[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:
> "reprehensible" "double-talk" "try changing the rules to get your way"
> are all loaded phrases/words that could easily have been avoided.  

"reprehensible" is not loaded. It has a very clear meaning, which I meant.
The second I've already apologized for, and the last has a slight additional
negative meaning beyond what I meant. I'm sorry, it was a quick e-mail
message that didn't get hours of analysis.

> 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.

Please, in a calm state of mind, read the first four sentences of this
quoted block ("And am I . . . Nice.").  

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
"A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and 
a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never
see her again." - Sluggy Freelance

Reply to: