Hello Rosan,
I will respond to your mail through the list, as you do mention my name.
First : if my mail was intended to you, I would have put your name in
it. That's the minimul I expect from myself.
Second : you mention an "offlist message". It is not mine.
Third : that you become suspicious is something perfectly
understandable. That you were not suspicious before is something
understandable as well. I am neither suspicious, nor unsuspicious. When
I read mails posted to the list, I read them for what is in. Personally,
I will never consider any of these mails to have more value then a
discussion in a party or a pub : sometimes superficial, sometimes opens
insights, might enriches me immensely; but nothing that I would not
cross check or discuss in private if I wanted to build more on it.
Forth : who am I, and who would I be to ever suggest that you act
childishly? I am not in your mind, and this forum is an open forum, I
believe. You are free to express your frustration, or your pain, other
people have expressed it as well, some other have said : let's move
beyond. What I should not have said, given a second thought, is that I
was considering unsubscribing. That's my private business, at the end of
the day.
Fifth : as all people who are in pain and suffer, we just have to hear
it. I personally never believed that there was any scale in such things.
Some people can stand things that you know will put you in complete
distress, some people feel in the deepest pain for events you thing
superficial. So I have always admitted that if people declare that they
are in pain, it means that they are. The only thing I might do is help
them out if I can.
I do apologize if my mail did hurt you. But do you prefer a list in
which all posts will be submitted to censorship (who is the author, what
could s-he mean, etc...)? Personally, I don't. Personally, I prefer
parties in which people don't anxiously ask you "what are you doing" so
that they know how to normalize their interaction with you. In my view,
there is very little noise on this list.
Sixth : I leave you with the words : "is my expressing myself seen as
weak, irrelevant? like some women who are raped physically, should i
remain silent for fear that i would receive comments like what jean has
made?" If this is truly how you feel, I urge you to voice your concerns,
which you did, actually.
Seventh (and last) : I am closing down my contribution to this thread,
even if my name is mentionned again.
Best regards,
Jean
-----Message d'origine-----
De : PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de
Rosan Chow
Envoye : samedi 18 decembre 2004 19:32
A : [log in to unmask]
Objet : serious Re: Rules require enforcement, enforcement requires
police, police requires inquiries...power for what?
Dear all
this is not meant at all as an emotional outlet but contains highly
emotional content.
i went to a christmas party last night. we bought a christmas tree
today. i just had tea and cake. when i was sipping my tea, i was
thinking about an offlist message sent to me yesterday about my post on
"The ruling is clear: no deception", then a very disturbing chain of
thought came to me.
"Ken wrote that message although it was sent by a different member!"
"NO!"
"You should write to them, as Klaus has advised Alec to do".
"I am not writing to them".
"If they admit, then i will be extremely angry."
"If they deny, then i won't believe them."
now, let's analyze my disturbing chain of thought.
something has really changed in me. i become very suspicious and i used
to be very trusting and maybe naive. and i cannot trust people yet.
someone has stolen my trust in people. will sending the police, cry in
the dark, drink my head off, have a good laugh help me get my trust
back?
am i acting childishly to say what i really mean? am i blowing things
out of proportion? is my expressing myself seen as weak, irrelevant?
like some women who are raped physically, should i remain silent for
fear that i would receive comments like what jean has made?
this is serious. i think we should get this straight.
i think Jean's post is not directed at me because i have announced i
forgive ken. but i do believe Jean's post is not helpful. some members
might not be ready or might never be able to forgive. and what's so
wrong about that? and deserves such a humiliation?
i am writing this not to steer up troubles but i really think and feel
it is very important. some people are geniunely suffering whether you
believe, care or not.
rosan
Jean Schneider wrote:
>
> Hello,
> It is the first time that I am considering unsubscribing this list.
>
> If you consider the number of silent members, it is obvious that the
> texts that are disseminated by only a few authors are "blown in the
> wind". It is hard to call this a dialogue... and thus there is very
> little co-elaboration of any discourse(s).
> >> it is the responsibility of the "receiver" to decide whether or not
> an idea, a notion, a definition, a comment is relevant to his/her
> research, studies, ideas, development, etc. And -at least in my
> education-, the first thing one had to draw a distinction between was
> 1/facts, 2/interpretations, 3/explanations, 4/theories. It is up to
any
> member of the list who wants to use any contribution to put it
somewhere
> in any of these categories...
>
> It is also clear that any member of the list can declare any position.
> Unless it becomes a prerequisite to certify that you are a Ph-D
student,
> a professor, a designer, I always thought that people would sign with
> what they sign, and that if I declare that I hold a PhD in quantum
> physics from the university of Zombiland, or that I am just a lurker
> from Midelt, either you send the police and cross check declarations,
or
> realize that the sig gets the meaning I want to give to it. This is
> precisely why I also think that the Internet is a wonderful
"lubricant"
> that gives some fluidity in the author-text monolith.
>
> Unless, of course, people want to -perversely- play with the power
> structure of any discourse (please read "l'Ordre du discours", by
Michel
> Foucault, it certainly is available in English : it is short, clear,
and
> healthy), and put at the forefront the position (e.g. : The -of course
> ?- authoritative Professor, the -of course ?- naive innocent Student,
> etc, etc... ), among other things that one might easily identify
without
> holding a degree in discourse analysis and deconstruction.
>
> If I can admit that some people got unhappy when Ken declared that he
> was in some duo with Cindy, how can they even be sure that Ken from
> PhD-Design would be the Ken Friedman they might have met in the real
> world (and this can go "ad libitum"). As I pointed out, for me, the
hoax
> was the Hans Blix aka Alan Sokal aka ??? post.
> My interpretation is that "Ken", who teaches in Denmark, is in fact
> Shakespeare reborn in this high-tech century and this electronic
> "Hamlet" wanted us to realize how deep "there is something roten in
the
> Kingdom of Denmark" ;-)
>
> I feel sorry for those who consider that they -and subsequently "the
> list"- cannot recover from such trauma.
> Send the police, cry in the dark, drink your head off, have a good
> laugh... if you never ever got cheated when buying something for face
> value, then, true, it is sometimes painful to grow up.
>
> Or let's start a new list where real names will be forbidden ;-)
>
> Jean (Mr? Ms? ...)
|