This is hardly the moment to squabble about semiotics. However--
At 01:55 AM 9/11/01 -0700, samantha wrote:
>> you instantly *plonked*ed back anyway.
>I did no such thing. It was a play on go f*** yourself over
>what I considered an over-defensive reaction. It was a joke. I
>prize Russell's posts too much to plonk him.
Okay, my misunderstanding (although one shared by at least one other list
poster I don't know personally, I noted).
>>Samantha, I guess you
>> don't appreciate how offensively your post came across. [...]
>> I certainly read all this on my first pass as deep-coded thus: [snip]
>WHAT? Has the whole world gone mad? I said nothing of the kind
>and my history on this list does not in any way justify such an
>outlandish interpretation.
Once again, okay; clarification understood. On the other hand, I am by
trade a reader and don't jump to such interpretations without a cumulative
sense of unease. There is a certain... uncompromising and snarly... quality
about your `history on the list' that conduces to such a reading. If `the
whole world' *has* `gone mad '(in this respect, at least), it can't be an
accident. It might, however, be a communications protocol mismatch, so to
speak. My apologies for making these comments on-list; they'd have been
better expressed in private, perhaps, but now that it's out there I add
this comment as well. But I don't mean to go on about it any longer.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:28 MDT