> Date: Friday, 11-Oct-96 12:21 PM
> From: Steve Finley \ Internet: (email@example.com)
> To: Rhetnt-l Rhetnet \ Internet: (firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Not wanting to be chicken**** myself, I'm out from the baseboard to claim
> word but not the application. That is, I'm the guy what said it, but I
> callin' YOU yella. And I ain't comin' out to the street to get shot,
> The fact is, every time I see such language, I never know whether I'm just
> ignorant to understand something that is in fact well-described in
> appropriate to the task but incomprehensible to me, or whether it's
> crap from chick--I mean, cowardly people who will disavow their attempt to
> exclude the unwashed. So, in any particular case, I might just be kinda
> stupid. But when you see it all over the place all the time, you start
> thinking at least some of it has to be that latter thing. But NOT
> yours. So stop shooting--I'm unarmed.
> Anyhow, I don't necessarily concur in many of the sensibilities you stated
> your post, but I'll bet you're not losing sleep over that. Point is, I
> understood what you were saying a lot better here than there. (But again,
> maybe it's just me.)
I take your point about the differing registers I have used between co-
authoring a CFP and my responses to Rhetnet. As Eric Crump suggests, it has
a lot to do with addressivity I would like to respond to that. Obviously, I
thought and continue to think that the use of language for our CFP is
appropriate but I also admit that I am accountable for my words and that I
cannot deflect these criticisms by adopting a position of moral indignation.
For now let me just say that I did not intend for my mention of the chicken
guano comment to be taken as a flame - let alone my initial reply to Nick
Carbone's invitation to join the discussion (that's why I through in the
emoticon). Flaming is a genre I don't much care for so you should see too
many from me.