Heh...I've only been here a short while, but from what I've seen I like Hrant. Of course, I'll never, ever show him any of my designs, I don't think I could take it, but it is fun to watch him critique other people as well as interact with the other strong personalities on the board.
Jon, I agree with everything you wrote in your truly brilliant open letter, which had me laugh out loud on various occasions and somehow moved me to a certain extent, silly me. Because although Hrant can occasionally get on my nerves as no one else can and infuriate me to unknown levels, I firmly believe that this - kinda - tribute is deserved. Because I've got a gut feeling that Hrant is one of the good guys, and no amount of online abuse will convince me of the contrary. Me like him too.
And really, there's nothing Hrant can throw at you that a healthy dose of self-relativation and a good sense of humour won't help you through. Some people need to stop taking themselves too seriously.
P.S. I read and reread this entry numerous times to make sure that there was nothing that might elicit a response from Hrant, can you believe it?
I've always had great respect for Hrant. He's always offered honest, straightforward critiques of my work, and that's exactly what I post my works in progress to receive. Hrant is one of the best things about the critiques section, and I always enjoy reading his discussions and contributions to the other boards as well. His comments are indeed provocative, which in my opinion is the best kind of discussion.
I'm not at all sure what happened on the thread between Hrant and Gerald Giampa, but I've noticed that Hrant has been missing from the discussion and critique boards since then. I hope he returns. If not, Typophile.com will have lost a useful voice.
[ i just don't understand: we have an interesting discussion, couple posts....then --> nasty name calling. as i said - i'm new here. BUT i'm tired of that.]
I have to disagree. Hrant is an insufferable tedious bigot. He regularly makes me regret asking the simplest question or offering help to anyone on this and every other type board.
I like the few type designs I've seen from Hrant. I'd really like to see more. I wish he would stop talking out of his arse and instead get some work done and come back with some new fonts.
I've known Hrant for a couple of years now on the various lists and met him in the real when he enrolled in one of my letterpress classes. I'd like to think we are friends. He is honest, trusting, trustworthy, generous, kind, and forgiving. And quite mild-mannered!!! He is geniunely interested in intellectual effort and a search for truth. There is no ego-centric crap going on with him. He is quite genuine. If he says it, you can take it as his word.
I heard you chaps don't like my humour. Then you are really going to like this. It's not funny.
First of all I think all of us respect and have heard of John Hudson. I am sure he too is sympathetic with your buddy, probably he too thinks I am a little pissed off and you know something. He just might be right about that.
But if you think John Hudson and Ross Mills would be involved in type making without my encouragement you are wrong. Does that tell you anything?
If Hrant keeps people like Erik Spiekermann, Joseph D. Treacy, Jim Rimmer, myself and only God knows who else that does not bother to contribute because of his puerile, ego centric, insulting attacks just because they don't believe the unbelievable, you are better off without the clan member.
One thing I can assure you all this tear jerking is just a lot of wasted drama. Hrant does nothing but write in the Forum his two cents on virtually anything, and everything he knows nothing about.
His work is truly boring at best and rest assured that he is thoroughly addicted to this culthood of button pushers that I predict he could never be gone for long enough.
His Pascal "fantasy" is crap supported by a letterpress spokesman that could never have ever found gainful employment in a real print shop. His press work is good but it is done, from what I can make of it, on a press that is idiot proof by design. I hope I am wrong, a proof press. I would be much happier if it were something more.
He should try a 32 page book forme on a 44 inch semi automatic cylinder press and see how he cuts the mustard, any bets? Believe me, it will quickly separate the men from the boys. He is an enthusiastic hobby printer at best resting on his laurels. He obviously knows nothing about Linotypes, Monotypes, or he would not spout such uninformed material in his teachings to boo hoo Hrant. He knows little to nothing of type cutting which is clearly indicated by his sitting in the bleachers of Hrants cheering section. If he believes what Hrant tells him then he too, is just passing wind. If he believe in the "Pascal Fantasy" the man is an idiot.
I put more impressions through my hands in one month that he ever did in his entire life span. He prints mainly by polymer which does not give authentic entitlement of any expertise as a letterpress printer. I know, he has played with a little type in a California job case, maybe printed Christmas cards on a treadle hand fed platen press. Nothing wrong with that. But his preference towards polymer leans towards what I deem to be low grade material. Or more rudely put, "buyer beware material".
Putting it bluntly how many ems per hour can this man set? I know my money would not go on Gerald Lange in a typographical horse race. People you have never heard of outperform and know more than he. Common run of the mill letterpress printers.
That been said I think Gerald Lange had a great opportunity. Now, after his tear jerking to comes to pass, if he ever comes to his senses, he will of wished he had been a little more diplomatic in his handling of myself in particular. I am not a nut case belonging in an institute thank you all very much. I have made a tremendous contribution to this industry and further if he considers me to be "a has been" as does his bossum buddy boo hoo Hrant, may I suggest the following, he is "a never has been". So he will never have anything to be "nostalgic about". Get my point. So before it is to late, you cry babies should welcome Jim Rimmer, Joe Treacy, and myself to speak our piece. Gerald Lange should have welcomed us. You know why he did not, he is too busy protecting his pecking order. But is about to miss, taking you with him, a rare opportunity to leap frog your knowledge far beyond what previously has been available to you.
The opportunity is passing before your very eyes, an opportunity that will never again show its face because some of us "middle aged" "Honky" "White "Male" punchcutters are going to give up on you all.
So do not waste your time with a phoney 60 hr letterpress expert. There is no such thing.
1) I was in the Bay Area the past 2.5 days. 2) http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/72/4694.html 3) All you need is self-confidence. It might help to always remember that I know far less about type than I don't. 4) Please talk about type instead of me. 5) But nonetheless thank you Jon for teaching me a bit more about myself.
As an inexperienced type designer, I'd like to think that I have a lot to learn from everyone on the list, including Hrant H Papazian, Gerald Lange, Gerald Giampa, John Hudson, Erik Spiekermann, Joseph D. Treacy, Jonathan Hoefler, and others far too numerous to name, whether they have 70 years of experience or are just starting. I certainly hope more professionals with share their knowledge and experience with us.
But for anyone, experienced or not, to say "if x person posts, I won't" seems to me to be a shallow sort of intellectual blackmail. Far too few professionals seem willing to share their knowledge with those of us who are less experienced. I value those who have. Hrant has. John Hudson has. Others have as well.
I will give you a tip. My e-mail address is easy to find. If you go to ATPi you should write me and I will arrange that you are well treated if you care to visit Jim Rimmer. He lives in New Westminster which is reasonably close. For the life of you, do not miss this opportunity!
Promise yourself that your will never be threatened by knowledge that can be learned from the masters. So make sure you go see Jim Rimmer. You will learn more about type making in one afternoon than a lifetime with idiots.
So, there is a group of poeple and as it happens, some do not like each other. What is the big deal? Why must this forum devolve into these arguments and why all the emotion?
Gerald G - I have gained from your posts. Gerald L - I have gained from yours, too. Heck, I even bought your monograph. Hrant - I have gained from your posts, also.
But - all three of you from time to time post stuff that just makes me shake my head. The funny thing is, I have posted stuff in other forums that makes me wish I could turn back the hands of time and make it go away.
We all say things that are pedantic, critical, mean-spirited and so on. It is the sad part of human nature.
So what? Let's afford each other a little grace and move on.
I love this forum and would hate to see it fall apart just beacuse some guy (or Alphabetty!) was rude or insensitve or better yet, smarter than me and not afraid to show it.
This is a very weird thread, but since my name has been mentioned, here are my thoughts.
Over the years, in various forums, I've had many violent clashes with Hrant, often prompted by him saying something incredibly insulting about someone else. I'm not going to go over the history, but one of my objections has always been that his mode of hectoring discourse puts people off and stifles contribution from people who might like to engage with the topic under discussion, but do not wish to do so in the way in which Hrant discusses things. I don't buy Hrant's suggestion that these people lack confidence or need to develop stronger spines. In a civil society, people who value discourse work to create an environment in which such discourse can flourish. This is not some kind of Darwinian debating society in which only the most 'confident' (loudest, most prolific, most thick-skinned) survive. I don't claim to always manage to create a good environment myself -- I can be as abrasive as Hrant --, but unlike him I do see my failings as failings, and not as virtues. I believe that we have an obligation to foster broad and open discourse, and this will often require us to adjust the way in which we engage in that discourse ourselves. Typically, this implies nothing more onerous than being polite.
One other thing. Jon wrote: Hrant may justifiably be called a Socratic gadfly
No, he may not justifiably be called a Socratic anything. His method of debate is the complete antithesis of the Socratic method. Socrates, with great gentleness and sympathy for limitations of intelligence and character in other people, gradually drew out and encouraged their thoughts, even if his eventual aim was to expose the fallacy of their thinking: this too was done kindly and with the aim of improvement, not belittlement.
It is one of the most surreal threads I've ever read, indeed, John. Thank you for your insightful comment, as it makes truckloads of sense without resorting to even more nasty name-calling, unlike the comments by some pitiful Anonymous posters and Mister "how many ems per hour must someone be able to set to be considered a REAL man".
We come from different environments, and naturally civility has different measures for you and me. The key thing to realize is that in any multicultural milieu such as this, you cannot enforce Western social ideals (or any social ideals) without stifling content. The only thing you should try to enforce is tolerance.
In turn I see problems with your stance in the type world, but I never question your participation - in fact I welcome it.
It really is a matter of spine, which translates to self-control.
Actually, although I agree with John Hudson on some points, this reminds me of probably the most important moment during my graphic design education. I was in my first year, a couple of months in and things were not going very well. My stuff was pretty average and uninspired, I was starting to wonder if I had made the right choice.
One day, when presenting another so-so project, my tutor told me to pick up my board, led me to the trash bin and told me to "drop it". I was shocked, but he looked me straight in the eye and told me: "Listen, you can be content with this and earn a C for every assignment, or you can go back to your drawing board, rethink the whole concept and work for an A."
Some people could have curled up in a corner and felt miserable for a while, but instead I did go back to the board. This experience actually jumpstarted my "creative jump" and I've been thankful for it ever since.
There's no black or whites, only shades of gray. What works for some, doesn't work for others, and vice-versa. Get over it. ;)
> No, he may not justifiably be called a Socratic anything. His method of debate is the complete antithesis of the Socratic method. Socrates, with great gentleness and sympathy for limitations of intelligence and character in other people, gradually drew out and encouraged their thoughts, even if his eventual aim was to expose the fallacy of their thinking: this too was done kindly and with the aim of improvement, not belittlement.
John,
Thank you for your particular attention to this passage; indeed, it deserves further illumination.
As you say, Socrates could be described as a noble teacher and a well-intentioned mentor. From the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed.):
Jon, re. Socrates. I have no doubt that Socrates' method was considered 'extremely offensive by many of his time'. If you were simply implying by your original comment that both Socrates and Hrant are offensive to many people, then I have no argument: I was concerned that your comment suggested that Socrates' method and Hrant's method are similar. They are different methods, both capable of causing offense to some people. As it happens, Socrates' method doesn't offend me -- and I have been subjected to it more than once, complete with irony --, while Hrant offends me quite regularly, although I tend not to get involved in squabbles with him as much as I used to. The ambience is better when people ignore his insults and encourage him to talk about type.
I am also very far from convinced that Hrant's goals involve goodness or truth.
What is at issue here which is not a matter of personality, and is important to the usefulness of discussion, is manners on a discussion board.
Let me discuss Hrant's view, then mine.
>We come from different environments, and naturally civility has different measures for you and me. The key thing to realize is that in any multicultural milieu such as this, you cannot enforce Western social ideals (or any social ideals) without stifling content. The only thing you should try to enforce is tolerance.
-Sounds plausible, but is in fact profoundly wrong. First of all, all societies have standards of politeness in them, and traditional societies are more courteous, not less, than Western society. (Incidentally, putting tolerance as practically the sole social virtue is a typical American and even more typical L.A. mistake.)
Furthermore, there is a unifying idea to politeness, even though its forms vary in different cultures. That unifying idea - according to the antropologists who wrote the book 'Questions and Politeness', and studied politness in different cultures - is avoiding embarassment to the other person in a discussion.
Is saying something that belittles the other person helpful to furthering debate? No. Is it harmful? Very often, yes, because it diverts the subject or stops debate or drives people away.
What I want to make clear is that Hrant's 'cultural' defense doesn't hold water at all. But, as is usually the case with any passionately held view, there is a kernel of truth in Hrant's view, even though as explicitly formulated it is quite wrong.
The manners of debate are not an easy thing. Socrates is definitely a gadfly stinging people in Plato's dialogues, as John Coltz notes, and not a model of politeness or gentleness.
As 'Questions and Politeness' points out, one of the problems is that debate aimed at uncovering the truth requires clarity, and politeness often requires ambiguity and vagueness, so as to avoid giving offence.
