hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Who has attacked whom?


I've tried to read this and can't figure out who is who.

Can it be resent in a different form.



At 08:22 AM 9/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Subject:
>        Who has attacked whom?
>   Date:
>       Tues, 7 Sept, 1999
>   <<< This message is part 2 of a previous message >>>
>
>I heard him speak at the
>  Hostas in Focus Festival last fall.  I have read his writing
>  with interest in the Hosta Journal.  However, there
>  is another aspect to Jim Hawes which members of
>  the Internet Hosta Robin need to know aboutone I
>  have personally experienced.[NO WE DIDNT NEED TO KNOW THAT HE AND YOU
>WERE
>HAVING SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD KNOWS WHAT---AND PERHAPS NONE OF US
>CARE
>ABOUT]
>
>  Jim Hawes seems completely intolerant of opinions different
>  from his own and lashes out at members of the
>  hosta robin with personal, insulting, vicious, infuriating emails
>  that don't get posted to the whole Robin.[AND THIS SOMEHOW DIFFERS
>FROM YOU
>RECENT USE OF THE ROBIN??????????????????????????????????????]
>
>  He also misrepresents
>  input he has gotten about issues he has raised to the whole Robin
>  in a way that appears to me to be intellectually dishonest.  His
>  recent posting summarizing input he received about his challenge
>  for someone to do cost-benefit analysis of registration of new
>  hostas was just plain dishonest.  My response to his original
>  query was sent only to him.  He berated me in an unbelievable
>  private email for my opinions (which he completely misinterpreted)
>  and then ignored what I said in his public report posted to the
>Robin,[WHAT
>PART OF THIS AM I MISSING?  HE SENDS PRIVATE AND YOU POST THE WHOLE MESS
>
>TO
>THE ROBIN---IF ANYONE SHOULD BE OFFENDED I QUESTION WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
>
>YOU?]
>  dismissing it as irrelevant.  [IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THAT IS THE
>PEROGATIVE
>OF ACADAMIA.....]
>
>  The central theme in his email to me was that I should keep my
>  opinions to myself and not post them on the Robin. [WELL IT APPEAR
>THAT YOU
>SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT ADVICE TO HEART, AND YOU WOULDNT BE GETTING A
>BLISTERING FROM ME....AND I SUPPOSE OTHERS] This is the only
>  seriously negative reaction I've ever gotten to anything I've ever
>posted
>[HOLD ON TO YOUR HAIR...]
>
>  to the Robin, and it was way, way over the top; nasty and
>personal.[AGAIN, I
>ASK, HOW DO YOU SIT IN SUCH A HIGH CHAIR (lol) OF POWER THAT YOU ARE THE
>
>ULTIMATE DETERMINOR OF WHAT IS RIGHT, GOOD, AND PURE IN THE WORLD OF
>BOTANY,
>HOSTA, OR ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER....]
>
>  I immediately sent Jim an apology which also made clear that I found
>  his email inappropriate and infuriating.[LET ME GET THIS PART
>STRAIGHT...YOU
>SENT AN INFURIATED AND INAPPROPRIATE APOLOGY.....]  He never deigned to
>reply.[PERHAPS BECAUSE HE IS TOTALLY STUNNED?  IF THAT APOLOGY IS
>ANYTHING
>LIKE THIS LETTER I WOULD BE SCARED TOO.]He
>  seems not to care if he hurt my feelings or worse[THATS NOT THE HAWES
>I
>KNOW], he just wants to
>  stifle
>  dissent, i.e. prevent free discussion of ideas on the Robin if they
>  disagree with his position [DO YOU HAVE A SUPPLIER FOR THIS MANURE?].
>
>  I suggest that other members of the Robin think twice before
>  responding to anything Jim Hawes posts.[STICK IT IN YOUR EAR STEVE,
>THE LAST
>PERSON WHO TOLD ME WHO MY FRIENDS COULD BE, I DISASSOCIATED WITH IN 5th
>GRADE
>-- AFTER I GAVE HIM ALL THE MONEY IN MY POCKET -- RECENTLY SAW THAT HE
>WAS
>JAILED FOR EXTORTION....]  The consequences
>  could be very unsettling because even if you are supporting his view,
>  he may misinterpret your words and attack you in a vicious way.[STEVE
>I HAVE
>A LIFE....THIS IS ABOUT HOSTA....NOT THE INTEGRATION AND INFILTRATION OF
>
>COMMUNISM IN WESTERN CULTURE OR CANADA.....THIS IS A DARN {?} GARDEN
>CLUB,
>FOR CRYING OUT LOUD...]
