--- Peter D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >You didn't harm anybody by pointing out the errors, >and neither did Cynthia's letter harm anybody. I'm >sorry that you wasted much emotion in doing so. >
Peter, I think you are confused with regard to your disposition towards my exposure of Cynthia's recycled urban legend, on two accounts: 1. On the one hand you claim that my pointing out of the errors do not harm anybody, and on the other hand you also claim that Cynthia's letter did not harm anybody, despite containing those errors, which by the way, constituted almost three-quarters of that copied and pasted material, in the form of exaggerations, distortions and fabrications. >From my standpoint, perpetuation of falsehoods under any guise causes grave harm to society, and a gratuitous defense of it adds insult to injury. At the very least, it tells people that it is OK to plagiarize and propagate half-truths and lies, as long as they are packaged in a sentimental, inspiring, or politically correct message, or one that conforms to their preferred ideology or religion. 2. You fail to see the simple fact that stating that I did no harm in pointing out the errors, is at odds with your claim that I wasted much emotion in doing so. I don't think you can read my emotions, if for nothing else then for the well-recognized difficulty of doing so across the gaping electronic void of cyberspace. The irony of it is that if you had not tried to be gratuitously and pointlessly defensive about this urban legend, from a habitual and exclusive purveyor of such myths, the matter would have ended, as far as I am concerned, with my rather bland and clearly unemotional first response on this thread. So I ask you, why did you invest your time (not emotion, because I cannot tell) into this? Was it worth it? Or was it a waste of your time? Are you open-minded enough to recognize that you are wrong about defending urban legends, even inspiring religious ones? Cheers, Santosh
