SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

July 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:40:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
Chuck,

I had the decency to apologize for my mud-slinging (or pissing in public), 
with a promise that I will restrain myself in the future from doing so. I 
was wrong for doing it, and wrong for reacting with such vehemence, because 
it is not scientific debate, which is the point of this list.

I'm sorry for the negative things I said about you, too. I shot from the hip 
and incorrectly judged you, and that was wrong. I did the same wrong thing 
to Louis, and I regret doing that, and I apologize for it. It is too easy to 
quickly transcribe initial emotions into public email, and I need to have 
some restraint. My private, fleeting thoughts are sometimes not fit for 
public dissemination.

I regret my negative posts impugning Balter personally. If the last debate, 
for instance, had been completely left to a scientific debate about my 
postings about co-factors, then it would have been more obvious that 
Balter's grotesque reaction to it (and, really, what amounts to a threat) 
was enough to suspend his membership (or, at the very least, be moderated 
[aka censored], although I doubt the listserver we use has that capability).

Kind Regards
Jonathan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: A serious oversight


> George Salzman wrote:
>
>> unacceptable. The question is, How should it be dealt with? I know from 
>> previous correspondence with Claudia Hemphill that the kind of "tough, 
>> male slugfest" that Michael [Balter] and Chuck[Munson] seem to relish is 
>> very distasteful to her and to some other women, who find it 
>> intimidating. Claudia, if I recall, termed it a pissing contest.
>
> These e-mails are new to me, so I'm responding to the personal atatck 
> directed at me in these messages.
>
> I do NOT engage in "tough male slugfests." I have a reputation for 
> shooting from the hip, but I'm simply being honest and open about my 
> opinions. I try to be more indirect and positive these days, but none of 
> my posts have anything to do with me being a male. The idea that I'm macho 
> is absurd. Ask Alex. He knows me personally.
>
> I also do not relish "pissing matches" or flame wars. This goes against 
> everything that I am as a person. To the contrary, I feel really bad after 
> I get into heated exchanges (which are usually escalated into personal 
> attacks by the other person). It goes against my personality to "relish" 
> any kind of verbal argument. But we are adults and a discussion list is 
> going to have its share of disagreements, including those caused by 
> miscommunication and clashes of writing style.
>
> Since I'm responding to the meta-thread about moveration, let me 
> re-iterate my stance that Michael Balter should be re-instated to the 
> list. The only problem that I can see with his posts is that he was 
> overposting, probably in an angry reaction to other posts. In cases like 
> this, people should be warned and put on moderation. If it gets worse, 
> just suspend a person for a week.
>
> I don't understand why Michael was booted and not Jonathan.
>
> Chuck
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2