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'