Now hard hitting debate aimed at the truth, which keeps on the topic and is not openly personal at all, can give offense. This is because if the person is a professional in the subject, then their professional standing is partly at question when their views or work is questioned. This aspect of politeness must indeed be compromised for a forum like this to be useful.
And in this respect Hrant's view, though misguided, has an element of truth in it: to participate in a rational debate about the substance of something you care about requires a willingness to take some lumps. In fact, this is why Western society is less polite than traditional societies - in which all argument is regarded as rude. It is the Socratic heritage of valuing debate aimed at the truth so much that people should swallow their pride to learn from it.
However, arguments to the person, rather than the topic, serve no purpose in discovering the truth, and in fact impede it.
The rule that will best serve for all of us to learn on this board is in fact very simple:
Stay on the topic and don't get personal.
Now when I sinned recently in this respect on another thread, I was reminded that it is especially easy to misconstrue and take and give offence in ASCII. And therefore I think we have to take special care to act with the courtesy as we would with the person being in the room, and not thousands of miles away. For over time a community like this will in fact meet each other. And in any case this will further productive discussion. Who was that sage who warned me of the dangers of 'ASCII-itis'? Oh, yeah I remember - Hrant.
What to do when someone does get personally insulting or tediously irrelevant. Another second rule: be silent. So, in answer to Jon Coltz question, if it is Hrant Hyde rather than Hrant Jeckle, silence is appropriate. Don't take the bait!
Now I am certainly a repentent sinner on these issues, as John Hudson says he is also, but I think the rules that help a debate forum like this are the simple ones I have stated.
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal. 2. Be silent and don't take the bait when someone is insulting.
These will serve to handle, dare I say it, the 'Rant' in all of us, and keep discussion productive.
PS It would be perfectly appropriate for a moderator to intervene if discussion turns personal and say it is not appropriate. But a participant can't really do this.
Thank you for the thoughtful post, William. I would like to expand on one point you made, partly because I think it might be misinterpreted and partly because it is a useful example of the distinction between 'hard hitting debate aimed at the truth' and personal attack aimed at demeaning someone.
As you note, when engaged in a debate and claiming any kind of expert status based on experience or occupation, one puts one's professional reputation on the line to a certain extent. This happens as a matter of course, although it is unusual for someone's reputation to be destroyed in such debate or even more than temporarily tarnished. That it happens as a matter of course is an important point, because it helps us to contrast the intrinsic vulnerability of professional reputation in honest and focused debate of a topic against an open attack on an individual's reputation as a means of shifting focus from the topic -- and from that individual's views on the topic -- onto the person. In the first case, an individual's reputation sustains collatoral damage from an attack on his ideas. In the second case, the reputation is attacked directly in order to undermine confidence in the ideas. I've seen Hrant perform the latter manoeuvre numerous times: if someone disagrees with him -- or, sometimes, if he imagines that someone might disagree with him: actual knowledge of the other person's ideas does not seem to be a prerequisite --, he will attempt to undermine the reputation of that person. As one example, he did this on Typophile not long ago when I mentioned the presentation on the psychology of word recognition that Microsoft's Kevin Larson will be giving at ATypI. Not content to wait to hear what Dr Larson has to say on the subject, from the position of a PhD in cognitive psychology specialising in empirical studies of reading, Hrant almost immediately called into question Larson's professional conduct by suggesting that he was telling Microsoft what they were paying to hear. It is this kind of attack that I find most offensive in Hrant's mode of discourse.
We agree it is all about Hrant. This post I believe was initiated in particular by his inept ability to distance himself from his "racial inflictions" (Not my words) about this.
You apparently have problems yourself but express them differently. Equally as objectionable.
The resulting attack on Joe, who by the way is a very nice guy was certainly undeserving. I think I have made myself fairly clear on that matter. However it appears difficult by the injections from the "nipple sucking cult kittens" to feel confident of that.
Before you suspect I am getting personal here. I am not attempting to be, but I am hindered by the very nature of this discussion itself.
Since coming to Joe's defence I have had a sudden surge of disturbing e-mails.
There are motions to turn the tap off from serious outside contributions. To start a closed forum. Initially this was inviting and encouraging. But there is one thing that does not work for me. I enjoy sharing things I know with my peers, certainly love to learn new things. And don't even mind finding out that I may have been wrong about some things, all of this is exciting for me. Also in the same way I enjoy learning from children, I enjoy learning from beginners. Believe me trying to explain how things are done is one thing, but the question "why" can sometimes be cause to pause. I remember teaching someone on a press and realized that I had not be doing it wrong, but I could have been doing it quicker and easier. That lesson had a payday every time I started my press. Also as with children I have always wondered who brings up who?
So I enjoy, as John will attest to, the spirit of sharing my enthusiasm with people who are new or continue to learn about the industry. (I include myself as one that continues to learn) That is what I enjoy the most. That is the only reason that I began to write into the Typophile Forum in the first place.
So my gut re-action is strongly against a closed forum and have expressed as much.
By expressing my objections to this new motion I have been faced with an argument that has left me with out answer.
"but Typophiles is a closed forum".
So until that has changed this middle aged "Honky" male punch cutter is out of here.
> Yes, but this thread, as it was proposed, oddly enough, is about Hrant.
Not really Gerald, I think Mr. Berkson hit it on the head: What is at issue here which is not a matter of personality, and is important to the usefulness of discussion, is manners on a discussion board.
Let us please move away from the "trial of Hrant" (whattaloadofbollocks pardon my French) and focus on the real issue at hand.
> 1. Stay on topic and don't get personal. > 2. Be silent and don't take the bait
Simple, but true.
> I can honestly say Hrant has never once got on my nerves.
You're one lucky guy. =D
Hi David, hoe gaat het met jou? I know what you mean, but without wanting to go personal on anyone it appears that some discussions tend to give way to really nasty schoolyard fights time and again. Remember the "Is ATypI elitist" mega-fighting? And this kinda thing always happens when someone delivers a personal "low blow".
Mr. Giampa, might it be possible to introduce some manner of quoting in your postings, because generally I can't make head nor tails of the quotes, previous comments and new entries. And could you be so kind not to regard this as an attack upon your person? ;)
P.S. Thanks to Mssrs. Coltz and Hudson for this crash history course on Socrates. Very interesting. (Is my abbreviation "Mssrs." correct?)
I would suggest to the 'short caps,' the moderators, that guidelines such as the two I gave, or other ones they deem appropriate, be included in the paragraph appearing above the 'topics' list. Also helpful would be a link to guidelines for posting scanned material, so that the pictures are not too big, and bump the text wide.
