Seriously??
As someone much smarter than me once said: "When you reach the bottom of
the hole, stop digging." While I admire persistence in trying to defend
an untenable position, I'm at a loss to understand why this is
acceptable behavior from the SAA? As far as I can tell, you've tried
your best to imply the worst possible meaning of my statement even in
the face of multiple folk explaining the difference between calling some
one stupid and calling a result a stupidity.
You also - again - seem to be missing the context. The actual * quote was:
With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive
term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the
above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning
action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of
malign intent open.
"this stupidity" is conjugate with "unfortunate event", "well meaning
action" and "mistake" all items relating to the event/result. Had I
been able to prove malign intent, or I were trying to be offensive just
to be offensive I would have used something more like: "this crime",
"nefarious outcome", "underhanded result", or "dishonorable treatment".
But I'm sure we would then be discussing why I called someone a criminal.
This subject and this poster are in my kill file. If you want me to
read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me
directly as I've now ask three times.
Later, Mike
On 7/1/2019 6:39 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi -
I'm going to top post because replying to this line by line isn't really
the best way to dispose of this part of the thread. And as someone
Agreed. I will just make a few key points (and reorder slightly for my
convenience). FWIW, my stance on the goal of "dispos[ing] of this part of
the thread" is not to come to agreement on the definition of "stupidity",
since that's off-topic for this list; I will try to limit myself to trying
to explain why, with my Sergeant-at-Arms hat, I continue to believe it is
not appropriate.
noted, if I remained silent it might be taken as implicit approval of
what I consider a unsupportable take on "stupidity" as described below.
[...]
To finish up - I appreciate that the Sargent at Arms has to walk a fine
line here, but I don't think this is even close. Again, I'd appreciate
it if in the future we follow the general contract and first have
private conversations. You'll have plenty of time afterward to make
your explicit disapproval clear if necessary.
In this case, we felt a public statement was necessary, precisely because
you decided to use the word after a (presumed) careful deliberation and
thought it was still appropriate, and used it in the same sentence as "the
question of malign intent". Situations and objects do not have "intent";
individuals (and perhaps groups) do. To speak of "stupidity" as the result
of something with intent seems really hard to separate from the perceived
"stupidity" of the intended action leading to that result, i.e., the action
taken by the individual or group. I do not think that's appropriate
professional conduct for this forum, and am compelled to publicly dispute
the stance that such conduct is a valid result of a careful consideration
of how to say something.
Also I'd really appreciate it if you don't attribute a particular
emotion to my persistence with this set of discussions - it's yet
another form of demeaning behavior. You attributed "frustration", and
another I* attributed "upset" to me. What I actually am is "sad" at the
state of affairs and "disappointed" in the various folk that caused this
stupidity to occur somewhat including myself. Feel free to use either
of those words in future correspondence.
My apologies. (Perhaps I was projecting my own frustration onto you, since
our responses to the situation seemed otherwise similar.) I'll try to keep
that in mind.
-Ben
