Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

From: Sandy King ^lt;>
Date: 03/15/05-05:38:53 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020442be5d1da099d9@[]>


In the interest of list harmony let's limit our exchanges henceforth
to matters of fact, say, a) "at what temperature gelatin breaks
down," and/or b) what is a good test for determining if hot gelatin
causes speckling.

Possible answers

1. 120F
2. 140F
3. over 200F

1. Report as fact what our students reported 20-80 years ago the
first time we taught a gum class.
2. Reject #3 because we thought the person who reported it called us
a cockroach.
3. Actually test the premise by doing some real life testing.


>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sandy King wrote:
>>There is no doubt in my mind as to your good intentions. However,
>>the nature of your intervention was such that it clearly took
>>sides. You might have chosen to emphasize other communications,
>>such as how unseemly it was for Judy Seigel to stomp all over a
>>list lurker Mr. Ptak. But you did not.
>Sandy, you're doing it again. Who's the listminder today ??? Tell
>this man he's got to STOP his campaign !
>A couple of days ago Sandy said, "List minders Dave Soemarko and Bob
>Schramm stood by and said nothing in response to Judy Seigel's nasty
>personal attack on Mr. Ptak. In fact, they gave tacit approval to
>her attack by their on-list expression of full support for Seigel. I
>would suggest, and request, that they also resign as list minders,
>as I have done."
>Dave & Bob's supposed "taking sides" and "full support" was simply
>noting that I hadn't done anything wrong.... Sandy is BOUND and
>determined to justify his abuse.
>Clearly, in this miserable affair, anyone who disagrees with him is
>"taking sides." And since his idea of "stomping all over" is my
>reply to Ptak (Sandy himself said he agreed that I hadn't
>"disparaged" Jewelia), what would we call his persistent, repeated,
>much nastier attacks on me? I never even told anyone "shut your
>mouth" -- I spoke cogently and to the point, with argument, and
>explanation, not insults.
>(Of course I'm still wondering who appointed Ptak ayatollah of the
>list, but who am I to wonder about things like that?)
>Day before yesterday, Sandy said,"Persons who have obviously lost
>the ability to be impartial in matters of list protocol should not
>serve in the capacity as list minders." I agree. Sandy should be
>sacked... I note, howwever, that Dave and Bob are now slightly
>martyred, even a tad heroic, attacked for defending truth as well as
>a damsel in distress. Sorry guys, but thanks !
>Meanwhile, despite, again, word from Gord as well as Dave, that such
>complaints should be offlist, Sandy continues onlist -- attacking me
>and those who defend me. So this onlist response -- still baffled by
>his strange escalation of my annoyance at Ptak's fantasy of my
>meaning and presumption in declaring it. It really wasn't such a big
>deal. If I can find it I'll resend it.
>I also note that, protected by SANDY's campaign, Ptak never did
>respond to my request that he explain his reasons, that simply
>re-asserting my badness was not an explanation.
>Even so, the thing was, mercifully, dying down-- until despite all
>that's been said in the interval, Sandy repeats his attack on me...
>(Otherwise known as self-justification. He REALLY can't bear to be
>wrong, at least not vis-a-vis a woman.) And again he claims to Dave:
>>you chose to initiate your message with support for Judy.
>Clearly "support for Judy" is BAD ! And Sandy's idea of "support for
>Judy" is anything that doesn't launch an attack or support his. That
>the sense of the list has not been with him on this is probably
>galling as well.
>Whichever, Sandy!, I urgently suggest that you give this up.
>Complain about me all you like OFFLIST, so I won't have to reply.
>Meanwhile, the beam is in your eye, not in ours.
>Besides, if you don't stop, Maureen Dowd and I will fly down there
>on our broomsticks and put a hex on all your lenses. They will be,
>every last one of them, soft focus.
>>the right to do that, of course, but don't be shocked that others
>>might disagree with your action, and/or with your sense of priority.
>>I second your suggestion, made in another message, that any
>>further comments about this be taken off-list.
>>>Not that I am fighting for the listminder position, but I don't
>>>really understand how you read my earlier post. I only said the I
