour, you'd call
out "Ad Hominum!" or otherwise convey some righteous indignation. Yet you
seem quite comfortable with the delivery yourself. Let us save the
semantic-splitting for the lingusitic gymnasts ... in your post, you are
directly discussing several people who can correctly identify intent.
Double-standard #1

2) Those assertions are based entirely upon your personal opinion of what a
'style-guide' represents. See that gaping chasm between the reality of what
you claim to be a problem, and how you shape it (replete with exclamation
and accompanying rhetoric) ... it is tricky to define this gap in any kind
of glowing terms.

This current exchange began via a simple BS callout. Along the way, you've
characterized that act as "malicious", as a "vendetta", a "strawman", and an
"attack". Just what do you call your above "amatuerish" message? It was
apparently unprovoked, so therefore is an attack? Is it perhaps a strawman
also? Does seems that way. Are you really so terribly precocious as to think
any decision made therein, without your consent, warranted quite such
disdain and drama from you? If not, then your post was also perhaps
malicious? Maybe even with shades of a vendetta? The specific point here is
not that you made these unwarranted and uninformed claims, but that you
subsequently wave the terms "attack", "vendetta", "malicious" and so on like
theAd Hominum club when you have opened yourself up to some criticism.
Double-standard #2

3) There was an occasion related to the above post where, if I recall
correctly, you took offence and demanded an apology. I don't remember seeing
you offering an apology to the various people you likely offended
(potentially in a malicious manner) via the intended implications of your
message? Of course, nobody asked for a subsequent apology (and nobody is
asking for one now), but hopefully you can see double-standard #3?

4) I recall that you once claimed to be a writer of fiction? Then you must
clearly comprehend the distinction between "quoting" and abstract
paraphrasing. That hasn't stopped you from using the
spit-on-me-but-dont-you-dare-misquote-me responses echoed in this exchange.
That is, you fully understand that is not applicable, but use it for effect
anyway. Double-standard #4

5) I've witnessed you make two calls for forum moderation. Most recently, I
believe the call was with regard to Ty Tower? You do realize, I hope, that
moderation takes many forms, and that perhaps some of your posts warrant
moderation also? Certainly, the death-threats and Nazi-style propoganda
eminating from Mr Tower is of a rather different nature, yet moderation is
still moderation. Pot calling the kettle black seems like double-standard #5

The take-away message is that, whether you like it or not, the level of
hypocrisy can sometimes become overbearing from a different perspective. And
that's related to just a single post, Janice. Even if you claim some of it
to be a stretch, it does leave a lot of question-marks hanging. This is why
I called you out on the somewhat grandiose and (IMO) badly misleading claim
you made earlier.

Nobody else does this kind of thing on the NG ... you are really out there
by yourself, and thus make yourself a target for subsequent criticism.



> If you want me
> to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.


Sadly, this is a martyr card. The one that usually screams "It's all your
fault, and I'm entirely innocent!".  I have no personal desire for you to do
anything, Janice, other than to perhaps drop the double-standards.

Perhaps some folk will view this post as a personal attack, or some such. It
is not, or rather, it certainly not intended to be. Instead, it is merely
complying with your request. Take it for what it is and no more.

Lastly - a general mea-culpa from me to everyone, since I've obviously
played my part in reducing the signal-to-noise-ratio via this exchange. I
offer you my apologies for doing so.

=============================================