Re: Who has attacked whom?
- To: hosta-open@mallorn.com
- Subject: Re: Who has attacked whom?
- From: B* R*
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 11:06:49 -0400
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
