On May 11, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
[to Nick]
Suggest something.
Why should he? After several paragraphs of nearly ceaseless ad hominem attacks, why should ANYONE attempt to carry on a rational discussion with you?
Gautam, there's a big difference between being passionate about something and being patronizing, condescending and insulting toward the intelligence of others. I fear your style has been tainted by others who seem unable to make the distinction, and it's disappointing.
There's a lot of hubris involved in lecturing others on the existence of people with guns; there's a lot of hubris involved in telling others how they will respond to things you suggest. And that hubris does not strengthen your position. If your position is sound, you don't need hubris. If it's unsound, you shouldn't be putting it forth.
I think you raise interesting points but it's nearly impossible to agree with them -- even when I *want* to -- solely because they're couched in language that presumes your infallibility while at the same time suggesting your correspondents are too unintelligent to recognize even basic facts about the world.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
