On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:50:29AM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
> Nah. I just prefer arguments/discussions where others can try not to
> use loaded ways of speaking.
In regular arguments/discussions, this does apply. However, this isn't a
regular argument or discussion, it's a flamewar, and one that you have
willingly involved yourself in. Both sides have used "loaded phrases/words"
and intentionally or unintentionally, both sides have attacked the character
of the other.
> Adam> Anyway, if you cannot tell the difference between pointing out
> Adam> inconsistencies in someone else's actions and a character
> Adam> attack, then perhaps you'd be better off not taking part in
> Adam> this debate (or any debate, for that matter).
> "reprehensible" "double-talk" "try changing the rules to get your way"
> are all loaded phrases/words that could easily have been avoided. And
> am I not allowed to have a difference of opinion about what I consider
> uncalled for? Guess not.
> And again you cannot control your need to belittle me. Nice. I'm
> perfectly capable of involving myself in arguments without calling
> someone childish or making snide comments like "or any debate, for
> that matter". Thanks.
You seem bound and determined to be offended, and I can't help that.
I have no problem with you disagreeing or pointing out to someone that you
think they've stepped over a line.. But when I read your reply to David's
post I could not help but think of a little child with his fingers in his
ears and stamping his feet. Perhaps I shouldn't have replied to the list in
the way I did. Either way, this isn't productive, so let's get back to the
subject at hand.