<p>kluge: I often find mini’s style of writing difficult to penetrate, but I find it worth it because I consistently disagree with his views (whatever they are - it’s often hard for me to tell). Seriously, I have an easier time understanding FS’s posts because I am sympathetic to her outlook, for the most part. I wonder if that’s the crux of the matter here.</p>
<p>And what has happened to our dear resident poet rorosen whose interesting posts often take several reads?..he must be vacationing, although he once chastised me for not notifying someone to “feed the cats” when I went away…</p>
<p>To whom it may concern,</p>
<p>Certainly, there is a distinction between wit & sarcasm–when responding to a thread–and admonishing posters to ostracize a particular poster you particularly disapprove of: as Kluge has repeatedly advised posters in this thread and others to do. It’s just tiresome, I guess. …it’s absolutely facinating to me that there are those here who think I should not respond to it. Not.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, none of those the man advises, in their own wisdom, have yet to find his advice or decrees worth the taking. Most, I suppose, are too sensible and continue to keep their our own counsel on the matter. This is, I believe, to their credit, not discredit–but right thinking people could disagree. Still, the man has been persistent, for whatever reason, in giving out these peculiar directives…ad nauseum…as if they grow more powerful with repetition.</p>
<p>Outside of the politburo, the responses I get from the non-haters indicate a particular failing of comprehension in a few, not a general failure in all. And the few are, frankly, rather predictable. In this thread alone many have responded directly and others have seen fit to either compliment
or, ironically, thanking me for clarifying other more indecipherable writing
In addition to PM’s…not all of which were from those on the right end of the political spectrum. I won’t out them–they can address it in the open forum if they please. </p>
<p>So please, give it a rest. It’s way too transparent. Unless of course you want us to believe “you care” so very deeply…‘don’t want the poor girl to turn into Ann Coulter, you know.’ Oy vey! I love you too. XX00X0</p>
<p>Kluge suggests ostracism (unless I toe the line). It’s a cheap tactic. And really, it gets no better with repetition. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, few here are likely to win the Pulitzer…me included…so lighten up and live longer.</p>
<p>Cheers all,
FS</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Oy…has this been going on all day? :o</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here we go again! Haven’t we pursued that little -or not so little- charade before? </p>
<p>As far as I know, there are no double standards on this forum, except for the few times that the “elders” conveniently attempt to brand the sides of the puppies with burning reminders of the geriatric expectations for respectful decorum and submissive genuflexions.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Charade? How does my question in that post amount to a charade? I thought it was pretty straightforward, no hidden meaning, nothing up my sleeve. To me, this particular swordclash had nothing to do with politics and past skirmishes between whoever. I generally avoid the political discussion threads so if there was past bad blood between certain posters, sorry, I really wasn’t aware of it.</p>
<p>What I first responded to was Dadguy’s attempt to seek clarification, or at least clear declarative sentences without too much verbal-intellectual dressing in order to engage in a discussion about the humanities. I was disappointed when his request was met with insult and condescension, but so be it, I planned to stay out of the fray. Then, well, you know what happened next. </p>
<p>The “double standard” I’m objecting to may well have nothing to do with a poster’s politics, but with age. </p>
<p>If Kluge was another college student and not a parent, you couldn’t claim that the come back was about “elders” branding puppies and all that other nonsense about our geriatric (not quite, thank you) expectations. It seems parents are in a no-win situation in regard to you youngsters. You and FS are free to make subtle condescending remarks about the intellectual level of parent posters, or even outright insulting remarks, but if a parent responds in kind with their own version of verbal smackdown, then it’s suddenly not okay. Then it’s the old folks trying to squelch the young folks. Very agist don’t you think? Another poster (try not too view it as “parent,” but just another poster) put someone down with some verbal pyrotechnics of their own. Isn’t that the risk one takes venturing onto these discussion boards?</p>
<p>“Geriatric expectations”…GUFFAW!</p>
<p><returning to=“” my=“” granny=“” rocker,=“” now=“” that=“” i=“” know=“” am=“” too=“” old=“” have=“” a=“” valid=“” opinion…smirking=“” all=“” the=“” way=“”></returning></p>
<p>Just wanted to clarify that I did pick up on the political undercurrent of the aforementioned clash (I’m not that dense) and that for me, my motivation to chime in had nothing to do with the political views of the posters. I did not read the thread from the beginning and so missed the earlier jousting.</p>
<p>There really isn’t a double standard. What there is is a generational clash that sometimes arises between those who feel that they are owed deference due to their age and experience, and those who feel that they are owed respect due to their recent adulthood, their extensive training, and their youthful vigor. See, for example: all the threads started about “the last summer at home” being difficult.</p>
<p>I’ve tried to “teach” writing before, and concluded that it’s impossible. People can be coached, but our writing is actually an inner voice that is acquired from the voices of those we have read and assimilated. The voices in our heads, so to speak. Some students (and parents) on CC seem to have an IV hookup to Wikipedia; others, and I include here our youthful correspondents in this particular thread, regularly demonstrate that they actually know the material they cite very well, and have a thorough understanding of it. I find this thrilling. It will take me years to catch up with them, knowledge-base wise. </p>
<p>At the same time, these voices are fresh in their heads–and their own voice may have not yet fully emerged. I’ve not attempted to read James Joyce in decades. I consider him to be a foreign language. Others obviously disagree. When I was reading Nancy Drew books, some of these kids were reading Plato. When I was reading Jack Kerouac and Richard Brautigan (thank you, hippie-dippy HS English teachers) they were reading Shakespeare and Heidegger, and studying economic theory on the side, for fun. All of these voices will settle down in time, and the full, mature, individual voice will emerge (as is obviously already happening.) In the meantime, well-intended criticism of style–as opposed to substance–should probably be privately and politely sent, and requests for clarification should probably be made without critique.</p>
<p>Jazzymom, the charade referred to the prior discussions about double standards on CC. </p>
<p>And, for the record, I deliberately planted the word “geriatric” to highlight the perils of using someone’s age as a measurement stick or reference point.</p>
<p>However, I do object to your assessment in this paragraph:
</p>
<p>I have no problems offering mea culpas when warranted, but I resent the characterization of a habit of hurling insults and seeking shelter from retaliatory verbal smackdowns. I believe you would be hard pressed finding evidence of such behavior. I have complained -on occasion- when my words were twisted and taken out of context, but that is an entirely different matter, and quite different from running for the hills after a guerilla attack on the parental convoy.</p>
<p>I’d like for you to consider that what you construe as a condescending remark might very well have been the expression of frustration after a lengthy discussion that did not contain much of a dialogue. Lastly, could it also be possible that the condescending remark is only perceived as such because of the age of the “aggressor?”</p>
<p>My criticism was well-meaning but I am sorry to see that everyone was getting along so poorly that it touched off yet another round of bickering.</p>
<p>FS, I should like to get back to your substantive comments on the issue before this brouhaha began. It’ll have to wait a couple of days until I have time to review what you’ve said. It just may be that I have to reread your posts a couple of times to get the meat of your assertions. Are you up for that?</p>
<p>I think this discussion has been beneficial - a catharsis, so to speak - since these issues have arisen in other discussions although perhaps not to this extent. Of course, it’s not good that some have been hurt by comments made here. I know I will make a renewed effort not to hurt anyone’s feelings with my comments and to think twice before I write something in haste or anger. </p>
<p>I also know that I sometimes get attached to a particular word or sentence that sounds so good I have to use it, even though it may be over-the-top and may not be effective at communicating my point. I suspect we all, old and young, fall victim to that kind of verbal diarrhea. However, I think this is generally a forum that is pleasant and challenging, and I know that’s why I come back.</p>
<p>Jazzy mom asks:
</p>
<p>THE DOUBLE STANDARD REVISITED:</p>
<p>1)
</p>
<p>Ok, so that’s the much feared double standard!</p>
<p>Oh pishtosh, FS. Do you want me to fawn at your feet? I don’t know if it is possible from my rocking chair, but perhaps I can try.</p>
<p>Driver:</p>
<p>You said: “In the meantime, well-intentioned criticism of style – as opposed to substance – should probably be privately and politely sent, and requests for clarification should probably be made without critique.”</p>
<p>Understand, I am not arguing with the substance of the advice above. It is, like all advice, something people can take or leave as they choose. What I want to point out is that it exactly illustrates what I feel is a double standard being expressed in regard to the treatment of youthful versus older posters. Does anyone else who comes onto a discussion board have the right to expect that criticism will be made “privately and politely?” Or that communication and requests should be made without “critique?” Are you suggesting that all posters treat each other thusly (which would not represent a double standard) or that only the adults should handle their communication with the younger ones in this way? It does seem to me that you are saying that the student posters should be given great leeway and shown deference because of their youth. Yet, if parent or older posters seem to expect some modicum of courtesy or politeness or respect, then that is objectionable “old fart” type thinking. How is that not a double standard?</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Sometimes an insult is hurled, sometimes it is planted subtly, and sometimes it is perceived where it was not intended. When I reread your post prior to the conflagration, I do not see insult offerred. Therefore, I apologize for lumping in your post with others in which I do see condescension and subtle insult (#146 for example.) But you and others have brought up the age and/or parental status of posters in reference to “expectations” of treatment in the discussion forum. You say that certain parents want “submissive genuflection” and I don’t think that’s true; I think that posters of all ages want respect and courtesy, not deference due solely to their age.
And finally, a condescending remark is a condescending remark regardless of the age or status of the “aggressor.” I’m pretty new; I don’t know how old you or FS are or anything else about you except that you’re in college. </p>
<p>But I thought the beauty of the discussion board is that anyone can come on and be regarded based on their participation, not looks or age or gender or economic status or race, etc. ((Isn’t there a great New Yorker cartoon showing a pooch sitting at a computer keyboard, and saying eagerly: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”))?</p>
<p>Allmusic,</p>
<p>The age issue is not mine.
I have never even addressed it before now. It’s something I don’t even think about. But, it seems to be front and center to a number of my critics in this thread: Kluge, Jazzymom et al. They’re rather miffed over it. They seem to think I <em>use</em> my age to buy a pass. </p>
<p>I never even mention it.</p>
<p>Find a single post where I have and I will send you $20 (if you care to reveal your name and address–as I have). It’s a non-issue to me…dosen’t cross my mind and I never objected to the use of it in any of the posts above–take a look and see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has also been suggested by a select few in the in-crowd, throughout this thread, that my posts are “indecipherable”—that they “contribute nothing” that they are “not intended to inform” that they are “gibberish,” etc, etc.</p>
<p>Comments from this thread alone (note: from the left and right sides of the dial and not exclusively “little league moms”): </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was fun! But it’s time to put this one to rest.</p>
<p>[dadguy: deal]</p>
<p>no I dont think that FS does play the age card- but I do think if the posts were made by someone like THEDAD for example, they would receive a different response.</p>
<p>but FS what are you 19? Its summer go out and play! Get some fresh air- go ogle the boys on the beach- it will be winter and you will be 50 soon enough :)</p>
<p>I’m with EK! Why hang here with us old folks when there is youthful fun to be had?</p>
<p>(PS, and I mean that in my most unsarcastic tone possible…honestly!)</p>
<p>EK4,</p>
<p>Unfortunately–I guess–I am in the offices of The New Criterion in Manhattan. It’s lunch and with a few minutes to spare I thought I’d have some fun on cc. </p>
<p>You can catch my blogs there, if you’re interested.</p>
<p>NewCriterion.com</p>
<p>By the way, Thanks.</p>
<p>[edit: not to start another age fire-storm, but I’m 18]</p>