Honey -- it looks like you posted this to the Extropians list and not the
Transhumanist list..
M
At 07:22 PM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>Max asked me to post this to the transhuman list.
>
>At 11:22 AM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>This is my one and only message to the Extropians list on this topic. I
>>have not been reading the list for a few weeks and do not want to be
>>involved in Kathryn's issues. However, after receiving a slew of private
>>mail from her I scanned the posts that involved this latest outburst and
>>I'm responding. I have no interest in or time to continue after this
message.
>>
>>Lee Daniel Crocker made sense to me:
>>
>>> "...the fact that you are now putting together media material cannot
>>> discount earlier materials put together by people who have been doing
>>> this for years. Also, the fact that we have been doing this for years
>>> does not discount the work of your or other people who are putting
>>> media materials and press kits together..."
>>>
>>>I suppose if you really stretched the limits of the language you might
>>>be able to interpret that as an accusation that you've ignored earlier
>>>efforts for some unspecified reason, but I certainly don't read it that
>>>way. It reads to me like just idle chest-pounding: Hey! Look at me!
>>>I've done that too!
>>
>>I think Natasha was pointing out what had already been done and was being
>>done. Probably a good idea since Kathryn seems to see us as enemies
>>(something entirely of her creation) and so we can't expect to receive any
>>credit from her.
>>
>>Eliezer wrote:
>>>As near as I can tell: Kathryn started it when she misinterpreted
>>>Natasha, then Natasha gratuitously used a curse-word. I would say
>>>you're both about equally to blame for all this. Furthermore, as far as
>>>I can tell, you don't have anything to actually argue about, since as
>>>*both* of you have stated your respective publications have nothing to
>>>do with each other.
>>
>>Eliezer's comment also made sense, from what I read. However, I can
>>understand Natasha's use of "crap" since we *have* been getting crap from
>>Kathryn for no good reason. Kathryn has said that I "yelled" at her, which
>>is untrue, and she has caused trouble for Natasha over and over. Natasha's
>>use of "crap" may seem gratuitous, but given what she's put up with I think
>>it's *entirely reasonable*, if not as informative as it might be to those
>>not involved.
>>
>>I'm not going to go over everything issue and past problem point by point.
>>I simply am not willing to expend my time and energy on this. Kathryn (and
>>one or two anti-extropians on the Transhumanist list) may want to fantasize
>>that I see her as an enemy. I do not. I see in Kathryn someone with many
>>good qualities, but I also see someone who persistently misinterprets,
>>makes harmful assumptions, and engenders conflicts. I don't have time for
>>this. I would not even post this message, except that I'm sick of seeing
>>Natasha being the object of this nonsense.
>>
>>With the time that I'm finally about to see opening up, I'm looking forward
>>to getting back to working on the ExI website, which badly needs updating,
>>and getting out an issue of the Exponent newsletter.
>>Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>