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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:13:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> > > Miles Bader wrote:
> [snip]
> > 
> > I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which
> > the message is conveyed.
> The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message.

Yes. When somebody puts on a smart suit and tells you, in 'polite' and
clipped tones, that everything you believe in is wrong and that you
should instead do things *his* way, then you know that not only is he
a self-obsessed bigot, he's dishonest about it too, and furthermore
that he thinks you're stupid enough to believe that he's being nice to

At least if he didn't *pretend* to be polite then there would be a
certain amount of integrity in his actions, and probably less actual

Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're
being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't
make you a better person, it just makes you a liar.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: