--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > I found that an interesting discussion -- and look forward to the > > "agreement". > > > > Judy, from the discussion, it seems that a motive for some, perhaps > > many, of your posts is to set the record straight regarding factual > > errors, unfounded claim, inconistencies with past statements, > logical > > errors, etc. Posts of that nature, I find useful at times, good > > catches I had missed. Or sometimes its more info than I wanted and I > > can easily skip such. > > > > What becomes grating, and is when I, and I assume others, tune-out, > > are posts that go beyond the correction of a statement and turn into > > character attacks, insults, snide remarks, charges of derogatory > > motivations, etc. > > And of course I'm the only one who does this, right?
To quote you "Did I Say That?" To correct the record, I said just the opposite. See below > Give me a *break*. You left out: "The reason I address you specifically, is that when a reasonable point is raised, you have a good mind and will, it appears, consider it in a reasoned way. And you have stated that correcting the record is a motive for you. I am not sure it is for (all) others.** Others, equally guilty of often going down the character road IMO, may not have the same "correct the record" motives that you do." Perhaps I goofed on that latter assumption. ----- I also had a footnote that I took out saying the others sometimes tend to react viscerally and emotionally to suggestions, whereas, per above, you appear to reflected upon them in a more considered and reasoned manner. I took it out in that I was senstitive to not bash character in a post in which I suggest not doing so. And the above, "the others sometimes tend to react viscerally and emotionally to suggestions" I thought perhaps too close to that line.
