tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 09 19:30:25 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Harangue (was: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu')



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 22:53:04 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:29:16 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson" 
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>> This harangue is not aimed at Voragh; in fact, he has little to do with it.
>
>Instead, it seems more directly aimed at me, perhaps correctly. 
>Unfortunate that it arrived during my rather challenging call to 
>duty which has rather disrupted my participation here. Ahh well. 
>Why not?

Mostly at you, yes, though not exclusively.  Yes, the timing was bad, but
then I've been wading through mail myself.  Not much can be done if our
respective mail-schedules didn't wind up compatible this time 'round.

>> I'm sure we all have a sense
>> for whose Klingon we like and whose we disagree with.  And I certainly
>> believe that it is important to take careful account of the instincts of
>> skilled and experienced Klingonists in considering expressions in the
>> language.  It was disheartening, though, to see such respect used as a
>> weapon a few times on the list recently.  "I've been right before, so I
>> must be right again, don't argue with me."  I recall that Glen Proechel
>> could make similar claims, since after all, he WAS right about Hoch
>> placement, and about -ghach, and a few other points aside.  I'm not trying
>> to say things one way or another about Glen, but if Glen had been arguing
>> with charghwI', and had made the claims charghwI' made about being right in
>> the past (he does have such a record), would charghwI' have considered that
>> a telling argument?  I tend to think not, partly based on guesses about
>> charghwI''s feelings regarding Glen.  And if this devolves into comparing
>> scorecards (who was right more often?  About topics how complex?), I'll be
>> *quite* disgusted.
>
>My feelings about Glen are based upon his dishonest business 
>dealings with David Barron, his interest in using Klingon to 
>make personal profit and convert others to his theology, and his 
>numerous rather extreme errors including practices like making 
>up his own words for uncle, aunt, cousin, etc., using any verb 
>as a noun whenever he wanted to and other stuff he did, all while
>declaring himself the singular meaningful authority on the 
>language. I would ordinarily not bring this up, but the many new 
>members here might otherwise simply think I'm a petty, jealous 
>competitor with Glen.

Good point, you're not.  I brought him up mainly because (a) I knew you
rarely agreed with him and (b) When it comes to "predicting what Okrand
later confirms," he also has a few notable successes.

>I have damaged a relationship here for the sake of a grammatical 
>construction. This is foolish of me. I am not proud of it.

Probably not, at least not my relationship.  It's hard to make me mad, but
*VERY* hard to make me stay mad.  If sparks didn't fly now and then,
friendships can get bland, no?  Differences are what it's all about.  That
includes the occasional flare-up when we think the other is out of line.

>> Doesn't it seem reasonable that we stand a better chance of understanding
>> things if we agree to THINK instead of shouting down opposition?
>
>Here, I believe I've been wrongly accused. I do think, thank you 
>very much, even while shouting.

You do indeed.  But at least the shouting makes it sound like you (a) have
decided that you have thought *enough* and will not think any more, and (b)
that since you have thought things through, nobody *else* should bother
either.  Not that you necesssarily believe that, but it can sound that way.

>Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who 
>feel. I think and feel, and to be honest, I'd rather be dancing.

Indeed.  It *has* been a trying time for you, and I realize that has an
effect on things.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBNI4MysppGeTJXWZ9AQFRowMAoXf8kXpJCQLZt+0z83mB8JDQ/7jUXml8
EfNoQ8lbGVRBBvoEtbpvwAGF9sJ1qa56GEL5wq/8Z/CmK0y08OA4psrSEy1EPCNn
SlIfpKQNxpI/nuRNaqu7HbIS16f5+zPA
=LCNm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level