Hrant gave these guidelines for posting scans in another thread:
"Assuming typical b&w scanned type: 1) Do a Photoshop Levels: On the White side go to the inner edge of the plateau; on the Black side go about halfway down the inside of the hill. But be careful not to introduce too much aliasing or loose important detail. 2) Do a Posterize, to 16 levels. 3) Map down to a 16 color palette. 4) Save as GIF.
You'll get crisp -and very small- images, with none of those JPEG artifacts."
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal. 2. Be silent and don't take the bait.
Number 1 has been our governing policy from day one, number 2 is a perfect corollary. I would add that if you're not sure about being silent, give yourself twenty four hours before you hit post. (This is why I've been holding out on my response to Jon's open letter.)
My suggestion was to make these guidelines, however you want to formulate them, explicit by including them in the paragraph you see on the 'topics' page.
And it might help once in a while at appropriate moments to remind people of them.
Neither of these steps would be censorship, and they might help set the tone that you want. I emphasize 'might'. I think it is worth a shot to see what happens.
William, I think #2 needs an [informal] elaboration: Make sure the bait you're not taking isn't actually a sincere issue you'd prefer avoiding with the excuse that it's bait.
Where it comes from is of no matter to me. It should taste good in my mouth. It should be somewhere in the range of 80% coca content - never milk, never, never white. On occasion it may contain raspberries and whenever possible will be served with fresh, plump almost over ripe strawberries. Under no circumstances should a napkin be used in the case that crumbs or juice may be caught in the bare hand and eaten.
That's pretty high, my friend. And it's very hard finding anything over the mid-70s. I once had a small pastille of 100% at a chocolate factory demo (Ghirardelli, in San Francisco), and I had to run around begging for water like on all fours. BTW, it's interesting how much difference the non-chocolate part makes, even if the percentage is small. Like I got some 60% and 75% cocoa from a prestigious old-school chocolate house in Barcelona (Brunells), and the former tasted much better for some reason, even though I love Lindt's 73%.
I should rephrase to say anything in the range of 70% to 80% is ideal. Anything above, even to my dark and dry taste, is really not very good in my experience. I guess chocolate bait is ok. Chocolate bait debate anyone?
I think the first rule already bars insulting people to bait them into a fight. By "being silent and not taking the bait" I meant to apply to me and others too. I meant not responding to provocative insults, so that you avoid the whole thread escalating into a personal quarrel, even if one person is rude. This is hard to do.
Your idea of waiting 24 hrs might also have the same effect. John Gottman, the leading researcher on marital communication, says that escalation, and not frequency of arguments, is a predictor of divorce. The idea here would be a guideline the would encourage people not to escalate when someone is rude by being rude back. Perhaps someone would have a better formulation.
Alternatively you could just stick with only the first rule:
Stay on the topic and don't get personal.
That would make the point, and if it is in the intro paragraph at 'topics' a person who is attacked could just remind the other one that he or she is out of bounds - or you or another moderator could make the same point.
I think the debates will still be hot and heavy, but it might take away the mud slinging.
William, there's a delicate line between not getting personal and being impersonal. Since we're all people after all, there can be no real debate outside our individual human contexts. That's why in such a multicultural environment the onus is on people not being so anxious to feel offended.
It's tempting -and maybe often religiously necessary- to apply universality to a group of people, but it can only backfire if it's applied beyond the natural social capacity of that group of people. Instead of making others conform, excercise your ability to adapt. If there should be any universal quality enforced, it should be candor - because communication is much more important than restraint in solving problems. Don't spend most of your life stopping yourself from doing things that feel right. (I don't [necessarily] mean "you" personally, btw.)
hhp
Who's Online:
There are currently 17 users and 127 guests online.
User login
New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
10.Aug.2003 2.09pm
Heh...I've only been here a short while, but from what I've seen I like Hrant. Of course, I'll never, ever show him any of my designs, I don't think I could take it, but it is fun to watch him critique other people as well as interact with the other strong personalities on the board.
10.Aug.2003 2.21pm
Hrant is cool, ivhmo.
10.Aug.2003 3.04pm
Jon, I agree with everything you wrote in your truly
brilliant open letter, which had me laugh out loud
on various occasions and somehow moved me to a
certain extent, silly me. Because although Hrant can
occasionally get on my nerves as no one else can and
infuriate me to unknown levels, I firmly believe that
this - kinda - tribute is deserved. Because I've got
a gut feeling that Hrant is one of the good guys, and
no amount of online abuse will convince me of the
contrary. Me like him too.
And really, there's nothing Hrant can throw at you
that a healthy dose of self-relativation and a good
sense of humour won't help you through. Some people
need to stop taking themselves too seriously.
P.S. I read and reread this entry numerous times
to make sure that there was nothing that might
elicit a response from Hrant, can you believe it?
10.Aug.2003 3.08pm
Oh yeah, and me also I'd really like to meet him in
person. (Which goes for quite a lot of people I've
"met" around here, but him too nevertheless)
10.Aug.2003 3.25pm
I've always had great respect for Hrant. He's always offered honest, straightforward critiques of my work, and that's exactly what I post my works in progress to receive. Hrant is one of the best things about the critiques section, and I always enjoy reading his discussions and contributions to the other boards as well. His comments are indeed provocative, which in my opinion is the best kind of discussion.
I'm not at all sure what happened on the thread between Hrant and Gerald Giampa, but I've noticed that Hrant has been missing from the discussion and critique boards since then. I hope he returns. If not, Typophile.com will have lost a useful voice.
David
10.Aug.2003 3.41pm
>>Several of us
10.Aug.2003 3.56pm
Jon,
i'm new here, but i agree with you.
[ i just don't understand: we have an interesting discussion, couple posts....then --> nasty name calling. as i said - i'm new here. BUT i'm tired of that.]
David Hamuel
10.Aug.2003 3.56pm
Personally, I've only had useful and helpful comments from everyone on Typophile.
10.Aug.2003 5.06pm
I've found Hrant to be very helpful and extremely knowledgeable. He's one of 3 or 4 members here whose posts I read no matter what the topic is.
Paul
10.Aug.2003 5.27pm
I have to disagree. Hrant is an insufferable tedious bigot. He regularly makes me regret asking the simplest question or offering help to anyone on this and every other type board.
I like the few type designs I've seen from Hrant. I'd really like to see more. I wish he would stop talking out of his arse and instead get some work done and come back with some new fonts.
