>As for feeling better about the communications, I would like to respond
>to that. I think we are too sensitive sometimes (my perception). I
>constantly see on this list as well as others, references to how some
>particular comment affects how we 'feel'. To be honest, I'm not sure I
>know what that means. Should we all be concerned about how our ideas
>may make someone 'feel' at the expense of exchanging ideas? I can't think
>of a safer forum to discuss ideas, even those that may affect ones feeling
>than on the internet. Every time someone makes a slightly provocative
>comment they have to opologize ahead of time and promise its not a flame.
>I'm more interested in the ideas...yes even those that may offend MY
>morals and MY feelings. Otherwise, we can just preach to the converted
>(so to speak). I was responding to a comment you made about Wood Lee's
>comments (or the many perceptions about the meanings of his comments)
>and you related that mentality to perhaps a list like Rachel. As I
>remember your comment, I didn't think it was appropriate. My opinion. Do
>we really want everyone to agree with eveything we say?
>
>-michael
>
I agree with you Michael. Too many times do I get people telling me I've
offended them. When i don't like what someone says I don't post them and
tell them to be more careful next time. I want disagreement. I'm too busy
to waste my time on list with people who all agree with one another. I
want to be made to think, to clarify my arguments. I can best clarify my
arguments to someone who does not agree with me. Also, I would prefer when
people disagree wiht me they would say why and give their argument, not
just tell me I've offended them which does nothing to add to anyones
thought.
Respectfully,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
but you imprison those who employ it privately."
Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
