Hrant,

Our posts overlapped. Playwright Tennessee Williams said,

"All cruel people describe themselves as paragons of frankness."

I don't mean to label you with this quote, but do I use it to make clear that candor is not the only virtue. In any case, it is perfectly possible to be candid about typography etc without being candid about what a knave or fool you think the other person is. What positive purpose is served by name calling?

I agree that in the online medium we should be extra
cautious about when we choose to be offended (yes, I think
it is a choice).

But the onus should always be on the one speaking to seek
to be understood, not always counting on the listener to
understand.

[ admin test - trying to fix the template error ]

When I'm cruel, and I sometimes am, that's my failing, and I generally try to correct myself (assuming I even realize it). Usually when I "offend" it's simply because the other party doesn't like hearing the truth, even if it can only ever be a truth for a few other people. That's their failing.

Candor is indeed not the only virtue, but I feel it's more important than tact, or even token respect.

If you care about something, you'll be candid about it. If you have an acquaintance with a nose the size of an elephant's trunk, and you notice that it's preventing the person from getting a date, you'd be helping everybody by suggesting he consider getting a nose job. If the person is too insecure to handle a mere suggestion, that's not your fault - you did the right thing.

> What positive purpose is served by name calling?

If you mean what I'm thinking, almost nothing. Calling somebody a "jackass" for example has no constructive value (except hopefully to trigger a fruitful opposing reaction - sometimes things have to hit bottom to bounce back), less because it's name-calling and more because it simply can't physically be true! But that sort of thing is pretty rare here.

But when (on another list) I say something like "Mr X is so blinded by calligraphy that he has trouble avoiding psychological lethargy in type design", and a certain person thinks this is grounds for expelling me from the list (even though Mr X is not even a listmember!), then that person is an intolerant, and will never be at harmony in a multicultural milieu, unless he/she changes inside, as opposed to changing other people's superficial behavior.

This is what we're really dealing with:
Insecurities turning into livid reactions, not merely feeling insulted at name-calling.

hhp

> the onus should always be on the one speaking to seek to be understood

Well, I'd say at most it's 50/50, but you're actually supporting my point! Assuming your opinion is opposed to somebody else's (happily a very common thing!) then you simply can't be maximally understood and totally "polite" at the same time. You can only be polite to the extent that the other person is psychologically strong.

hhp

> If you have an acquaintance with a nose the size of an elephant's trunk,
and you notice that it's preventing the person from getting a date,
you'd be helping everybody by suggesting he consider getting a nose job.
If the person is too insecure to handle a mere suggestion, that's not
your fault - you did the right thing.


Hrant,
Try to say something like that to someone with whom you don't have
a strong relationship, developed over time, and through such
an impersonal medium as a web forum... ;-)

I agree with the rest of your argument, but I believe that, sometimes,
polite silence is more constructive than full self-expression.
There's always time to express your opinion, trying to mend an offense,
even an unintentional one, may be more complicated.

And, most of the time, self-confidence is more powerful than surgery.

Hrant, who would have known you would have been getting free therapy here? Progress, progress, progress.

I'll admit, I have not been around here forever. But I do regularly read, if I do not participate, in many of the posts around here however. I do not read every one I admit. It would take to much time and I must make a living.

I do however, perhaps more than anyone else's, follow Hrant's posts. I find the discussions he participates in to be, more often than not, learning experiences. For that I am grateful. And for the most part (I've been around about a year now I think) I have not seen Hrant attack anyone who did not deserve it.

In fact, many times, it seems as if a few have logged on for the purpose of attacking him.

I feel that if anyone has been inappropriate around here, in proportion to the total number of times they have posted, it would be •••••• ••••••.

Well, Hrant, I would think that enough of the people around here would indeed know you well enough ( even on a forum ) not to be so offended by some of the things you say. It seems, according to your accusers, that you say these things often enough that they would carry little weight by now. But obviously you are respected. Not matter how many times you post

I for one, think it is wonderful, that you put with all of this, and still you are willing to share what you know about type.

Thanks.

Sean

Free therapy? Oh, sign me up! :jumps on the couch:

Well, lets see...once I saw my parents naked, and my mom used to take me in the ladies loo, and...is anyone getting this down?

heh

Seriously, are we really going to start flogging the horse again? I think we can officially say it's dead...

Yves,

Rotating smiley **and** blink?

In one post?

Cool!

Joe

I've applied my own rigorous 72 hour rule for this
reply. If you read any of this at all, please read the
whole thing so I'm not misunderstood.

I hope I can say this once and get it off my chest
forever. More than that I hope Hrant doesn't respond.
I've written drafts of this letter many times over the
span of my involvement here; some for Hrant in private,
some for the public. Most sat forever, unposted. One or
two got sent to him privately as formal censures, but
wait; Jared got to write those.

I've never commented publicly, mainly because I didn't
think Hrant would take it as helpful criticism and also
because I thought posting it online would be
inappropriate.

In some ways I'm posting this in hopes we can move on.
In other ways, I'm really hoping Hrant is listening for
his sake and ours (so he can help us move on). I'm also
tempted to link to two-year old posts so some of you
new folks can see what all the fuss is about, and that
Hrant has come a long way, but the archives have saved
me the effort and spared us all the past. A past that
hopefully we can all laugh about later.

Lastly, I won't speak as a moderator/partner here. It's
just me. Hrant hasn't asked for this thread, nor does
he deserve more air time (or scolding for that matter),
but in so many ways he has been asking for it for a
very long time and rightfully deserves a lengthy public
scolding in the form of a roast from someone who likes
to think he cares.

I could just second most of what Jon Coltz and all of
what John Hudson wrote and sit down. I could just agree
with anonymous, that Hrant is a tedious, insufferable
bigot. I do think I have a different perspective to
offer and hopefully it can be taken constructively by
Hrant and his detractors. (Besides, John's British
roots betrayed him; he was way too polite for Hrant to
actually see the critique. =)

I'll be as blunt as Hrant seems to prefer and I'm going
to try to be candid and also fair. Hrant needs to
change, frankly in ways I'm skeptical are possible. The
Type community, including myself, needs to change: to
consider Hrant for what he is now, and move on. The
only caveat is, I've never met him. I don't read every
single post here (or elsewhere) so I don't consider
myself privy to everything he says or did in his past
life.

On to the letter.

_________________________

Jon,

In some ways I agree. In other ways Hrant angers me
beyond words. Thanks for giving me a platform for my
vent and call to action.

I've heard too many people, whom I respect and whose
experience I would love to hear from more, say he's the
reason they don't post more. That's a shame.

But I believe he's becoming sufficiently *ignorable for
those who find him insufferable. (I'll elaborate
later.)

Like Yves, I too believe Hrant's not a bad guy, I know
he's had a legal run-in with a major foundry in the
past which, to my 3rd-hand knowledge is resolved and
forgiven by all parties (if I'm wrong someone will
correct me within the hour) and is deeper than being
removed from any online discussion, but not so deep
that the type community should hang him out to dry. I
don't fully know the details, nor should we care,
unless they are pertinent or threatening or affect us
personally. I even believe, if one are sincere and
Hrant sensed that sincerity, he'd probably tell about
it. Finally, from what I can tell, Hrant never holds a
grudge. Okay, so I shouldn't say never, but at least
when he holds a grudge you'll know about it. For these
reasons I no longer question his motives, only his
approach.

That's the past baggage, that's Hrant pre 2001-2002
(I sincerely hope). Let's move on already and hope
Hrant can help us tolerate him more with my
Simple-Action Reckoning and Carefree Approach to
Symbiosis Method outlined below.

On to the present baggage. Yes, this is for those
of you intolerant of hhp. He's become more ignorable in
the past year. He's more willing to admit wrong or
listen to another view. Sometimes, though, when I can't
bear it, I still have to post around Hrant by
picking up a thread at a point before he got to it. For
the most part this works, but honestly, Hrant is a
better man than some of you grudgingly hold. Even
though he's still an insufferable tedious bigot.

Mr. Papazian's online wanderings would be more
fruitful to him and others if he found better focus.
Were his postings more targeted and less haphazard he
could focus on mutual understanding and less time
responding to every thread, everywhere. (Does Hrant go
home at night and check off a list off all the
perceived wrongs he righted?)

Seriously, Hrant should use his online time (is he ever
off-line?) to pick a few key discussions and really
explore them, rather than his current method of reading
every thread and taking a shotgun-blast approach to
leaving quick comments in each one. When Hrant agrees
with a thread, these quick comments are cheapened by
their quantity like showering too many compliments.
However, when he disagrees, these quick comments come
off as blanket statements wherein he endicts entire
industries, classes of people, organizations and entire
nations. They are antagonizing and, by their quick
nature, unproductive and take away from the times when
he's caught being helpful or kind.

Hrant has to help us like him better. In your
letter Jon, you assert that others don't post because
they're afraid. That may be so, for a minority. Most
just see that it's fruitless to engage in a
conversation with someone who just wants to antagonize;
someone who just argues, and seemingly not for the sake
of disagreement, but for the savor of being
disagreeable. If that keeps someone with real-world
experience -- as opposed to being well read or even the
most verbose -- away from online forums, that's a
shame. (Unfortunately the 'fruitful avoidance' thing
only seems to work in hallways and lecture halls.)

This isn't the 4th grade where we get an S if we play
nicely or a U if we don't. Unfortunately, in the past,
Hrant has given people plenty of reasons to not like
him. Some people just want more reasons to like Hrant.
Some of these will never be satisfied and that's okay,
and it's probably okay with Hrant too. Afterall, he's
never sought anybody's approval.

I already responded to Hrant's comment about tolerance.
I'll elaborate since it suits the structure of my
letter. On August 11, 9:25am, he wrote:

We come from different environments, and
naturally civility has different measures for you and
me... The only thing you should try to enforce is
tolerance... It really is a matter of spine, which
translates to self-control.

Even though Hrant can be insulting, he may be the most
tolerant of us as people. Afterall, he chooses to live
in America, a land he loathes, among mostly Christians
who he deems worse than nazis, in LA of all places, the
ideological capital of all things decadent, fat and
SUV-driving. Phew, now that's tolerant!

He's certainly not the most tolerant of ideas, however.
His tolerance argument sounds good if it's coming from
Mr. Bowfry (ahem, back in the 4th grade). If Hrant were
the picked-on kid who was always nice, but still had no
friends, we'd be inclined to agree with his view of
tolerance and have empathy. Or at least, he'd be a
chick magnet with the 6th grade girls.)

I'm not sure if I should congratulate Hrant on growing
a stiff spine or if I should challenge him to now grow
some manners ('Western' or what he calls'traditional'
I'd take either one. He is essentially saying, "if you
can't tolerate my abrasiveness, then you're intolerant,
and that's your fault, not mine." That's Hrant's excuse
for not taking the time or effort to articulate what
he's thinking. Honesty doesn't have to be rude and
blunt is not the same as brash. If Hrant were really
trying to have a conversation or productive dialogue
he'd strive to communicate and be understood rather
than aiming to offend.

Now I'll try to tone down my digs -- some friendly, all
critical. Truthfully, when he takes the effort to stay
through an argument, the harsh points, the brazen
attitude and caustic shards are broken off in the
tussle and the result is a mishappen but recognizalbe
nugget that many seem to agree on. The journey is
sometimes longer than its worth, but once tested, there
is a semi-rational person behind the hhp signature.
(Okay, despite my own social/political/religious and
sometimes typographic views.)

In conclusion, here's my four step Simple-Action Reckoning and
Carefree Approach to Symbiosis Method or
S.A.R.C.A.S.M.: (Hrant, this is the part you can
easily copy and paste into your reply.)

1) Limit your posts to one or two threads on one or two
forums per week. Oh, and take a weekend off every once
in a while. Doing this will help you be more focused,
more meaningful, more understood and those who can't
stand you will have less of you to 'tolerate.' Oh, plus
it will help us all keep up.

2) Offer your strongest opinions when you have have
some expertise or real experience, not just because you
have a strong opinion. (We're all entitled to our
opinions, but we're not all prepared to hear the all
the uninformed ones all the time. This is why I'm
silent a lot. It helps me stay mysterious and looking
smarter than I am. Why do you think Jared is quieter
than me? You probably also thought he was smarter than
me. =)

3) When you don't have an interest/expertise in a topic
try listening. (I remember when you once held the
opinion that letterpress was a useless exercise in
nostalgia. Now that you've taken a class in it you've
developed a new opinion and I've enjoyed listening to
you talk about it. (And Geralds, I haven't pushed any
ems, if letterpress is the only measure we're using
here, I guess I'm out.)

Finally, the failsafe in the Simple-Action Reckoning
and Carefree Approach to Symbiosis Method is:

4) If none of these works, start a blog at your own
domain and say whatever you please. We'll come and
listen at our leisure and you can stay on or divert any
topics you choose or bait your chocolate and eat it too
for all we care.

Regards,

Joseph Pemberton




PS -- If you don't do something about this Hrant
Papazian -- I mean if his opinions go unchecked --
the Google archives 45 years from now will show that
hhp was the premier type guy of the 21st century. Now
that's a scary thought. It's true. Google tracks sheer
quantity not quality folks.


* No, not ignoble, ignorable. Just in case you may have
read that wrong.

Well said, Joe. I don't think Hrant's a bad guy or anything, but I do sometimes wish he had something better to do with his time.

I think a better title for this topic would have been:
"Quousque tandem abutere, Hrant, patentia nostra?"

Joseph... wow.





P.S.
> Yves,
> Rotating smiley **and** blink?
> In one post?
> Cool!
> Joe

Dear Mr. D., you wouldn't know cool if it jumped
up and bit you in the bum. (It's the jester's
privilege to be the only one allowed to tell the
king he's a fool.)
If I may be so bald (!) to quote myself:
> And really, there's nothing [insert name of choice]
can throw at you that a healthy dose of self-relativation
and a good sense of humour won't help you through.
Some people need to stop taking themselves too seriously.

4) If none of these works, start a blog at your own
domain and say whatever you please. We'll come and
listen at our leisure and you can stay on or divert any
topics you choose or bait your chocolate and eat it too
for all we care.

Well Hrant, Mr. Giampa does it, so...

As I dont speak Latin (en een heel klein beetje nederlands, Yves), could someone translate "Quousque tandem abutere, Hrant, patentia nostra?" for me?

I believe it translates loosely to :

"How long now, Hrant, will you abuse our patience?"

It's the old school quote from Caslon's (and everyone else's) specimen sheets, isn't it?

It's from Cicero's "Oration against Catiline," a text often used in type specimen books going back to Caslon, with "Hrant" substituted for "Cataline." It translates as

"How long, O Hrant, wilt thou abuse our patience?"

Perhaps more clever than apt, but I couldn't resist.

David,

It's from Cicero's first Catalinarian oration (63 BC, I believe). Cataline, a senator, was conspiring to overthrow the government, and part of his plan involved an attempt to assassinate Cicero. The night after the failed attempt, Cicero accosted Cataline in the Senate, and in the presence of all, he asked, "To what end, Cataline (insert favorite list poster here), will you abuse our patience?"

Cicero subsequently had Cataline murdered.

Jon

There are a whole load of clever clogs on this site, thats for sure. Thanks!

Jon, you are a gem!

Cicero subsequently had Cataline murdered.

Don't anyone get any funny ideas!

Love that acronym, Joseph! Nice one.

Yeah, that's not part of the S.A.R.C.A.S.M. mutual healing plan. =)

Joseph Pemberton,

3) When you don't have an interest/expertise in a topic try listening. (I remember when you once held the opinion that letterpress was a useless exercise in nostalgia. Now that you've taken a class in it you've developed a new opinion and I've enjoyed listening to you talk about it. (And Geralds, I haven't pushed any ems, if letterpress is the only measure we're using here, I guess I'm out.)
......

I am not one wishing to dampen enthusiasm about letterpress including Hrants, but the point is more than quantity of ems per hour. But of expertise. My serious qualifications as a punchcutter, typefounder grant me a greater credibility of how type is made. Would you not think that could be true? My observations about Pascal has nothing to do with nostalgia. That is what I was accused of, not knowing what I was talking about, and nostalgia apparently negated any knowledge that I may have accumulated. I think not.

Together Hrant and Gerald Lange intended to insult me in public and I take it as such.

Also, I did not say that Gerald Lange did bad work. If I thought so, certainly that was my opportunity. My opinion is the very opposite.

But as far as, "not doing bad work", neither do I.

Maybe I should have made myself more clear.

http://www.lanstontype.com/ATF.html
Read down column.

Gerald Giampa
Lanston Type Company.

Yves -

>Dear Mr. D., you wouldn't know cool
>if it jumped up and bit you in the bum.
>(It's the jester's privilege to be
>the only one allowed to tell
>the king he's a fool.)


Wow. That observation is soooooooooooooo cool.

Joe

Hrant: "If you have an acquaintance with a nose the size of an elephant's trunk, and you notice that it's preventing the person from getting a date, you'd be helping everybody by suggesting he consider getting a nose job."

In that spirit may I suggest you reread every thread you have ever posted on in its entirety?

And afterwards -- it shouldn't take more than a month if you read quickly -- show us where anyone has actually benefited from all this outpouring? Personally, I find it interesting as group psychology, but not very revealing about typography.

I've been reading "Zen and the art of travel", and I ran into a nice quote:

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
Marie Curie

hhp

actually, they didn't kill socrates. Socrates drank the conium(poison). It's a little different cause it's liek he agreed to the whole system of justice and his punishment. On the other hand, we would have to force hrant's death to him.

sheesh, this post is unbelievable. I hope i make it to the last reply.

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
Marie Curie

She obviously never went to the Red Lion in High Wycombe then...

> actually, they didn't kill socrates. Socrates drank the conium(poison). It's a little different cause it's liek he agreed to the whole system of justice and his punishment.

Crikey -- this'll teach me to invoke Socrates!

That Socrates obeyed the death sentence didn't mean that he agreed with it; according to the Crito it was simply more virtuous to him to face what his ideas had earned him in the eyes of the system of justice, than to flee and repudiate his value system.

As far as Hrant is concerned, it all depends on whose "system of justice" we're talking about.

Jon

N.B. My wife is still a classicist, and she's still letting me use her books.

>But when (on another list) I say something like "Mr X is so blinded by calligraphy that he has trouble avoiding psychological lethargy in type design", and a certain person thinks this is grounds for expelling me from the list

Final clarification of my earlier point-furthered by a good example from John Hudson - concerning hard-hitting argument on an issue verses personal attack. The example you give is phrased as a personal attack because you aledge personal failings in the person involved. You can make the same point about the substance of the debate without getting personal.

For example, you could say, "Taking calligraphy as a model rules out valuable improvements such as trapping." I don't know what you meant to say on the substance, but if you have a point to make about the type design issue, it is always in principle possible to do it without getting personal. (Assuming of course it is not a personal issue to start with, such as piracy.) Shifting to the personal - the 'ad hominem' attack - is unnecessary, and damages rather than furthering the search for truth.

Keep living with your cozy formal separation of people's character and their actions, their contribution to culture, and you'll keep missing the big picture, the cause of things. Saying something like "taking calligraphy as a model rules out valuable improvements such as trapping" strips out the invaluable insight into the entire foundation of that person's (misguided, to me) oeuvre. Such tentativeness can only produce obvious insights, stuff nobody needs you for. Your very stance here is not some abstract formal reality, it's coming directly from inside you.

All you're really talking about is a particular set of social norms, which you conveniently cast as the The Right Way. That doesn't fly with me, and it flies in inverse proportion to the diversity within a given group of people. Just be happy I'm not interested in preaching my social mores to you - you wouldn't hear the end of it.

If you want to have a separation, start at home: instead of promulgating your personal religion, talk about type.

hhp

jon you are right in what you are saying. I think he didnt believe in it, but he conformed to the system.

Regarding Sokrates' death, a classicist friend pointed out that drinking hemlock was not a normal form of execution in Athens, and that it was probably prescribed in Sokrates' sentence because of his involvement with the 30 Tyrants, who had used that form of execution. In other words, the method of execution tells us something about the political reasons for Sokrates' trial. Not only did he annoy a lot of people, he had also backed a highly unpopular dictatorial regime.

>All you're really talking about is a particular set of social norms, ...it flies in inverse proportion to the diversity within a given group of people.

This is a multinational and multicultural board. Does anybody agree with Hrant's view that a higher purpose is served by phrasing critiques in a personally insulting way?

That's like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

hhp

Ok, what is the false assumption? Is it false that you frequently put critiques as personal attacks? (See John Hudson's example above.) Is is false that you think this personal approach is necessary to bring deeper understanding? (See your defense above.) I thought I was accurately characterizing your view. Correct me.

I'm not your lab rat. You've vented/proselytized/opined, now it's over.

hhp

I like the way Hrant does. Of course it can be desapointing or, even, hurting. But i don't see the point of the people who are angry because Hrant says things they're supposed to master are wrong or so. If these persons trusts themselves enough to say they're masters in their domain, why would they care about the opinion of any Hrant ?
It's the same with personal attacks, if people are deeply hurt, they haven't understand the way internet works, or/and give really too much importance to what people they don't even know, say.
I can see myself or anybody else being hurt by a mean critic on his work. But that's not what Hrant does, and as another person has mentionned, he's not mean when it comes to work criticism (mean appearing to me not to fit to any of Hrant comments, anyway).
If i had something to had, it would be that Hrant is a very good rhetorician (sorry for spelling), in the good way. He nearly convinced me that we need a king and that boumas was the ultimate type theory, when i'm the average relativist he'd hate

Don't you love guys that vote for themselves?

if you speak about me, i didn't even understand that vote process, what it means, and if i did so it was pure accident.
Which could means i'm stupid but i swear, not in having voted for myself.

Sorry,


Must be part of your logo.

> Don't you love guys that vote for themselves?

Don't you love chickenshit back-stabbing weasels that
don't have the guts to tell you something in your face?
Anonymous posters, it looks like no forum could be
complete without those juvenile parasites...

>It's the same with personal attacks, if people are deeply hurt, they haven't understand the way internet works

You may be right that the personal attacks are an unavoidable feature of the internet. With the other person being just ASCII and not a physical presence or even voice, people (me included) tend to lose the normal restraints of civility.

But I for one am saddened by it. The new communities that the internet has made possible, such as this one, I think are a beautiful thing. The occasional - or frequent - rudeness of some posters is an ugly scar on this beautiful new creation.

If the posters on this board could as a rule take special care not to give into the temptation to be rude, and to resist answering rudeness with rudness, it might change the culture on this board.

But as you indicate, and by the evidence of this thread, this is probably a vain hope.

William,

Your words I agree with.

"If the posters on this board could as a rule take special care not to give into the temptation to be rude, and to resist answering rudeness with rudness, it might change the culture on this board."

.....

I have found myself guilty of this myself.

In another thread, I responded with rudeness to rudeness bringing me down to his level. I don't mean Hrant either. I followed up with a more progressive posting. I am sure that both of us have regrets.

So I will try to work on that. It is not a feature, it is a fault.

Gerald Giampa
P.S. I still like funny.

> If the posters on this board could as a rule take
special care not to give into the temptation to be rude,
and to resist answering rudeness with rudness, it might
change the culture on this board.

But as you indicate, and by the evidence of this thread,
this is probably a vain hope.

Sorry William, I lost it just there. I'm usually not
that way, I think people can attest that. It just
enrages me that those anonymous posters
seemingly get away with poisoning threads and
insulting people behind their anonimosity. And
I'm convinced that most of my co-Typophiles feel
exactly the same way.

Here I just gave up, and you guys give me hope again!

Thanks.

William,

"You who gave me hope", not just once, but several times.

Don't "you" give up.

Gerald Giampa

Like I said, it's all about you.

> it might change the culture on this board.

To your liking.
Since Typophile membership has doubled in the past year or so, I'd say the culture is doing well enough, and there's reason to believe that candor is one reason for that.

hhp

Regarding anonymity:
The General Discussions and Type Identification Board
are the only areas that allow anonymous posting. If it's time
to change that, voice your opinion here.

Regarding civility:
William, I wholeheartedly agree about restraint. And Gerald,
I'm glad you've chosen to stick around, despite your first
bad experience here. If there's an underlying tone to this
thread, I hope it's that we can all move on, past the
perceived wrongdoings of the past and consider people for
what they are offering to the community now.

But I will say that, on the whole, this board is more civil
than any other I'm aware of.