10.Aug.2003 8.56pm
You know, it's easy to say stuff when you're anonymous, but if you would say that under your actual name people would respect you more...coward.
10.Aug.2003 9.23pm
I've known Hrant for a couple of years now on the various lists and met him in the real when he enrolled in one of my letterpress classes. I'd like to think we are friends. He is honest, trusting, trustworthy, generous, kind, and forgiving. And quite mild-mannered!!! He is geniunely interested in intellectual effort and a search for truth. There is no ego-centric crap going on with him. He is quite genuine. If he says it, you can take it as his word.
Gerald
11.Aug.2003 12.24am
Folks,
I heard you chaps don't like my humour. Then you are really going to like this. It's not funny.
First of all I think all of us respect and have heard of John Hudson. I am sure he too is sympathetic with your buddy, probably he too thinks I am a little pissed off and you know something. He just might be right about that.
But if you think John Hudson and Ross Mills would be involved in type making without my encouragement you are wrong. Does that tell you anything?
If Hrant keeps people like Erik Spiekermann, Joseph D. Treacy, Jim Rimmer, myself and only God knows who else that does not bother to contribute because of his puerile, ego centric, insulting attacks just because they don't believe the unbelievable, you are better off without the clan member.
One thing I can assure you all this tear jerking is just a lot of wasted drama. Hrant does nothing but write in the Forum his two cents on virtually anything, and everything he knows nothing about.
His work is truly boring at best and rest assured that he is thoroughly addicted to this culthood of button pushers that I predict he could never be gone for long enough.
His Pascal "fantasy" is crap supported by a letterpress spokesman that could never have ever found gainful employment in a real print shop. His press work is good but it is done, from what I can make of it, on a press that is idiot proof by design. I hope I am wrong, a proof press. I would be much happier if it were something more.
He should try a 32 page book forme on a 44 inch semi automatic cylinder press and see how he cuts the mustard, any bets? Believe me, it will quickly separate the men from the boys. He is an enthusiastic hobby printer at best resting on his laurels. He obviously knows nothing about Linotypes, Monotypes, or he would not spout such uninformed material in his teachings to boo hoo Hrant. He knows little to nothing of type cutting which is clearly indicated by his sitting in the bleachers of Hrants cheering section. If he believes what Hrant tells him then he too, is just passing wind. If he believe in the "Pascal Fantasy" the man is an idiot.
I put more impressions through my hands in one month that he ever did in his entire life span. He prints mainly by polymer which does not give authentic entitlement of any expertise as a letterpress printer. I know, he has played with a little type in a California job case, maybe printed Christmas cards on a treadle hand fed platen press. Nothing wrong with that. But his preference towards polymer leans towards what I deem to be low grade material. Or more rudely put, "buyer beware material".
Putting it bluntly how many ems per hour can this man set? I know my money would not go on Gerald Lange in a typographical horse race. People you have never heard of outperform and know more than he. Common run of the mill letterpress printers.
That been said I think Gerald Lange had a great opportunity. Now, after his tear jerking to comes to pass, if he ever comes to his senses, he will of wished he had been a little more diplomatic in his handling of myself in particular. I am not a nut case belonging in an institute thank you all very much. I have made a tremendous contribution to this industry and further if he considers me to be "a has been" as does his bossum buddy boo hoo Hrant, may I suggest the following, he is "a never has been". So he will never have anything to be "nostalgic about". Get my point. So before it is to late, you cry babies should welcome Jim Rimmer, Joe Treacy, and myself to speak our piece. Gerald Lange should have welcomed us. You know why he did not, he is too busy protecting his pecking order. But is about to miss, taking you with him, a rare opportunity to leap frog your knowledge far beyond what previously has been available to you.
The opportunity is passing before your very eyes, an opportunity that will never again show its face because some of us "middle aged" "Honky" "White "Male" punchcutters are going to give up on you all.
So do not waste your time with a phoney 60 hr letterpress expert. There is no such thing.
I KNOW LITTLE OF THE CULTURE OF THE DELETTANTI
11.Aug.2003 12.47am
Bite me
11.Aug.2003 12.49am
1) I was in the Bay Area the past 2.5 days.
2) http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/72/4694.html
3) All you need is self-confidence. It might help to always remember that I know far less about type than I don't.
4) Please talk about type instead of me.
5) But nonetheless thank you Jon for teaching me a bit more about myself.
hhp
11.Aug.2003 2.17am
Welcome back, Hrant.
As an inexperienced type designer, I'd like to think
that I have a lot to learn from everyone on the list,
including Hrant H Papazian, Gerald Lange,
Gerald Giampa, John Hudson, Erik Spiekermann,
Joseph D. Treacy, Jonathan Hoefler, and others
far too numerous to name, whether they have
70 years of experience or are just starting.
I certainly hope more professionals with share
their knowledge and experience with us.
But for anyone, experienced or not, to say "if x
person posts, I won't" seems to me to be a
shallow sort of intellectual blackmail. Far too
few professionals seem willing to share their
knowledge with those of us who are less
experienced. I value those who have. Hrant has.
John Hudson has. Others have as well.
I'm not na
11.Aug.2003 2.25am
/me is strangely reminded of the story of Solieri and Mozart, and sincerely hopes that no one has had their keyboards covered in arsenic.
11.Aug.2003 2.58am
David,
I will give you a tip. My e-mail address is easy to find. If you go to ATPi you should write me and I will arrange that you are well treated if you care to visit Jim Rimmer. He lives in New Westminster which is reasonably close. For the life of you, do not miss this opportunity!
Promise yourself that your will never be threatened by knowledge that can be learned from the masters. So make sure you go see Jim Rimmer. You will learn more about type making in one afternoon than a lifetime with idiots.
Remember send me an e-mail.
Gerald Giampa
Lanston Type Company
11.Aug.2003 4.03am
OK.
So, there is a group of poeple and as it happens, some do not like each other. What is the big deal? Why must this forum devolve into these arguments and why all the emotion?
Gerald G - I have gained from your posts.
Gerald L - I have gained from yours, too. Heck, I even bought your monograph.
Hrant - I have gained from your posts, also.
But - all three of you from time to time post stuff that just makes me shake my head. The funny thing is, I have posted stuff in other forums that makes me wish I could turn back the hands of time and make it go away.
We all say things that are pedantic, critical, mean-spirited and so on. It is the sad part of human nature.
So what? Let's afford each other a little grace and move on.
I love this forum and would hate to see it fall apart just beacuse some guy (or Alphabetty!) was rude or insensitve or better yet, smarter than me and not afraid to show it.
Mike
11.Aug.2003 8.37am
This is a very weird thread, but since my name has been mentioned, here are my thoughts.
Over the years, in various forums, I've had many violent clashes with Hrant, often prompted by him saying something incredibly insulting about someone else. I'm not going to go over the history, but one of my objections has always been that his mode of hectoring discourse puts people off and stifles contribution from people who might like to engage with the topic under discussion, but do not wish to do so in the way in which Hrant discusses things. I don't buy Hrant's suggestion that these people lack confidence or need to develop stronger spines. In a civil society, people who value discourse work to create an environment in which such discourse can flourish. This is not some kind of Darwinian debating society in which only the most 'confident' (loudest, most prolific, most thick-skinned) survive. I don't claim to always manage to create a good environment myself -- I can be as abrasive as Hrant --, but unlike him I do see my failings as failings, and not as virtues. I believe that we have an obligation to foster broad and open discourse, and this will often require us to adjust the way in which we engage in that discourse ourselves. Typically, this implies nothing more onerous than being polite.
11.Aug.2003 8.47am
One other thing. Jon wrote: Hrant may justifiably be called a Socratic gadfly
No, he may not justifiably be called a Socratic anything. His method of debate is the complete antithesis of the Socratic method. Socrates, with great gentleness and sympathy for limitations of intelligence and character in other people, gradually drew out and encouraged their thoughts, even if his eventual aim was to expose the fallacy of their thinking: this too was done kindly and with the aim of improvement, not belittlement.
11.Aug.2003 8.55am
It is one of the most surreal threads I've ever read,
indeed, John. Thank you for your insightful comment,
as it makes truckloads of sense without resorting to
even more nasty name-calling, unlike the comments
by some pitiful Anonymous posters and Mister "how
many ems per hour must someone be able to set to
be considered a REAL man".
11.Aug.2003 9.25am
John, your impolite is my candid.
We come from different environments, and naturally civility has different measures for you and me. The key thing to realize is that in any multicultural milieu such as this, you cannot enforce Western social ideals (or any social ideals) without stifling content. The only thing you should try to enforce is tolerance.
In turn I see problems with your stance in the type world, but I never question your participation - in fact I welcome it.
It really is a matter of spine, which translates to self-control.
hhp
11.Aug.2003 11.23am
Sheesh people. It's just a web forum. Have fun.
11.Aug.2003 2.08pm
Darrel, that's what I try to tell them time and again.
But would they listen? Nooo.... ;)
11.Aug.2003 2.32pm
> John, your impolite is my candid.
Actually, although I agree with John Hudson on some
points, this reminds me of probably the most important
moment during my graphic design education. I was in
my first year, a couple of months in and things were not
going very well. My stuff was pretty average and uninspired,
I was starting to wonder if I had made the right choice.
One day, when presenting another so-so project, my tutor
told me to pick up my board, led me to the trash bin and
told me to "drop it". I was shocked, but he looked me
straight in the eye and told me: "Listen, you can be content
with this and earn a C for every assignment, or you can
go back to your drawing board, rethink the whole concept
and work for an A."
Some people could have curled up in a corner and felt
miserable for a while, but instead I did go back to the
board. This experience actually jumpstarted my "creative
jump" and I've been thankful for it ever since.
There's no black or whites, only shades of gray. What
works for some, doesn't work for others, and vice-versa.
Get over it. ;)
11.Aug.2003 2.36pm
How's that for pedantic, Mike?
11.Aug.2003 4.58pm
I can honestly say Hrant has never once got on my nerves.
11.Aug.2003 7.05pm
> No, he may not justifiably be called a Socratic anything. His method of debate is the complete antithesis of the Socratic method. Socrates, with great gentleness and sympathy for limitations of intelligence and character in other people, gradually drew out and encouraged their thoughts, even if his eventual aim was to expose the fallacy of their thinking: this too was done kindly and with the aim of improvement, not belittlement.
John,
Thank you for your particular attention to this passage; indeed, it deserves further illumination.
As you say, Socrates could be described as a noble teacher and a well-intentioned mentor. From the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed.):
11.Aug.2003 7.35pm
So Jon, Hrant is the Andy Kaufmann of the Font World eh?
:D
11.Aug.2003 7.41pm
You got that from Richard, right? :-)
hhp
11.Aug.2003 8.11pm
:sings: Now Andy, did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch? Andy, are you goofing on Elvis? Hey baby, are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon...If you believed there's nothing up their sleeve, then nothing is cool
11.Aug.2003 8.36pm
Jon, re. Socrates. I have no doubt that Socrates' method was considered 'extremely offensive by many of his time'. If you were simply implying by your original comment that both Socrates and Hrant are offensive to many people, then I have no argument: I was concerned that your comment suggested that Socrates' method and Hrant's method are similar. They are different methods, both capable of causing offense to some people. As it happens, Socrates' method doesn't offend me -- and I have been subjected to it more than once, complete with irony --, while Hrant offends me quite regularly, although I tend not to get involved in squabbles with him as much as I used to. The ambience is better when people ignore his insults and encourage him to talk about type.
I am also very far from convinced that Hrant's goals involve goodness or truth.
11.Aug.2003 9.45pm
What is at issue here which is not a matter of personality, and is important to the usefulness of discussion, is manners on a discussion board.
Let me discuss Hrant's view, then mine.
>We come from different environments, and naturally civility has different measures for you and me. The key thing to realize is that in any multicultural milieu such as this, you cannot enforce Western social ideals (or any social ideals) without stifling content. The only thing you should try to enforce is tolerance.
-Sounds plausible, but is in fact profoundly wrong. First of all, all societies have standards of politeness in them, and traditional societies are more courteous, not less, than Western society. (Incidentally, putting tolerance as practically the sole social virtue is a typical American and even more typical L.A. mistake.)
Furthermore, there is a unifying idea to politeness, even though its forms vary in different cultures. That unifying idea - according to the antropologists who wrote the book 'Questions and Politeness', and studied politness in different cultures - is avoiding embarassment to the other person in a discussion.
Is saying something that belittles the other person helpful to furthering debate? No. Is it harmful? Very often, yes, because it diverts the subject or stops debate or drives people away.
What I want to make clear is that Hrant's 'cultural' defense doesn't hold water at all. But, as is usually the case with any passionately held view, there is a kernel of truth in Hrant's view, even though as explicitly formulated it is quite wrong.
The manners of debate are not an easy thing. Socrates is definitely a gadfly stinging people in Plato's dialogues, as John Coltz notes, and not a model of politeness or gentleness.
As 'Questions and Politeness' points out, one of the problems is that debate aimed at uncovering the truth requires clarity, and politeness often requires ambiguity and vagueness, so as to avoid giving offence.
Now hard hitting debate aimed at the truth, which keeps on the topic and is not openly personal at all, can give offense. This is because if the person is a professional in the subject, then their professional standing is partly at question when their views or work is questioned. This aspect of politeness must indeed be compromised for a forum like this to be useful.
And in this respect Hrant's view, though misguided, has an element of truth in it: to participate in a rational debate about the substance of something you care about requires a willingness to take some lumps. In fact, this is why Western society is less polite than traditional societies - in which all argument is regarded as rude. It is the Socratic heritage of valuing debate aimed at the truth so much that people should swallow their pride to learn from it.
However, arguments to the person, rather than the topic, serve no purpose in discovering the truth, and in fact impede it.
The rule that will best serve for all of us to learn on this board is in fact very simple:
Stay on the topic and don't get personal.
Now when I sinned recently in this respect on another thread, I was reminded that it is especially easy to misconstrue and take and give offence in ASCII. And therefore I think we have to take special care to act with the courtesy as we would with the person being in the room, and not thousands of miles away. For over time a community like this will in fact meet each other. And in any case this will further productive discussion. Who was that sage who warned me of the dangers of 'ASCII-itis'? Oh, yeah I remember - Hrant.
What to do when someone does get personally insulting or tediously irrelevant. Another second rule: be silent. So, in answer to Jon Coltz question, if it is Hrant Hyde rather than Hrant Jeckle, silence is appropriate. Don't take the bait!
Now I am certainly a repentent sinner on these issues, as John Hudson says he is also, but I think the rules that help a debate forum like this are the simple ones I have stated.
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal.
2. Be silent and don't take the bait when someone is insulting.
These will serve to handle, dare I say it, the 'Rant' in all of us, and keep discussion productive.
11.Aug.2003 9.59pm
PS It would be perfectly appropriate for a moderator to intervene if discussion turns personal and say it is not appropriate. But a participant can't really do this.
11.Aug.2003 11.09pm
Thank you for the thoughtful post, William. I would like to expand on one point you made, partly because I think it might be misinterpreted and partly because it is a useful example of the distinction between 'hard hitting debate aimed at the truth' and personal attack aimed at demeaning someone.
As you note, when engaged in a debate and claiming any kind of expert status based on experience or occupation, one puts one's professional reputation on the line to a certain extent. This happens as a matter of course, although it is unusual for someone's reputation to be destroyed in such debate or even more than temporarily tarnished. That it happens as a matter of course is an important point, because it helps us to contrast the intrinsic vulnerability of professional reputation in honest and focused debate of a topic against an open attack on an individual's reputation as a means of shifting focus from the topic -- and from that individual's views on the topic -- onto the person. In the first case, an individual's reputation sustains collatoral damage from an attack on his ideas. In the second case, the reputation is attacked directly in order to undermine confidence in the ideas. I've seen Hrant perform the latter manoeuvre numerous times: if someone disagrees with him -- or, sometimes, if he imagines that someone might disagree with him: actual knowledge of the other person's ideas does not seem to be a prerequisite --, he will attempt to undermine the reputation of that person. As one example, he did this on Typophile not long ago when I mentioned the presentation on the psychology of word recognition that Microsoft's Kevin Larson will be giving at ATypI. Not content to wait to hear what Dr Larson has to say on the subject, from the position of a PhD in cognitive psychology specialising in empirical studies of reading, Hrant almost immediately called into question Larson's professional conduct by suggesting that he was telling Microsoft what they were paying to hear. It is this kind of attack that I find most offensive in Hrant's mode of discourse.
11.Aug.2003 11.21pm
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal.
2. Be silent and don't take the bait
11.Aug.2003 11.22pm
Let's talk about type.
11.Aug.2003 11.29pm
It's all inside.
hhp
11.Aug.2003 11.51pm
"Let's talk about type."
Yes, but this thread, as it was proposed, oddly enough, is about Hrant.
12.Aug.2003 1.39am
Gerald Lange,
We agree it is all about Hrant. This post I believe was initiated in particular by his inept ability to distance himself from his "racial inflictions" (Not my words) about this.
And it seems to me that Mr Giampa's post regarding
>http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/Pascal60.jpg
on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:53 am was exactly correct.
You apparently have problems yourself but express them differently. Equally as objectionable.
The resulting attack on Joe, who by the way is a very nice guy was certainly undeserving. I think I have made myself fairly clear on that matter. However it appears difficult by the injections from the "nipple sucking cult kittens" to feel confident of that.
Before you suspect I am getting personal here. I am not attempting to be, but I am hindered by the very nature of this discussion itself.
Since coming to Joe's defence I have had a sudden surge of disturbing e-mails.
There are motions to turn the tap off from serious outside contributions. To start a closed forum. Initially this was inviting and encouraging. But there is one thing that does not work for me. I enjoy sharing things I know with my peers, certainly love to learn new things. And don't even mind finding out that I may have been wrong about some things, all of this is exciting for me. Also in the same way I enjoy learning from children, I enjoy learning from beginners. Believe me trying to explain how things are done is one thing, but the question "why" can sometimes be cause to pause. I remember teaching someone on a press and realized that I had not be doing it wrong, but I could have been doing it quicker and easier. That lesson had a payday every time I started my press. Also as with children I have always wondered who brings up who?
So I enjoy, as John will attest to, the spirit of sharing my enthusiasm with people who are new or continue to learn about the industry. (I include myself as one that continues to learn) That is what I enjoy the most. That is the only reason that I began to write into the Typophile Forum in the first place.
So my gut re-action is strongly against a closed forum and have expressed as much.
By expressing my objections to this new motion I have been faced with an argument that has left me with out answer.
"but Typophiles is a closed forum".
So until that has changed this middle aged "Honky" male punch cutter is out of here.
Hrant,
And it seems to me that Mr Giampa's post regarding
>http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/Pascal60.jpg
on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:53 am was exactly correct.
Pascal, that's not ink trapping!
Gerald Giampa
12.Aug.2003 4.34am
>> "Let's talk about type."
> Yes, but this thread, as it was proposed, oddly enough,
is about Hrant.
Not really Gerald, I think Mr. Berkson hit it on the
head:
What is at issue here which is not a matter of
personality, and is important to the usefulness of
discussion, is manners on a discussion board.
Let us please move away from the "trial of Hrant"
(whattaloadofbollocks pardon my French) and focus
on the real issue at hand.
> 1. Stay on topic and don't get personal.
> 2. Be silent and don't take the bait
Simple, but true.
> I can honestly say Hrant has never once got on my nerves.
You're one lucky guy. =D
Hi David, hoe gaat het met jou? I know what you
mean, but without wanting to go personal on anyone
it appears that some discussions tend to give way
to really nasty schoolyard fights time and again.
Remember the "Is ATypI elitist" mega-fighting? And
this kinda thing always happens when someone
delivers a personal "low blow".
Mr. Giampa, might it be possible to introduce some
manner of quoting in your postings, because generally
I can't make head nor tails of the quotes, previous
comments and new entries.
And could you be so kind not to regard this as an
attack upon your person? ;)
P.S. Thanks to Mssrs. Coltz and Hudson for this crash
history course on Socrates. Very interesting.
(Is my abbreviation "Mssrs." correct?)
12.Aug.2003 5.07am
Yves,
>And could you be so kind not to regard this as an
>attack upon your person?
Beware, GiGi gets (all) funny when you do.
Jacques
12.Aug.2003 7.56am
I would suggest to the 'short caps,' the moderators, that guidelines such as the two I gave, or other ones they deem appropriate, be included in the paragraph appearing above the 'topics' list. Also helpful would be a link to guidelines for posting scanned material, so that the pictures are not too big, and bump the text wide.
Hrant gave these guidelines for posting scans in another thread:
"Assuming typical b&w scanned type:
1) Do a Photoshop Levels: On the White side go to the inner edge of the plateau; on the Black side go about halfway down the inside of the hill. But be careful not to introduce too much aliasing or loose important detail.
2) Do a Posterize, to 16 levels.
3) Map down to a 16 color palette.
4) Save as GIF.
You'll get crisp -and very small- images, with none of those JPEG artifacts."
13.Aug.2003 12.27am
William,
Thanks, I can really use that.
Gerald Giampa
13.Aug.2003 12.12pm
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal.
2. Be silent and don't take the bait.
Number 1 has been our governing policy from day one,
number 2 is a perfect corollary. I would add that if you're
not sure about being silent, give yourself twenty four hours
before you hit post. (This is why I've been holding out on my
response to Jon's open letter.)
13.Aug.2003 1.04pm
What if the bait is chocolate?
13.Aug.2003 1.08pm
Chocolate from where?
hhp
13.Aug.2003 1.11pm
Just make sure it's not a Whizzo chocolate first.
13.Aug.2003 1.20pm
Joseph,
My suggestion was to make these guidelines, however you want to formulate them, explicit by including them in the paragraph you see on the 'topics' page.
And it might help once in a while at appropriate moments to remind people of them.
Neither of these steps would be censorship, and they might help set the tone that you want. I emphasize 'might'. I think it is worth a shot to see what happens.
13.Aug.2003 1.51pm
William, I think #2 needs an [informal] elaboration: Make sure the bait you're not taking isn't actually a sincere issue you'd prefer avoiding with the excuse that it's bait.
hhp
13.Aug.2003 1.55pm
Or how about some custom rules for Hrant:
1. Stay on topic and don't get personal.
2. Just try being silent and don't bait people.
13.Aug.2003 1.59pm
> Chocolate from where?
Where it comes from is of no matter to me. It should taste good in my mouth. It should be somewhere in the range of 80% coca content - never milk, never, never white. On occasion it may contain raspberries and whenever possible will be served with fresh, plump almost over ripe strawberries. Under no circumstances should a napkin be used in the case that crumbs or juice may be caught in the bare hand and eaten.
I am a man of slender means.
13.Aug.2003 2.15pm
> 80% coca content
That's pretty high, my friend. And it's very hard finding anything over the mid-70s. I once had a small pastille of 100% at a chocolate factory demo (Ghirardelli, in San Francisco), and I had to run around begging for water like on all fours. BTW, it's interesting how much difference the non-chocolate part makes, even if the percentage is small. Like I got some 60% and 75% cocoa from a prestigious old-school chocolate house in Barcelona (Brunells), and the former tasted much better for some reason, even though I love Lindt's 73%.
Oh, I guess I forgot: THOU SHALT STAY ON TOPIC.
hhp
13.Aug.2003 2.22pm
I should rephrase to say anything in the range of 70% to 80% is ideal. Anything above, even to my dark and dry taste, is really not very good in my experience. I guess chocolate bait is ok. Chocolate bait debate anyone?
13.Aug.2003 2.25pm
I should have waited 24 hours to post that.
13.Aug.2003 2.29pm
> It should be somewhere in the range of 80% coca content
- never milk, never, never white.
Seanmichael sure knows his chocolate!
>Where it comes from is of no matter to me.
Belgium. Trust me. We know how.
>> 80% coca content
> That's pretty high, my friend.
What, you usually have the girlie kind?
> Oh, I guess I forgot:
Now Hrant be good and don't go rattling anyone's cage.
If certain issues rear their ugly head again I swear
I'm gonna !
13.Aug.2003 2.41pm
Joseph,
I think the first rule already bars insulting people to bait them into a fight. By "being silent and not taking the bait" I meant to apply to me and others too. I meant not responding to provocative insults, so that you avoid the whole thread escalating into a personal quarrel, even if one person is rude. This is hard to do.
Your idea of waiting 24 hrs might also have the same effect. John Gottman, the leading researcher on marital communication, says that escalation, and not frequency of arguments, is a predictor of divorce. The idea here would be a guideline the would encourage people not to escalate when someone is rude by being rude back. Perhaps someone would have a better formulation.
Alternatively you could just stick with only the first rule:
Stay on the topic and don't get personal.
That would make the point, and if it is in the intro paragraph at 'topics' a person who is attacked could just remind the other one that he or she is out of bounds - or you or another moderator could make the same point.
I think the debates will still be hot and heavy, but it might take away the mud slinging.
13.Aug.2003 2.56pm
Girlie chocolate?! Now that's insulting.
--
William, there's a delicate line between not getting personal and being impersonal. Since we're all people after all, there can be no real debate outside our individual human contexts. That's why in such a multicultural environment the onus is on people not being so anxious to feel offended.
It's tempting -and maybe often religiously necessary- to apply universality to a group of people, but it can only backfire if it's applied beyond the natural social capacity of that group of people. Instead of making others conform, excercise your ability to adapt. If there should be any universal quality enforced, it should be candor - because communication is much more important than restraint in solving problems. Don't spend most of your life stopping yourself from doing things that feel right. (I don't [necessarily] mean "you" personally, btw.)
hhp