SCREEN-L Archives

February 1996, Week 4


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Meryem Constance Ersoz <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:37:37 -0800
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (62 lines)
Yeah, yeah we get the point...Can we stop chewing on this bone already?
Some of us are more interested in the discussion of film-related issues
than in this voyeuristic glimpse into a petty exchange between egos.
Personally, I find the  meanness of ad hominem attacks masquerading as
an attack on the person's ideas even more reprehensible than the
person's initial stupidity anyway. Maybe y'all oughta take it behind the
woodshed, since you obviously can't resolve these non-issues here.
Meryem Ersoz
University of Oregon
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Mike Frank wrote:
> in re the following post and the ones to which it was responding . . . .
> > >
> > > I cannot believe the seriousness of now two posts concerning the spelling
> > > of one person's post.
> >
> > Bravo!  I'm so glad someone finally came out and said this.  I found these
> > complaints even more scandalous than those messages a few weeks back
> > prescribing the "proper usage" of Screen-L, and bemoaning the substitition
> > of on-line information exchange for "good, old-fashioned books."
> >
> > If we want to insist that interactions on Screen-L proceed according to
> > traditional academic conventions, let me suggest that--if only for the sake
> > consistency--we save the fascistic pedantry for the graduate seminars,
> > and the bombastic viciousness for the faculty meetings.
>  . . . . the issue had NOTHING to do with spelling per se . . . it had
> everything to do with the seriousness with which one ought to take a post
> that insists, without evidence or support, that the usa has more prisons
> than schools . . . one wonders just how seriously to take that kind of claim,
> and by extension one wonders how seriously the writer of the claim takes
> her/his audience . . .
>         . . . there's a hell of a lot self-righteously polemical
> posturing on these lists [it's something academics tend to be pretty damned
> good at] and often enough--as comp teachers know all too well--slovenly
> syntax can point to the difference between a carefully thought out idea and a
> sloppily formulated one . . . spelling is no doubt just a matter of
> convention  [though i'm not convinced it follows that those who care about it
> are "fascist pedants"]  but syntax is not a matter of convention, it's a
> matter of meaning, hence of thinking . . . is caring about clear thought
> pedantic, and is pointing out its absence vicious?    i imagine not . . . but
> in any case it's not the same as carping about spelling errors
> mike frank
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]