>>>think Judy's original post was factual, at least that was the
>>>impression that I got from Jwelia's emails. Actually I didn't know
>>>she was a male until I read the email from Steve S. Things seem to
>>>be more complicated than I thought, but from Jwelia's emails long
>>>time ago, I thought she was female and actually went through a
>>>But reagarding subsequent postings, I said that we could continue
>>>to blame one another but that would not get us anywhere, so I
>>>suggested that we leave it. Whether people recognized me as a
>>>listminder or not, I think most would take it as a gentle reminder
>>>that we should not continue fighting on the list. Since I am not
>>>everyone's parent, I cannot force anyone to do or not to do
>>>anything. All I can do is to suggest not to continue on list. If
>>>they continue the argument off list, that is their decision.
>>>And it looked like many agree. Some posted nice emails to about
>>>celebrating, agreeing and Amen, etc., so I don't understand why
>>>you take that email as an "on-list full support for Seigel." You
>>>seem to be full of anger. I don't want to argue. I was just trying
>>>to calm the list down when things broke out.
>>>Dave S
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy King" <>
>>>To: <>
>>>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:07 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Fibber McGee's Closet
>>>>To my previous message I would like to add one further comment.
>>>>List minders Dave Soemarko and Bob Schramm stood by and said nothing
>>>>in response to Judy Seigel's nasty personal attack on Mr. Ptak. In
>>>>fact, they gave tacit approval to her attack by their on-list
>>>>expression of full support for Seigel. I would suggest, and request,
>>>>that they also resign as list minders, as I have done, and that
>>>>Gordon appoint a new set of list minders from the membership of the
>>>>list, using such rationale as he might choose to apply. Persons who
>>>>have obviously lost the ability to be impartial in matters of list
>>>>protocol should not serve in the capacity as list minders.
>>>>>From: Sandy King <>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Fibber McGee's Closet
>>>>>Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:22:31 -0500
>>>>>> Ryuji should not have called her a cockroach. However, as for more
>>>>>> recent comments that have referred to her rudeness, rancor,
>>>>>> obnoxious attitude and sexist rants, that is not name calling in my
>>>>>> opinion. It is, to be blunt, calling a spade a spade.
>>>>>Although I never made clarification, when I said cockroach I had in
>>>>>mind someone (male) who keeps himself busy with insignificant issues,
>>>>>and bring them to me from time to time, not just on this list but on
>>>>>other places as well. The real cockroach act is currently dealt with
>>>>>by ignoring the bug. I used that word in reply to Judy, but the way I
>>>>>wrote was in the context of the "burden" of this list, and the word
>>>>>did not refer to Judy.
>>>>>But she took it that way and I didn't spend one email to deny it; the
>>>>>time was already in the ULF era.
>>>>>I'm sure you can reasonably guess how I feel about the rest, but I
>>>>>just thought to post one correction now. My only post to this list
>>>>>using "cockroach" is quoted below.
>>>>>Ryuji Suzuki
>>>>>"Well, believing is all right, just don't let the wrong people know
>>>>>what it's all about." (Bob Dylan, Need a Woman, 1982)
>>>>>From: Ryuji Suzuki <>
>>>>>Subject: Re: ULF photography
>>>>>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:43:07 -0500 (EST)
>>>>>> From: Judy Seigel <>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: ULF photography
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:09:25 -0500 (EST)
>>>>>> > The point is that the mandate, goal and joy of this list has always
>>>>>> > been sharing information.
>>>>>> And the burden and pain of this list has always been bullshits,
>>>>>> cockroach experts and disputes for trivial issues masking the truly
>>>>>> useful information. Well, that seems true of almost any internet forum
>>>>>> and mailing lists. Well, I'll limite my irony to one paragraph per
>>>>>> post.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ryuji Suzuki
>>>>>> "People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient,
>>>>>> then repent." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
Received on Tue Mar 15 17:39:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST