--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> 
wrote:
> 
> This also strikes me as quite odd.  To feel that I would need to
> indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement 
> with a position I might have.  As Xeno, said, as though this
> "makes the case" for my position?

So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I
bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you?

[Share wrote:]
> I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are
> simply too different to ever understand each other. I said
> this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently
> realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way
> life sometimes is.

My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so
I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are
intentionally misconstruing it.



> 
> All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> 
> It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of
> people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> 
> But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby
> allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@>
> wrote:
> 
> > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > be able to understand you if they did.
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> >
>


Reply via email to