[Winona Online Democracy]
> On Monday, November 19, 2001, at 02:21 , Jim Sjoberg wrote: > I have to agree with Nelson when it comes to Respect in this Board. > There seems to be a select few who use "Language" to make them sound > more Fair and Balanced then they really are. My usage of different language than what is ordinarily expressed is quite explainable and not an effort for a superiority complex as you try to make it into. For example, in my Chris Nelson posting I used the word expressed and convey several times where others would have used the word said. I do not like the word said especially in an online situation. I may not be Ben Franklin, but in my evaluation, the word said implies a verbal situation. Since it is not a verbal situation, a word other than said must be used. Furthermore, I view the word as providing a lack of description. Others may use the word and I really do not care if they do, it is their choice on how they word it. Keep in mind I do not hold wording against anyone. This perception that wording is used in an effort to maintain 'fair and balanced' is strictly a perception that I actively do not seek to promote. As I have said in other posts, it is 'how' the post is read by the reader that is in question. Holding the author responsible for wording and stating that it is a superiority complex accomplishes nothing. To quote something that I used in response to Chris Nelson: Critiquing the posts from a literary standpoint are expressions of disrespect, but to state that being opposed by someone else *is* conveying disrespect seems to be stretch. > One only need to look toward the "Left Handed" Comments made in this > Forum about President Bush, Mr. John Edstrom, and the Republican > Movement in general. If you do not like what I say, do something. Guess what??! You did not say anything until two weeks after the fact. It seems more or of an effort to rally up a posse and give a few the typical small town old west mentality. Just because the person that occupies the White House has a ninety percent approval rating does not mean everyone appreciates the Gulf War Task Force reunion. Instead of complaining that others are expressing opposition to White House and White House Policies why not explain why the White House Policies are worthy of being supported. Most will state G.W. Bush is not the best speaker in the world, especially when compared to William Clinton, because of Bush's inferior speaking abilities it is often hard to see what he is trying to accomplish. Perhaps if someone would state why these policies should be worthy of support than I would not be so strong about opposing the White House. Instead of explaining these policies, personal attacks are used rather than responding to the issue in question. > This "Forum", if I may be so be so bold, has quickly become the Soap > Box of the very vocal, very Left, and very Intolerant. I must say that > this is very Unfortunate. It is no wonder that everyday folks refrain > from contributing to this forum, when they know they will only be shot > down with Glib Commentary, Non Sequiter Rants which have nothing to do > with the Subject of the thread, Personal Attacks on their Politics, and > Smart Alleck Remarks which Border on Insults. VVV I see the labeling that has now become a constant of the last few days under the guise of respect. I find it very hard to accept the premise that any form of respect is present when throughout many posts, labeling is a constant. Take one look at several issues of the Star Tribune and frequently there will be Republican or Republican preachers objecting to the less than conservativeness of the paper but in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press a newspaper that many would agree that is less than liberal has contained a remark that I have seen objecting to that. Care to provide examples. It is very easy to state that something exists without proof. I cannot walk into a courtroom and start accusing others crimes without evidence so why not provide an example here. This seems more like an effort to criticize others without accepting fault. If commentary that does not match the thread is a problem than perhaps on should not use the guise of respect to attack opposition to ones personal beliefs. For example, this should have been subjected as: 'Personal attacks' rather than 'Respect' as nothing about respect is explained but a consistent embodiment of attacks are expressed. > We all know what I am Talking about. Is that a smart aleck remark, it looks like it. That probably was not the intent but I maintain this is a smart aleck remark. > I, for one, will no longer respond to these Guerrilla Tactics, and if > it means not visiting this "Forum", so be it. This place used to be an > interesting place for the exchange of ideas...........Now, I wonder > what it is......... Guerrilla Tactics? Care to explain that, just a little bit. Wow I am being a terrorist by responding to your comments. That sentence fails to explain anything except convey yet another round of attacks on the guise of respect. Like Christianity that has been used often in the name of excusing warfare, I guess the latest way to attack someone is now under the guise of respect. > Jim Sjoberg David Dittmann Points before personalities. --------------- This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name. Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list. Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
