--- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > Assuming you are addressing my point above, > > > > > > > > Hmm. What other point might he be addressing, > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a > > > general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a > specific point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly > > > assume a post is about your points, when the post is realy a > general observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point. > And you flare out in your usual flaming style. > > > > I'm sure you can locate and cite some examples, right?
(No response to this.) > > > In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I > didn't wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like > you appear to often. > > > > Actually, since Shemp's post *directly* addressed > > your claim, I believe you were doing your usual > > passive-aggressive thing, suggesting that his > > comment was somehow *not* really responsive to your > > point, and that that was the reason you weren't sure > > he was addressing it. It was a nasty little dig, not > > an act of diplomacy. > > No, I consciously thought and re-wrote that post to qualify it "if > you were addressing my post". I once questioned a post of sal's > assuming she was addressing a specific point of mine and I was > wrong, and she said, paraphrasing "don't be silly, I was making a > general point". That stuck in my mind. Rory and I used to have off- > line correspondence and once he commented on some point of a post > assuming it was he being pointed to, and I cautioned him "Not all > posts are about YOU." We both laughed. That incident also stuck in > my mind. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being honest, rather than conjuring up an excuse, just a tip: The thing to do when you've run into a couple of these is not to forever after always express uncertainty when you respond to a comment, but rather to scrutinize comments a bit more carefully to make sure they're addressing what you thought they were. Usually it doesn't take all that much scrutiny, as it wouldn't have in this case. Save the expressions of uncertainty for those comments that are genuinely ambiguous. This one wasn't. It's proportionality again. > But only you would make a huge issue over a six word innocuous > qualification "if you were addressing my post". LOL. All I did was wonder what you could have meant. You responded with an elaborate paragraph of defense. <snip> <my analysis, showing that your reservations about the newspaper article were unfounded, snipped by you> > > > The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being > > > mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old > > > babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is > > > rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, > > > then you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut > > > seems to draconian. > > > > Indeed. But it's usually fairly easy to make a > > distinction between what a babbling off-meds street > > person says and what two apparently fully rational > > people say about their detailed plans for a bombing > > that's likely to kill many people. > > > > Proportionality again. > > The above situation is parallel -- though exaggerated -- to the one > cited. It raises a valid point. Where is the line drawn IF (yet to > be established) the law only requires mumness not interogation. Most likely, it's drawn by law enforcement in terms of the apparent seriousness of the alleged offense; and if the police get their sense of proportion wrong, by the prosecutors in terms of whether they think it makes any sense to bring a case, and if so whether they can convince a jury to punish the perp for the alleged infraction. Not that the law couldn't be misused, but that's a different issue entirely. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
