On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:29:42PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > You are assuming that I aimed that at you?
No. I assumed it was aimed at the qualities you described. > 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear > that they don't understand your "sarcasm." There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll get it eventually. > 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for > as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your > frequently hostile on-list writing No, it is not. I am not a hedonist. I did mention pleasantness in my description, but my viewpoint is more nuanced than you imply here. > 2a) This confuses people who might like to consider you a friend, and > contrasts with your efforts to be helpful, frex in answering technical > questions, or genuinely funny, as in "amorphous blobs." Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity and contrast. > 3) You will not allow people to 'back off' from a dispute, but instead > try to re-engage the 'hapless victim' in an escalating war of words - > which you seem to want to win quite badly. Do tell how I forced someone to send an email to Brin-L. Also, how does one "win"? > 3a) This leads to a cessation of attempts to communicate on the part > of the 'hv' <cocks head to listen for the "good riddance!"> So, now I am both forcing people to send emails and simultaneously leading them to stop sending emails? Are you studying to be the White Queen? Maybe, just maybe, some people are smarter than you give them credit for, and rather than me somehow controlling (and not controlling) them, my posts might occasionally provide some people something to think about. > 3b) Escalation in the form of personal attacks is your particular > forte, when you appear to wish to humiliate 'the enemy.' Graciousness > in 'winning' apparently is superfluous. It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous discussion is your forte. I write about what I think is important, and argue against things that I don't think are correct. I expect a high standard from people who post on serious topics here, and when I don't see that, I will point it out directly or indirectly. The only "winning" I can think of is when the discussion is interesting and insightful, or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected. > But your on-line bullying is excessive, Then we'll just have to disagree, because I cannot be persuaded that writing emails with no direct life consequences or threats is bullying, let alone excessive. If someone becomes terribly upset from reading an email on an email list, well, then maybe they need to chill out. It is just an email list, for goodness sake. If it is affecting your life, your job, your family, or your emotional health then it might be a good idea to reorder your priorities. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
