----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Explanation
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:23 PM > Subject: Re: Explanation > > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry. People on the list who are > > > religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil, > > > mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs. > > > > Who expects that? Is that in the etiquette guidelines: religious people > > must let insults slide off their backs. Has someone posted "Hey, you're > > religious, you have to let it slide off your back!!" I certainly have no > > such expectation. Further, neither I, nor Sonja (the only two posts in > > this thread before yours) has ever proclaimed anyone evil (AFAIK) and I > > would rather not be lumped in with those who do, thanks. > > > > > > > People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be > > > indignant. > > > > ??? John doesn't get indignant? You must be kidding. > > > > > > > > I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their > > > posts, etc. That's perfectly reasonable. But, its funny that even the > > > religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good > > > grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for > > > righteous indignation. > > > > This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post, > > Dan. I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it. I > > do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a > > greater insult than that? Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."? > > > > I think it should be pointed out that what John does, does not......can not, > be construed as justification for anything anyone else does. > > I don't think Dan was in any way defending John. It appeared to me he was > commenting on *reactions* to John. Those are 2 quite different kinds of > statements. That's exactly right. > I also think Doug is acting quite correctly when he attempts to separate > himself and Sonja from the crowd Dan was pointing out. I would certainly do > the same. But I am certain that Doug and Sonja were not the targets of Dan's > post. Certainly not. I've never had any real trouble with their posting styles. My post was more on the order of musing about the asymmetry than complaining. I even expect me to just accept the accusations of evil to slide off. I think part of it is that I don't take the Fool's posts all that seriously. In many ways, I think Doug takes JDG's posts seriously. I have no problem with him killfiling JDG. As I said, that's a reasonable reaction to a poster that upsets you. The Fool's posts don't really upset me, and I was thinking of why. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
