>>this means we have different norms, standards and ways of communicating. I
>>recently received the most vitreolic abusive piece of mail privately, in
>>response to something I posted publically. Anyone here in Australia would
>>say that what I posted was reasonable.
>
>DId I misunderstand something here, Kylie? Are you saying that if you are
>poor or from a different country that you should be exempt from behaving
>with courtesy?
No Joy. In fact the point that you continually misunderstand what I say
underlines my point. That is that - people from different cultures
communicate differently, say things in a different way - things in one
culture which may be considered perfectly ok are considered insulting in
another.
That if you are poor that you somehow should not be expected
>to act in a civil and courteous manner? I didn't think that courtesy and
>civility had anything to do with your economic status or your nationality!
>And if you are poor and have access to the Internet, then your economic
>status makes no difference to finding out how to interact with people on
>line. There are all kinds of guidelines, hints and help. The only thing
>that might prevent one from understanding this is their own stubborness, or
>lack of initiative.
You missed my point again Joy. Like it or not there are different
standards in different cultures. And some things like following rules no
matter how sensible they may be are class based. You have dissmissed what
I have said out of hand and you haven't even got half a grasp on it.
>
>I felt your public posts to me were excessively vitriolic, judgemental and
>abusive, and when I posted you privately about this, telling you,
>essentially, how I felt, narry a word did I hear from you, instead I see
>this on the public list. I felt hurt and angered by you calling me a
>"classist" which is very far from what I am, is insulting and unkind, as
>well as untrue.
Firstly, I did not call you a classist out of context. You said that some
people should have a higher wage than others. Although you said that
different people should be the wealthy and some other should be poor this
is esentially supporting the status quo but with a different elite.
Secondly, that was all I said. You posted the most vitreolic, nasty piece
of 'school yard' teasing that I have heard in a long while. I felt like
replying to you but felt maybe i shouldn't talk back to my 'betters'.
>I have a big issue with this kind of thing because I was called names when I
>was a kid, (alot, because I was brighter and more outgoing in class) and it
>hurt.
I'm sorry that you have had an unhappy childhood. Perhaps that is where
you learnt to tease so well. I feel hurt because you jump down my throat
as soon as I've said something and you have nearly always misunderstood.
You posted me some months ago with some nasty stuff about something you
misunderstood.
>>We must be more tollerant of people. This is the year of tollerance. Let
>>people blow off steam if they want and don't stifle debate.
>
>First of all, please spell the word right. (one of my bugaboos, misspells).
>It's t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e.
Well that's tolerance for you! And as education is something the middle
and upper class have more access to....
thankyou for the story of your life but i'm afraid its irrelevant to my
point. I, unlike you, was responding to a point you made. that some
people should get more money than others. I merely said what I thought
this sentiment meant. If you didn't think it did then perhaps you should
have argued that point instead of sending me meaningless reams of abuse.
I don't care if i'm alone in thinking that everyone, regardless of who they
are or what they do, deserves the same standard of living as everyone else.
i'm not alone though, one other person on this list agrees. With the
concept. That's what's important, not who said it.
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'