>
>  I suspect [IN OTHERS WORDS YOU DONT KNOW, BUT WILL PONTIFICATE ON IT
>ANYWAY....] the recent episode involving Stevenson, Zonneveld, and
>  Hawes reflects this same behavior.  David, ever the gentleman,
>  accepted full responsibility for misunderstanding a conversation with
>  his irascible curmudgeonship [WOW, HOW SHARP OF YOU...].  I'm not the
>registrar and I don't have to
>  be so polite [APPARENTLY NOT!!!].  At the time, I defended Jim Hawes
>in a
>private email
>  to Ben Zonneveld.  Now, having experienced the Hawes behavior first
>hand,
>  I rather think Jim Hawes may have gotten what he deserves. [THOUGH I
>DIDNT
>STUDY THE GOSPELS SURROUNDING THAT CONTROVERSY.... I BELIEVE HAWES'
>POSITION
>WAS DOMINANT ACCORDING TO ALL WHO FOLLOW THIS STUFF....]
>
>  When I find that someone is knowingly and intentionally
>misrepresenting
>  facts, I develop a distrust of his work, his explanations, and his
>  opinions.[WELCOME TO THE CLUB SON.....IT WILL BE A LONG TIME BEFORE
>ANY
>SUBMISSION OF YOURS IS READ WITH ANY SEMBLANCE OF TRUST, FORETHOUGHT, OR
>
>DIGNITY....]
>  Jim Hawes very recently posted an extensive discussion of fastigiated
>  flower stems.  I find some aspects of his presentation likely to be
>  completely
>  wrong (and an eminent Berkeley plant physiologist agrees)[I SUPPOSE
>BASED ON
>YOUR RELATING OF THE FACTS?]however, I am
>  not about to raise them either on the robin or to him in a private
>email [IT
>SEEMS AS IF YOU JUST DID CITE AN UNNAMED SOURCE, REGARDING UNNAMED
>INFO...SO
>YOU DID RAISE IT, DID YOU NOT?]
>  given
>  what happened the last time.
>
>  I therefore suggest that you take his erudite-appearing postings [AND
>HOW DO
>THEY DIFFER FROM THE UN-EDITED VERSION OF THIS LETTER?] with a
>  grain of salt.[YOU MEAN ANY POSTING SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, RIGHT?]  They
>
>are
>probably a twisted mixture of truth, half-truth, [SEE DIRECTLY
>ABOVE....]
>  and
>  baloney, and his behavior tends to guarantee[OH IT APPEARS YOU ARE
>WELL
>POSITIONED FOR THIS DETERMINATION OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR {FOR THE
>CA-NUCKS
>AGAIN}] that you will never
>  be able to find out what is what and live to tell about it.
>
>  I will take Paul Aden any day.[YOU CAN HAVE HIM AND HIS SHADE SOCIETY
>-- I
>PERSONALLY THINK HE NEEDS TO BE IN THE SHADE, AND NEEDS A GOOD DIARETIC
>TO
>DEAL WITH HIS INTESTINAL FIXATIONS]  His hostas are real, they are
>registered,
>  and
>  I grow and love them [WE DO AGREE ON THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT].  His
>private
>emails to me have been very friendly
>  and civilized.  His postings to a subset of the Robin have all been
>  wolves
>  disguised in wolves' clothing, i.e. straightforward, even blunt.[WELL
>ENOUGH
>ON PAUL....LETS GET BACK TO BASTING JIM....WITH NO FURTHER ADO....]  Jim
>
>  Hawes
>  is a whole different matter.  His postings to the Robin have been
>wolves
>  disguised in sheep's clothing, i.e. misrepresentations represented as
>  facts, and
>  who-knows-what represented as science education [UNLESS I MISS
>UNDERSTAND
>THE ROBIN -- THIS IS NOT EDUCATION IN THE STRICTEST TERMS -- BUT A FREE
>FLOW
>OR DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS AND THOUGHTS--I DONT RECALL ANY REQUIREMENTS
>SUGGESTING THAT ALL HYPOTHESIS' NEED BE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION] for
>the
>masses provided
>  the masses are obsequious, obeisant, and obedient.[BIG WORDS...EH]
>
>  When Jim Hawes speaks I suggest you: 1) keep your mouth shut; 2) wear
>  your armor; 3) keep your distance; 4) maintain a healthy skepticism.
>[I WILL ADD 5) LISTEN AND LEARN --
>AS TO #4 THAT GOES WITH ANY ACADAMIC POSTURING -- I DONT RECALL HAWES
>EVER
>SAYING HE KNEW ALL OR REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS GOD'S GIFT TO HOSTA BOTONY
>
>...AS TO #3, WE ARE ON THE WEB....
>
>AND....AS TO #1... IT SEEMS A FOOL ALWAYS BREAKS HIS OWN #1
>RULE....STEVE.....
>
>
>
><<< Continued to next message >>>
>
>...........................................................................
.................................................
>
><<< This message is part 2 of a previous message >>>
>
>  Still angry, still distrustful, and still waiting for a private reply
>[WHY
>SO YOU CAN POST THAT TO THE ROBIN ALSO?]
>  from Jim Hawes,
>  Steve Chamberlain >>
>
>[SO WERE DO I STAND NOW?  PERHAPS I HAVE DONE NO BETTER THAN STEVE AND
>JIM
>[IN THE MYSTERIOUS NON-POSTED LETTERS] {MY COUNSELOR SEEMS TO THINK
>SO.....AND SUGGESTED I SLEEP ON THIS BEFORE I SEND IT -- NAW, ITS
>GOING...}
>
>AM I NO BETTER THAN THE ALLEGED CULPRIT, OR PERHAPS THE ALLEGED WRONGED
>PERSON...HAVE I NOT JUST LAMBASTED AN ELECTRONIC NEIGHBOR TO DEFEND A
>  POSITION I DO NOT TRUTHFULLY KNOW, OR FOR THAT FACT CARE ABOUT??
>
>PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL NEIGHBORS IN THE ELECTRONIC NEIGHBORHOOD -- WOULD YOU
>
>YELL
>THE SAME INTENTIONS OVER THE FENCE TO THE PERSON WHO LIVES NEXT
>DOOR???   I
>THINK NOT.  HOW ABOUT A LITTLE DECORUM SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME GOOD OUT
>OF
>THIS ROBIN...AND JIM....LIGHTEN UP, AND I BET STEVE WILL ALSO...
>
>....AND ALL THE REST OF US CAN SLEEP SAFE KNOWING THAT THE ROBIN WILL BE
>
>SAFE
>AND SECURE, COME NEXT MORNING....]
>
>STEVE... I HOPE YOU MADE IT THIS FAR.... I HOPE YOU ARE NOT TO
>INFURIATED BY
>THIS POST -- IT CLEARLY ESPOUSES THE EXACT SUBJECT THAT I BROUGHT UP AT
>THE
>ROBIN CONVENTION MEETING -- WE ARE ALL FRIENDS ON THIS ROBIN.....ARE WE
>NOT?
>
>WHAT DOES JIM HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS....WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GAIN FROM
>THIS.... WHAT DO MOST OF US CARE????
>
>I DEMAND APOLOGIES FROM BOTH JIM AND STEVE FOR DISTURBING MY THURSDAY
>EVENING....AND BOYS...WE WILL SEND YOU BOTH TO YOUR ROOM IF YOU DONT
>SHAKE
>HANDS AND MAKE UP....
>
>IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS I WOULD PREFER NOT TO LOSE EITHER OF YOU FROM THE
>ROBIN-- AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THESE  TYPES OF LETTERS ARE SCARING
>PEOPLE
>OFF THE ROBIN......
>
>LIGHTEN UP... ITS A GARDEN FORUM....NOT THE APOCALYPSE.....
>
>BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WITH RESPECT TO STEVE AND JIM,
>
>  KEN,
>
>
>WHERE WE GOT 3.5 INCHES OF RAIN IN METRO DETROIT, IN 45 MINUTES LAST
>NIGHT
>
>ZONE 5
>=========
>
>...........................................................................
...........................................
>
>Let me digress to explain some of the plot.When I posted my seven
>questions to Steve, simultaneously,  someone (let's call him person A)
>also posted a very foulmouth rebuttal to Steve, unknown to me..Also
>simultaneously someone else (person B) also  posted a request for
>information of Steve...why are you attacking Jim Hawes. Unaware, Steve
>cut and pasted to my post the foulmouth rebuttal as though I had written
>
>it and sent it to Steve. He sent it to the nice lady, a school teacher,
>who had made the inquiry. I will not repeat the obscene additions to my
>letter. The following post describes in part recent  correspopndence
>between person  A and Steve in which he acknowledges sending the "fake"
>correspondence, as he characterizes it.Read other post and play
>detective. Figure out the plot of what actually happened.
>
>...........................................................................
....................................................
>
>Subject:
>          [nise] the real evil among us? = Steve Chamberlain and crew!
