john: You know what? This is tiring, to say the least. If people are going to
make claims about my character and my motives, they'd better have
specific examples. My comment was meant to inspire some more positive ideas for list topics. And to try and discourage negative and overly critical comments about others on the list. Not comments from one particular person, and certainly not to single out one person who made all the bad comments. really it has been the feel of the list in general. Much of the list community has not been posting, and much of the posts are negative. So it was merely an attempt to gain some ground at a positive re-charge. certainly no claim on character or motives of the actual listee's! patty ----- Original Message ----- From: John Paul Davis Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:24 AM Cc: over-the-rhine at actwin_com Subject: Re: Good Dog Bad Dog classic album ?or list gone wrong? You know what? This is tiring, to say the least. If people are going to
make claims about my character and my motives, they'd better have
specific examples. So far, only one of the many people who've flamed me
has provided anything close to that - it was here:
I wrote:
>Gina,
> perhaps it's not a good idea to reply at 4 in the morning?
then Gina wrote
>Ouch. Now that was just mean.
Now see? given that, I can then say:
Gina, I wasn't trying to be mean - just trying to give you the benefit
of the doubt - please accept my apologies.
But stuff like this:
Patty Teesdale wrote:
> it has been so sad and rather depressing to watch people bite each
> others "heads off" on the list the last couple days.
> its like people feel self righteousness or know-it-all or something, or
> perhaps, just like to be the devils advocate. buts its sort of as if
> individuals always try to prove a point that serves one purpose, not to
> further an important concept, but to prove that they can explain a tiny
> unimportant and intangible detail (with no real importance or effect on
> anything logical or necessary,) much better than another person can.
You want to talk judgementalism? That's judgementalism right there. My
motives were almost the exact opposite of the ones you describe above --
I do in fact think that the stuff I was saying is/was very important,
and worthy of discussion. I figured the observations/ideas/reactions I
had pertained very much to this discussion list since they bring up
issues of spirituality, art and other such stuff.
Rhys, Don and Angela (the reiview's writer) were all able to respond to
my post in a sane, rational way, without flaming me or accusing me of
stuff I didn't do. They were also able to rationally disagree with my
points, provide sound arguments against some of them, and, as my
responses indicate, engender further, deeper discussion.
But GiNa, and now Patty - both of you have put words in my mouth I never
said, and both of you have jumped immediately to accusation. The fact
that you've done so, combined with the fact that other people all seemed
to get my points as I intended them *and* the fact that the two of you
didn't get those points suggests that, your protests to the contrary
aside, you didn't read what I wrote carefully.
I never ever said (as Patty claims below and GiNa claimed in her email)
that art is something that diferent people don't have different
reactions to, or that people aren't entitled to their "take" on it. I,
in fact, never brought up people's emotional/spiritual reaction or the
validity of individual "takes" at all.
I also never said ( as GiNa claimed) that the writer didn't "experience"
the album deeply, but only rather that the review doesn't convey deep
thought. Thought and experience are different.
I never said anything bad about the reviewer as a person, but instead
stuck to my reactions to A: the site as a whole and B: specific stuff
that was written. All of you people who leapt to the defense of the
reviewer might note that when Angela responded, she didn't go on and on
about my being mean and judgemental, etc., she instead responded to my
speicfic critques about the review itself. It's not hard to respond to
my points reasonably without going into a fit about how everything
should be Happynice and Feelgood.
The issue of consumerism was a beef I had with the *website*, not with
the review.
GiNa has declared that her assesment of me still stands (she wrote: "
I did carefully read what you wrote and am more convinced now than ever
that I was on point in my response.") - she's pretty much decided to
publicly accuse me of being judgemental and arrogant so now I'm
obligated to ask her to prove it. In the same forum in which she accused me.
- John
--
John Paul Davis
Center for Community Learning
Antioch College
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ned Flanders: Let's just agree to disagree
Principal Skinner: I don't agree to that
Mrs. Krabapple: Me neither
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|