Reply #44: To whom it may concern (part 1)

[TPaine7]

Listen or not, iverglas, this is not really for you (except the last paragraph):

This is one of the funniest (or saddest) things I have ever read. Let’s look at the thread history.

I started a thread, and after I had some brief exchanges with Nabeshin and bossy22, iverglas offered this contribution:

"What do these terms mean?"


Well, in my own experience, they mean that someone in the Guns forum is about to go riding off on some hobbyhorse or another about how nobody knows what they mean and they're really code for THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GRANDPAPPY'S VARMING-HUNTIN THINGY!!!

Oh, and exploit violence against women to shove an agenda.

iverglas’ words fit well here:


One element of manners involves being careful, when joining a conversation that has been going on for a long time before one arrived, to acquaint one's self with the participants in the conversation and with what has been said before one got there.

I started the thread, others joined, and then iverglas came in with a sarcastic crack that evaded the OP’s question. She then lectured me on interrupting conversations.

Beautiful, isn’t it?

Oh, but there’s an escape hatch. She can lean on the words I underlined. She did not say it was rude to interrupt period, she said it was wrong to interrupt a conversation “that has been going on for a long time before one arrived” and that is not the case here. So she can still argue that it is polite to interrupt recently started conversations with sarcastic, mocking comments. And you are free to believe her.

Next bossy22 made a point:


Oh, and exploit violence against women to shove an agenda

and you don't do that either with all your whining about how all husband with guns intimidate their wives


I thought it was an excellent point, and said so. This, ladies and gentlemen, is my rude post:


Good point
I haven't been here that long, and I've seen that.

If it's exploiting when the goose does it, it's exploiting when the gander does.


Let’s examine my rudeness. First there is the compliment to bossy22. Then the acknowledgement that I haven’t been here that long, but I’ve seen iverglas talk about husbands with guns intimidate their wives. Then, I reiterate bossy22’s point using the words of an old parable.

Naturally, this offends iverglas, but she responds mildly thus:

Think hard, and you'll see the difference between the gander and the goose here.

One has no dog in the race, and one does. There's your first clue.

In case you're not good at clues:

I have nothing to gain personally from anything done to protect women from violence committed by their intimate partners, including violence and intimidation committed using firearms. In fact, I have nothing to gain personally from any measures taken to reduce harms caused with firearms.

You're just trying to get your own way so you can have what you want and do what you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it, and you'll attempt to exploit the misfortune and suffering of anyone who crosses your path if they look useful.

Seeing it now?

Saintly, long suffering iverglas!

After accusing me of butting in, she explains the rudeness of making unreasonable demands:

In the real world and among the normal people who inhabit it, butting into a conversation being conducted among people who are strangers to one's self and demanding that said strangers reiterate everything they have said in the previous 10 minutes, let alone 5 years, on pain of being insulted and vilified by one's self, would truly be regarded as the height of ill mannered behavior.

While I agree with the principle expressed, it seems unrelated to…well, reality. In context, she seems to be implying that I have made such demands. I honestly don’t remember making them, and I certainly don’t remember threatening to insult and vilify anyone. Can anyone out there remember that? If a rational onlooker shows me the relevant post(s) I would be grateful.

Now I could have made this a lot stronger than it is. Easily. I could have brutally answered her challenges on the African thread I started, too. But I resisted the impulse. She probably thought I was afraid to answer that, too. She obviously thinks I am intimidated by her posts here.

That doesn’t matter. What does matter is putting an end to my participation in playground squabbles. This thread is the end of the line. (I plan to answer other posts in this thread; I have limited time for utter nonsense, though, so they will have to wait.)

The grasp of reality evident in iverglas’ post amazes me. I am not surprised to see otherwise rational people lose their bearings when the subject of guns arises. People, people I respect, make logical leaps equivalent to 3+5=27 in order to arrive at the right answer. I make the assumption that it’s a phobic reaction, and try to convince them otherwise. But this is another level. It’s jawdropping.


Manners. An expression of their understanding that they are not the centre of the universe and that the other people in it are subjects in their own lives, not objects. If people haven't learned that before they enter school, actually, it is generally too late, and they will likely be psychopathic/sociopathic their entire lives...

I have not yet figured out what it is that makes some people think such behaviour is appropriate in the cyberworld. Truly, I haven't. If you want to try explaining this to me, I'm listening.


Fascinating.

Nothing personal, iverglas, but I don’t have the skills to explain it so I won’t even try. There may be some professionals who can, though. You might want to seek them out. (Or not.)