--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > When you called me a liar and a fuckhead, you were provoked > > > > by me to do so, and, as you have thoroughly rubbed my nose into > > > > the fact, I asked for it. However, I do think that Barry would > > > > be wise to black list you, and you him. > > > > > > If Judy or anyone calls you a liar or fuckhead, they should > > > be banned for a week. Thats gratuatious flaming and is against > > > the guidelines. > > > > It sure ain't gratuitous when it's in response to a > > post headed, "Time to vote -- Who's a bigger liar > > and fuckhead? John or Edg?" > > > > Try to keep up, eh? > > I disagree. Both are gratuitous.
Oh, please. If somebody asks for something and you provide it, you haven't provided it *gratuitously*. > My view: yours above is a often > repeated logical or perhaps social error. No, you're just using a gratuitously broad definition of "gratuitous." In my book, if someone is > rude to me, it does not make my being rude ok. Edg wasn't being rude to me, I was being rude to him, but not *gratuitously*, because the rudeness consisted of a frank, direct answer to his question using the words he had used to phrase it. I didn't say anything either way about its being "OK." I'm just pointing out that it wasn't *gratuitous*. If you're walking down the street and somebody shoves a dollar into your hand, that's gratuitous. If you're a beggar with a tin cup asking me to give you a dollar and I do, that isn't gratuitous. > You appear to live by a different ethos. That's a gratuitous assumption. <snip> > If you have not read the guidelines, perhaps its time you kept up. And so is this.