>     Date:
>          Wed, 01 Sep 1999 21:37:38 -0400
>     From: Person A
>
> Reply-To:           nise@onelist.com
>       To:           Steve Chamberlain <Steve_Chamberlain@isr.syr.edu>
>At 05:54 PM 9/1/99 +0000, Steve Chamberlain
><Steve_Chamberlain@isr.syr.edu>
>wrote:
>>          Reply to:   Free Speech and Hosta Hybrids
>>Jim,
>>
>>You don't seem to understand e-mail etiquette, i.e. when C.H. Falstad
>or I
>>or anyone send you an e-mail addressed to you privately, it is just
>plain
>>inappropriate to respond on the robin.  Yet you consistently do that.
>
>Stever ..I see that by the To: (header above of this email?) this
>particular e'mail is addressed to you personally so therefore, I am
>assuming it is not going through any other list-servers, except those
>which
>I personally may or may not choose to designate in my Blind Copy
>sectors,
>which you shall not see, unless you are a member therein; and this, is
>my
>choice of doing so ..not yours ...thank you for the advise nontheless.
>You
>have something to hide Steve? ...that you don't want your e'mails put on
>
>top of the table of life's game, openly and publicly???
>*FOR EXAMPLE* and to whit:
>I recall, years ago, Steve Chamberlain went after Jim Hawes openly,
>calling
>him "EVIL" ;at which point, I sent you a very foul-mouthed email
>rebuttle!
>...with wording coming from a humorous cassette tape.  Then you had the
>nerve, to attach my post to the bottom of one from Jim Hawes, and send
>it
>to a third party, whom was also questioning your evil accusations
>directed
>towards Mr. Hawes -- and you were pretending, that Mr. Hawes wrote it
>all?  Of course, that person had already seen my post, because she had
>received a blind copy upon my initial transmission to you, so that blew
>your cover real good ..too bad for you, but smart move by me!  So who
>was
>the real evil-monger, after that episode with Steve Chamberlain verses
>James Hawes was over?  Everyone reading this, can rest assured that this
>
>'TRUTH' is never ever be proven wrong: "One can fool some of the people
>some of the time! ...but one can never ever fool all of the people all
>of
>the time"! (author unknown)
>
>
>...........................................................................
....................................................
>
>To which Steve replied:Subject:
>        [PRIVATE] Fwd: RE: the real evil among us? = Steve Chamberlain
>and crew!
>   Date:
>        Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:45:00 -0400
>
>[PRIVATE EMAIL FORWARDING TO JIM...
>>From: Steve Chamberlain <Steve_Chamberlain@isr.syr.ed
> Reply to:   RE: the real evil among us? = Steve Chamberlain and
>> crew!
>>B,
>>
>>Jim Hawes is perceived by some as a sweet, kindly old man and by others
>
>as
>>difficult, lonely, and without common sense.  Those of us, like you,
>who
>>delight in spreading stuff around and inflaming passions have a long
>and
>>honorable tradition in the US going to Patrick Henry and before.  I
>don't
>>know enough about ..............history to cite the antecedents.
>>I sent the "fake" e-mail at the suggestion to three eminent members of
>the
>>AHS leadership to flush out the hidden interconnections ( of your
>group) and it did so.
>
>>In retrospect, I regretted doing so and apologized by e-mail and to Jim
>
>in
>>writing.  I made many efforts to smooth over any hurt.  Despite my
>earlier
>>efforts,  Jim  recently lodged an unsolicited accusation that I publish
>
>>bad science.  I'm not going to tolerate that from anyone unless it
>might
>>be true.  I have no particularly animus for Jim Hawes, but I suspect it
>
>is
>>not symmetrical.  I daily deal with faculty colleagues and students
>more
>>difficult.  I just don't understand why he e-mails what he e-mails.
>>>
>>Spread this e-mail around; I'm certain you will!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Steve
>>
>>Dr. Steven C. Chamberlain
>>Professor and Chairman
>>Department of Bioengineering and Neuroscience
>>Syracuse University
>>Syracuse, NY
>...........................................................................
......
>
>So that's the story, Glen.. Told by e-mail messages. If you are
>disgusted with it, I don't blame you. A story full of  animosity,
>intrigue, slander, fraud and defamation of character,  all pointing in
>one direction, "perceived" by  me as a personal attack. It continues to
>this day. How do you and the fine citizens of Spingfield perceive it?
>
>And what is this about suggestions  from three eminent AHS Leaders to
>send the "fake " message with obscenities to try to flush out hidden
>connections between a few hosta friend discussing various and sundry
>subjects of mutual interest? You were one of us, Glen...was there
>anything wrong with what we were doing that required Flushing Out? All
>of this is so wierd and incredible that one may doubt the varacity of
>
><<< Continued to next message >>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
>
>
Butch Ragland So. Indiana zone 5

"Conflict is as addictive as nicotine, alcohol, drugs, etc.
I'm sorry to report that cooperation is not."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index