Re: [GZG] Interesting mercenary idea

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
am not in the UN. And no, I was not personally insulted, however I do
take offense to the obviously unchecked manner in which he chose to
state his facts. I simply feel that he could have chosen his words
better and staged his points in a manner that seemed so intentionally
inflamatory. What also bothers me is that, for whatever reason, I (and I
assume others) are just expected to accept John's choice of words as
some sort of character trait that is unavoidable and must be tolerated.
I don't see it as so. Rudeness and lack of regard for others is never
tolerable.

I have stated in my responses to this, that I do not deny or dispute the
truth of the points made by John. Though I cannot claim any first-hand
experience, I am not living in a cave and consider myself a reasonably
informed individual. This being said, I don't think the fact that
somebody shares some personal connection with something allows them to
step outside of the bounds of tasteful discussion and, when I feel
afronted by a person's choice of words, I am going to voice my
displeasure. 

Your reply seems to indicate a fundimental disregard for what I have
said and an almost willful side-stepping of the details in order to back
up a position which has nothing to do with the source of my complaint. I
am not and did not ignore facts. Indeed, the only compaint I had with
what was said by John was the way in which he chose to say it and
nothing about the facts that he contributed.

Strong and objectionable language is just that, no matter how riteous
the point it is being used to make. If this same tone were used to make
a point about something more obviously prejudicial, my irritation might
not be so singular. I don't care who you are or what you have done,
nothing gives you the right shove your venom down my throat.

As to the assertion that my P.S. was intended to start a flame war, it
was not intended as such. It was meant to demonstrate that the restraint
that John seemed so ready to insist from another contributor should and
could just as easily be expected from him.

Thank you all,

-Eli