[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Clarifications

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.


Reply to: