Most Pageviews by Country

David Kellogg Negatively Judging ChRIS CLÉiRIGh Without Cause

David Kellogg replied to ChRIS CLÉiRIGh on sys-func on 10 Apr 2024, at 08:25:

Well, Chris, I very much doubt if you are sufficiently familiar with the quality of my own work to pass any judgement on its theoretical consistency.

and again on 10 Apr 2024, 16:12:

You certainly did not pass any judgement on the theoretical consistency of my work: you would need a phenomenal mastery of the Korean language to do that. Precisely for that reason your remark "You can analyse it anyway you want to if don't care about theoretical consistency or the quality of your own work" was as impertinent as it was ungrammatical.

and again on 12 Apr 2024, at 9:04:

What really happened was that I asked a question about clause complexing. … Then I got a bunch of ungrammatical gobbledygook about the quality of my work in reply.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Kellogg had asked :

But why can't I consider the clause She tore up the letter, which upset me to be a Circumstance of "She tore up" or some way of complexing the verbal group in the main clause? Why do I have to consider it a ranking clause in its own right?

and CLÉiRIGh had replied:

You can analyse it anyway you want to if [you] don't care about theoretical consistency or the quality of your own work.

That is, CLÉiRIGh had simply stated that it is the desire to maintain the quality of one's work that restricts one's analyses to those that are valid in terms of the theory. The assumption was that Kellogg would desire to maintain the quality of his work. CLÉiRIGh made no reference whatsoever to the quality of Kellogg's actual work.

With respect to Kellogg judging his senior as "impertinent", see 

• David Kellogg Falsely Judging ChRIS CLÉiRIGh As Cowardly.

The rhetorical effect of this self-contradicting judgement was to distract attention away from Kellogg's confused and shifting argumentation about how best to analyse non-defining relative clauses. For the confusions and inconsistencies in Kellogg's argumentation, see

• David Kellogg On Non-Defining Relative Clauses.

David Rose Likening A Cancer Survivor Disfigured By Life-Saving Treatment To The Elephant Man

After Rob Spence described his facial disfigurement resulting from life-saving cancer treatment on asflanet on 24 Mar at 9:20:

But the parson's nose image itself was prompted by seeing my own nose on Friday, just two weeks after its reconstruction following four unsuccessful attempts to remove a basal cell carcinoma plus one final, successful, but radical attempt. I currently have part of my forehead attached to the side of my nose — and it literally looks like nothing more than the rear end of a stuffed chook.

David Rose replied on asflanet at 10:01:

I hope you’re following Joseph Merrick’s lead to put your head in a bag.

Blogger Comments:

David Kellogg Characterising What ChRIS CLÉiRIGh Was Doing As Cowardly

David Kellogg wrote to ChRIS CLÉiRIGh on sys-func on 8 Mar 2024, 08:40:

Here are two arguments against posting "informal logical fallacies" instead of actual linguistic (theoretical and practical) work on our list. See which you find more convincing.

a) The posting of informal logical fallacies facilitates petty one-up-manship; it's something people (overwhelmingly white men) do instead of real research, because it yields smugness and self-satisfaction without responsibility — and without results. (It is also cowardly because, as we saw with your very first example, it means you can insinuate and hint at names instead of engaging flesh-and-blood thinkers and their actual arguments!)

b) Informal logic, like formal logic, is simply one form of logic. But logic is, by its very nature, an abstraction based on millennia of historical generalisation. Logic always requires some kind of mediating system of concepts — always domain specific — before it can be applied. This is why one kind of logic obtains in arithmetic (where differences are always significant) and a different kind in statistics (where differences can be insignificant). This is why we have one kind of logic in the human sciences (where societies that look after the old, the poor, and the sick are considered more evolved) and a different kind in biology (where the survival of the infirm tends to devolution and extinction). As Vygotsky said, a "Marxist psychology" would be as sterile as a Marxist mineralogy:

(Personally, I find BOTH of them convincing; I suppose that means I am either tone-deaf or tone-unpoliced....)

and to Sys-Func on 9 Mar 2024, at 08:19:

Notice that ALL of the responses to my initial response to Chris's "tone policing fallacy" have been responses to a). That was the argument which included words like "one-up-manship", "smug", "self-satisfaction", "cowardly" to characterise what Chris was doing. …

Blogger Comments:

[1] An argument for posting types of informal fallacies to the sys-func list is that it may help scholars to identify fallacious arguments, and to thwart the bullies who use them. 

[2] To be clear, in presuming that either of the alternative arguments is "convincing", this is an example of the false binary fallacy:

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

[3] To be clear, these are examples of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

[4] This is the exact opposite of what is true, since it is not possible to identify the fallacies in an argument without engaging with the actual argument in order to determine its validity.

[5] To be clear, this mistakes different fields in which logic is applied for different types of logic. Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, wherever it is applied. The examples provided for the human sciences and biology are not different types of logic. The former is a value judgement of types of societies, and the latter is a self-contradictory misunderstanding of evolution which posits that survival leads to extinction.

[6] This misunderstands the fallacy of tone policing – which is arguing by

focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Yaegan Doran Falsely Accusing ChRIS CLÉiRIGh Of Impropriety

Yaegan Doran wrote to ChRIS CLÉiRIGh on 23 Feb 2024, at 12:55:

I understand that you disagree with David’s characterisation, and that is fine. Can I request though that when discussing it in asflanet you avoid sarcasm or ridicule such as this?

We have had multiple people get in contact who have said they are not comfortable participating in the forum specifically because of a small set of people such as you, who at times writes in a way that people read as condescending, dismissive or ridiculing.

I am writing this privately so as to avoid calling you out publicly, but I do request that you tone your messages down in this regard.

Blogger Comments:

This is not the first time Doran has attempted to bully CLÉiRIGh with a false accusation; see:

Yaegan Doran Falsely Accusing The Sys-Func Moderator Of Racism

[1] Here Doran grants CLÉiRIGh permission to disagree with Rose. But see also 

The Promotion Of Anti-Intellectualism In The SFL Community

But in this case, contrā Doran's claim, CLÉiRIGh wasn't disagreeing with Rose, and Rose wasn't presenting a characterisation. Rose had written:

Perhaps we need to consider theories in relation to the communities that affiliate around them.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. CLÉiRIGh was not using sarcasm or ridicule; he seriously meant what he said:

Yes, good idea. Let's consider Creation Science and Natural Selection in relation to the communities that affiliate around them. It may not tell us much about the theories, but it will tell us a lot about the communities.

The reason CLÉiRIGh judged Rose's suggestion to consider theories in relation to the communities that affiliate around them to be a good idea is that it would bring to light what is regarded as evidence for (or against) a theory in different communities.  See also David Rose On Theories, Communities And Academic Fields.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In the SFL email discussion lists, the proportion of subscribers who participate in theoretical discussions is typically less than 1%. Here Doran merely repeats the previous bare assertion of his community colleague Dreyfus (recorded here).

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. CLÉiRIGh posts to the asflanet list only extremely rarely, and many of its subscribers would not know anything about him. 

[5] To be clear, Doran provides no evidence that any of CLÉiRIGh's few posts were condescending, dismissive or ridiculing. Again, here is part of a post in which CLÉiRIGh helped a list member to understand a theoretical point, for which he thanked him muchly off-list:

But my main reason for commenting is just to say how great it is to see someone reasoning grammatically. More power to you.

Moreover, if Doran were really serious about policing the tone of posts on asflanet, he would instead target David Rose, but Doran and Rose are, in Bernstein's terms, both priests of the same prophet, Martin. For just one example of Rose's behaviour on email lists, see the post here.

[6] To be clear, Doran is a junior academic, half CLÉiRIGh's age. His inappropriate tenor of superior social status can be explained by the Dunning–Kruger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realise it. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality; by contrast, the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people.

∞

Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

David Rose Positively Judging And Appreciating Brad Smith

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 15 Feb 2024, at 12:42:

Brad, your generosity, skill and humility are the soul of this community.

thanks

Blogger Comments:

Rose used to openly boast, with glee, that he could turn people into 'pussycats' by flattering them.

Shooshi Dreyfus Falsely Accusing ChRIS CLÉiRIGh Of Impropriety

Shoshana Dreyfus wrote to asflanet on 9 Feb 2024, at 10:33:

Dear Kieran and Chris,

One of the reasons a wide range of people in the SFL community don’t post to this discussion list is because of the public chastising that seems to happen sometimes when one does post.

Perhaps if that could be toned down, or left out entirely, then people might feel more encouraged to join the conversation.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is pure invention on Dreyfus' part. Firstly, the number of people willing to publicly discuss matters of theory or analysis on email discussion lists is typically about 1% of the total number of subscribers, and these usually being the same very small set of people, and this does not vary with CLÉiRIGh's extremely rare participation on lists other than Sys-func.

Secondly, of the two posts sent, the first expressed admiration for an insightful post that everyone else was ignoring, and the second provided assistance to the list members by quoting Halliday on the adverbial group. They are repeated below.

(1)

Colm,

I can see where you're coming from, because, in terms of meaning, the vast cloud of gas and dust did turn into the Earth, under the influence of gravity, 4,600 million years ago, and so the relation is one of identity, from that perspective. It's just that here it is worded as a material clause (e.g. unmarked present tense) with a circumstance of Manner: means.

But my main reason for commenting is just to say how great it is to see someone reasoning grammatically.

More power to you.

Sláinte,

ChRIS

(2)

Dear Scholars,

The following might be helpful to anyone who has difficulty in distinguishing nominal groups from adverbial groups.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419-22):

The adverbial group has an adverb as Head, which may or may not be accompanied by modifying elements. … Premodifiers are grammatical items like not and rather and so; there is no lexical premodification in the adverbial group. … The items serving as Premodifiers are adverbs belonging to one of three types – polarity (not), comparison (more, less; as, so) and intensification. … Postmodification is of one type only, namely comparison.

ChEeRS,

ChRIS

∞

Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Ed McDonald Positively Appraising The Winners Of The Inaugural MAK Halliday Prize

Edward McDonald wrote to asflanet on 25 Nov 2023, at 08:40:

Can I add my congratulations to the authors of the winning book on paralanguage. Although I have not yet got round to reading the book itself — too much interesting stuff coming out at the moment! — I did attend the launch last year at the ACU in North Sydney, where it shared the stage with the book on science teaching co-authored by Len Unsworth and his team. As I remember remarking to my landlady afterwards, the launch itself was one of the first such events I had attended post-lockdown, and it was no fluffy PR exercise but a serious academic session, with (from memory) all of the authors of both books either present or attending via Zoom and talking about their experience in doing the research and writing it up.

Speaking personally, I am delighted to see such products of multidisciplinary team projects getting published. Given the enormous range of relevant knowledge, it is not feasible anymore for one or two authors from the same discipline to cover it all, and it was very clear from the launch of both books how much the participants had benefited from the cross-fertilisation and collegiality that such collaborations encourage.

My congratulations again to the co-authors of the winning book — as well as to the runners up, all of whose books look like must reads — and to the organising committee for carrying through such a worthy — and frankly very cheering! — project.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' model of "paralanguage" is Cléirigh's model of body language, rebranded as their own work. See The Inaugural MAK Halliday Prize Awarded To Cléirigh's Plagiarisers.

[2] To be clear, what the authors talked about was the meetings they had in order to try and understand Cléirigh's very simple model.

[3] To be clear, the model was created by one person, Cléirigh, using just one theory in one discipline, SFL.

Vinh To Positively Appreciating David Rose

Blogger Comments:

See also:

A Close Examination Of Rose's 2023 SFLIG Plenary Abstract

Cf.

David Rose Failing To Understand SFL Theory

David Rose Publicly Vilifyng A Deceased Colleague

David Rose Publicly Vilifying His Friend Whose Mother Had Just Died Tragically

Jim Martin Positively Assessing His Misunderstandings Of Axis

Jim Martin replied to Ed McDonald on Sysfling on 25 Aug 2023, at 12:10:

Axialist and proud!

Blogger Comments:

For Martin's misunderstanding of axis, as reported by his most faithful follower, see for example:

• David Rose Misrepresenting Axis As Key To Semantics-Grammar Relations
• David Rose Misrepresenting Halliday's Development Of SFL Theory
• David Rose Misrepresenting Axis
• David Rose Misrepresenting Halliday On Axis
• David Rose Misunderstanding Halliday's "Axial Breakthrough"
• David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstanding Of Stratal Relations As Axial
• David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings Of Protolanguage
• David Rose Misrepresenting The Basis Of Systems
• David Rose Confusing Axis With System
• David Rose Misunderstanding Axis And Realisation (Inter Alia)
• David Rose Misunderstanding Axial Relations And Connotative Semiotics
• David Rose Misunderstanding Axial Relations
• David Rose Misunderstanding Metafunctionality And Axis (Inter Alia)

For Martin's proud misunderstandings of axis, see the new review of Martin (2013):

• Systemic Functional Grammar: A Next Step Into The Theory — Axial Relations

Robin Fawcett Negatively Judging Hostility

Under the pseudonym Dmytro Poremskyi, Robin Fawcett wrote to John Bateman on Sysfling on 18 August at 3:14am:

One certainly cannot but agree with Lise in that this environment should not be hostile. I believe that the whole X-Bar thread (opening with your question marks) should have been taken off list right from the start (at the very least).

Blogger Comments:

Here Fawcett is attempting to shift blame from himself to Bateman. For Fawcett's hostility 'in this environment', see his multiple ad hominem attacks on Bateman at:

Robin Fawcett Negatively Judging John Bateman

Although Fawcett can conceal his name, he lacks the self-knowledge to conceal his characteristic brazen hypocrisy. See:

Robin Fawcett Negatively Appreciating Halliday And Matthiessen (2004)

Robin Fawcett Negatively Judging And Negatively Appreciating Halliday And Matthiessen (1999)

Lise Fontaine Negatively Judging Bateman & Robin

Lise Fontaine wrote to Sysfling on 18 August 2023 at 2:30am:

I would like to kindly remind you all that this list has hundreds of people on it and exchanges like this are the main reason why people don't like to post questions to the list. These exchanges are not furthering our understanding and if you want to continue your 'display' tactics, maybe do it on your own time. This line of 'argumentation' (whatever) is not helpful to this community. It's easy to just delete messages but the silent majority will simply not feel that they can take part in the community. What is this list for??

I think there was some discussion at an AGM not too long ago about principles of communication within our community. Can we stop and think whether our messages are inclusive, kind, clear, etc?

I know I'm not the moderator any longer but this is really tiring.

Blogger Comments: 

With regard to Fontaine's one positive judgement, and her own behaviour in this respect, see

Lise Fontaine Personally Attacking Her Paper's Reviewer

Robin Negatively Judging Bateman

Under the pseudonym Dmytro Poremskyi, Robin Fawcett replied to John Bateman on Sysfling on 18 August 2023 at 2:24am:

I guess keeping your temper in line is mission impossible for you, which probably explains why you resort to your powerful discursive strategies (LOL!), but I will try to reason with you nonetheless …

That's typical of people with anger management issues – they are usually 'not sure' about what they do wrong, even after being told by colleagues that their tone of voice is inappropriate. By the by, that quote above is a textbook example of passive aggressiveness, but I guess you're equally 'not sure' of that. Perhaps there are anger management people in Bremen who can help. …

Blogger Comments:

Although Fawcett can conceal his name, he cannot conceal the tenor of his emails when challenged. Bateman, on the other hand, was unaware that his interlocutor was Fawcett, and had treated him like any other underling who challenged his self-assigned status as primary knower.

David Rose Positively Judging Kindness

 David Rose wrote to Asflanet on 4 May 2023, at 12:42:

Just be kind to people and most people will be kind to you

Blogger Comments:

Cf.

David Rose Publicly Vilifying A Colleague Whose Mother Had Just Died Tragically

David Rose Publicly Vilifyng A Deceased Colleague

Christian Matthiessen Positively Appreciating Lise Fontaine's Promotion

Christian Matthiessen wrote to Lise Fontaine on Sysfling on 31 Mar 2023, at 06:57: 

Well, your news is mixed — sad for Cardiff U and all of us in the European community; but the good news overwhelms this sense of loss! So warm congratulations,

And also applause to Université de Québec à Trois-Rivières for having made such a brilliant choice! 

This is certainly a very exciting development — for you, but also for the whole SFL community: new possibilities will open up / be opened up by you! You’ll create a new community around you — without losing the vibrant community that you have been part of in Europe. As you say "surely Québec is European right?” — You’ll certainly help build a new trans-Atlantic bridge, create new collaborative opportunities.

Blogger Comments:

David Rose Positively Judging The Acknowledgement Of Sources In Martin (1992)

David Rose wrote to SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, 10:07:

… So much of this has been worked out or flagged for further work in English Text, which continually acknowledges the work of others who went before it. …

Blogger Comments:

For some of the evidence that flatly contradicts Rose's claim, see:

Falsely Claiming That The Content Plane Was Not Stratified Before Martin (1992)

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [1]

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [2]

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [3]

Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source

Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source

Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source

For evidence that much of the "acknowledgement" of sources, is actually the motivated misrepresentation of sources, see the following posts at English Text: System And Structure:

Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Speech Function
Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan On Reference
Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan
Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content
Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony
Misrepresenting Firth On Context
Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning
Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context
Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
Misrepresenting Barthes
Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience
Misinterpreting Pike
Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential
Misrepresenting Halliday
Misrepresenting Longacre
Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre
Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
Misrepresenting Hasan
Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin
Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology

Lise Fontaine Personally Attacking Her Paper's Reviewer

Lise Fontaine wrote to Sysfling on 23 august at 01:11:

Dear fellow Sysfling members

Perhaps I should be flattered that 'The Blogger' has set up an entire blog for the sole purpose of discrediting me and the ideas I put forward in a paper from 2017. However, I don't appreciate it at all. I certainly have no objection to people disagreeing with those ideas, or to showing where I was wrong, misinformed or otherwise rubbish. However, this personal attack not only makes me feel very bad, I feel it is very bad for our community for a single person (presumably?) to anonymously attack someone without any recourse for dialogue.

I am pretty sure I know who has done this. This sort of thing has happened before. I can't imagine what I've done to deserve these repeated misrepresentations and personal attacks but I hope this person realises that this kind of thing has career destroying potential especially at a time when evaluations of work can be done by searching online. Luckily I'm at the end of my career so I don't care too much but if anyone who is an early career academic gets this treatment by 'The Blogger', it could ruin their chances of getting promotion, getting invited on projects etc.

If anyone is close to 'The Blogger' please encourage this person to think carefully about the damage they are doing to academic discussion in our community, not to mention to individuals.

Here is the website in question: https://lexisasmostlocalcontext.blogspot.com/

with best wishes

Lise

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. The blog is a meticulous review of Fontaine (2017) which uses theory and reasoned argument as evidence to clarify and critique the ideas put forth in the paper. Any intelligent scholar can deepen their knowledge of SFL Theory by taking the trouble to read the review closely. If anything discredits Fontaine, it is the quality of her paper and her misrepresentation of the review as a personal attack.

personal attack (plural personal attacks)

1. An abusive remark on or relating to somebody's person instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely claims that the blog does not show "where I was wrong, misinformed or otherwise rubbish", and falsely claims that Fontaine has no objection to this being shown.

[3] This is misleading, because it dismisses all the carefully reasoned argumentation in the review as a personal attack. More importantly, Fontaine has chosen to negatively judge ("personally attack") the reviewer instead of addressing any of the argumentation in the review of her publication.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue, since the review is not anonymous and "recourse for dialogue" is afforded for every post by the provision to make comments.

[5] This is misleading in two respects. On the one hand, it falsely claims that the reasoned arguments in the review are repeated misrepresentations and personal attacks. On the other hand, it falsely claims that Fontaine has only acted at all times with propriety, despite having previously abused her position as Sysfling manager to unsubscribe her reviewer from the list when she was made aware of the review of Fawcett (2010), by Robin Fawcett posing as 'Dmytro Poremskyi' on the NASFLA site; see here.

[6] This is misleading because it is inconsistent with Fontaine's claim that the content of the review is repeated misrepresentations and personal attacks, rather than reasoned argumentation. On the one hand, this is an unintentional acknowledgement of the validity of the argumentation, and on the other hand, it argues that institutional promotion should not be based on the academic standards demonstrated by the candidates.

[7] This is misleading, because it is the lack of reasoned argumentation that threatens the academic and intellectual standards of work by members of the SFL community.

∞

It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.

— Thomas Paine

Without freedom of thought, 

there can be no such thing as wisdom,

and no such thing as public liberty 

without freedom of speech.

— Benjamin Franklin

Mick O'Donnell And David Rose Positively Judging Jim Martin

Mick O'Donnell wrote to sys-func on 14/7/22 at 9:16:

Jim Martin has always impressed me as someone who, while respecting the whole, is willing to change core assumptions, when the needs of linguistic modeling require it. … what is important is that Jim has been (and continues to be) willing to throw out established ideas (even his own) if they don't fit new data. And anyone who is not willing to do similarly is kidding themselves if they think they are doing linguistic science.

and David Rose replied at 9:23:

At great personal risk

 

Blogger Comments:

Cf. Martin & Rose (2007: 62) on Martin:

His communion with Mandela, at such a distance in so many respects …

For an examination of Martin's theorising, see the review of Martin (1992) here.

For an example of Martin's "propriety", see his falsely accusing Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium convened to celebrate her life's work after her death here.

Mick O'Donnell Misrepresenting The Content Of A Blog He Thinks No Longer Exists

Mick O'Donnell replied to David Kellogg on sys-func on 29/6/22 at 00:43:   

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Chris's quotes from MAKH. it is not the positive presentation of the center, but rather the continual negative portrayal of the differing views. But not usually on sys-func, more typically on one of Chris's blogs, I think intended most for his friends. I see he has dropped http://thoughts-that-cross-my-mind.blogspot.com, a site that regularly snidely put down anyone he didn't like (I was sometimes there), but more importantly, he got negatively personal regarding people I care about, including unethical things (lifting stuff from a friend's Facebook, putting it on his blog, and when she asked him to take it down, he didn't, just posted on the blog her privately-sent request to remove it.)

This is not what MAKH was about: he was always fair, did not attack other views (with rare exceptions), but rather painted a picture of what he believed was best.

So, positive quotes, good, reasoned arguments, good, snide comments on semi-hidden blogspots, not so good.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here O'Donnell misrepresents as "snidely putting down anyone he didn't like" the reasoned arguments on Thoughts That Cross My Mind that explain why the confidently expressed views of colleagues are in fact inconsistent with SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, the blog is intended to help anyone who wants to improve their understanding of SFL Theory, especially those who are taught by colleagues who do not understand it. To date, the blog has been viewed 82,254 times, which is equivalent to about 100 views for every subscriber to Sysfling, the largest SFL email list.

[3] The question here is why O'Donnell raises the issue of a blog which he believes no longer exists. To be clear, it is because O'Donnell falsely believes that the blog no longer exists that he feels safe in being able to misrepresent its content. The incident that O'Donnell regards as "unethical" was the downloading of Fontaine's image from her university website so it could be placed next to her two posts on the blog. Fontaine wasn't singled out in this regard. All posts on the blog feature an image of the colleague whose views are examined. The image at the time was simply:

As regular viewers of the blog in the intervening 10 years can testify, no private request for the picture to be removed appears on the blog. It might be added that this incident "blew up" at the same time as I was being dishonestly vilified on the Sysfling list in the week of my mother's funeral:

David Rose Negatively Judging My 'Behaviour' and

Robin Fawcett Negatively Judging My SFL Blogs

[4] To be clear, currently there are 22 posts on the blog that examine O'Donnell's understanding of SFL Theory, all of which can be viewed here.

[5] Again, O'Donnell misleads by implying that the reasoned arguments that explain why colleagues' views are misunderstandings of theory are not reasoned arguments, but merely an "attack on other views" that do not "paint a picture" of what is consistent with theory.

[6] This is misleading. To be clear, the blog  Thoughts That Cross My Mind is not "semi-hidden", as demonstrated by the fact that it has been viewed more than 80,000 times. A link to the blog also appears at least once a week on the Sys-func list. O'Donnell's complaint here is that what he misrepresents as 'snide comments' are not as publicly available as they should be.

∞

Again, O'Donnell engages in the very act that he deplores in others: making personal attacks instead of reasoning on the basis of evidence.

Mick O'Donnell Falsely Accusing The Sys-Func Moderator Of Misogyny

Mick O'Donnell wrote sys-func on 28/6/22 at 19:37:

Chris, your blogspot is a place where you choose to insult those who are not as pure as you. In some cases, your misogynist tendencies shine through. This is the worst of what we have become.

Blogger Comments:

1. Here O'Donnell indulges in the behaviour he falsely accuses his colleague of doing: insulting.

2. 'Pure' here means being true to theory (theoretically consistent).

3. There is no misogyny on the blog Thoughts That Cross My Mind, as the blog itself demonstrates, and with regard to gender, the blog treats males and females equally. Here O'Donnell has told an outright lie in order to vilify.

4. A few years ago, O'Donnell, supported by John Bateman, tried to deceive ChRIS into writing a paper for a non-existent collection they dishonestly claimed to be putting together.

5. As a postgraduate student, O'Donnell and his former collaborator, Peter Sefton, routinely ridiculed a female student from another country to her face, taking advantage of the fact that she trusted them to act sincerely and was unable to recognise the ridicule. This behaviour was observed not only regularly in the Sydney University Linguistics Department but more publicly at the 1992 ISFC at Macquarie University. She subsequently dropped out, and soon after had a nervous breakdown.

6. For some, dishonest vilification like O'Donnell's is "the worst of what we have become". See also:

David Rose Negatively Judging My 'Behaviour'.

7. To throw O'Donnell's dishonest nastiness into sharp relief, here's an email ChRIS received from a close friend of his partner Deb (who is suffering from early onset dementia):

Chris I think you are amazing. Your resilience and the way you have been able to manage these huge changes in your life have been incredible. I admire you very much and I’m so glad my dear Deb has you there. I know it’s been very challenging but you face those challenges.

Love from Anne.

and from another friend following Deb's premature death:

But even more importantly you cared for Deb through all of the days of her life with dementia in the most loving way I can imagine. The world would be a better place if more of us could be so compassionate & caring.

Ann Xx