> In a message dated 11/23/2002 7:30:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > G'mornin' Chris, > > > > Chris Brogden wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > > > I should have known. An environmental activist among us. Sighhh. > > > > > > Why make an issue of this by calling attention to it? This is supposed to > > > be a non-political list, so why sound so condescending and critical? > > > > I don't know. It must have been how she was preparing to disparage our > > President. That may have set me off. Sorry.
I wasn't going to say anything more. But now I feel I must. I hope this does not aggravate things. "prepare?" 1. I didn't prepare to disparage, I did disparage. But in a very quick 1-2 jab. 2. However, there was no implication that I was going to disparage more. :-) > > > > I should have picked up on the email address before. > > > > A name like 'Doe.' Lives in California. How could I have been so blind... > > > > Woops! Large mistake! I forgot to put the smiley ;^) in there! Probably the California bit got to you. :-) But I did read that as at least partly tongue-in-cheek. Only I have found, since I do tongue-in-cheek a lot myself, that that gentle irony often gets lost in Internet posts. > > > Replace "environmental activist" with "Jew" or "woman", for example, and > > > see how it sounds. Don't start an argument that most people don't want to > > > see continued. > > > > Yeah, but I didn't, did I? I specifically kept it to the one term I > > felt was pertinent to the conversation, not ranging wide afield for > > what I surmised might push OTHER'S buttons... I have no intention to > > anger anyone, but when one goes around speaking like they're preparing > > to press some buttons... my senses perk up. Prepare, again. > > > > Ah well, that's okay. This net list is hopefully a-political. We are > > > > here to talk cameras and photography in general (and Pentaxes in > > > > specific) and that's about it. > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Just keep any of your political opinions to yourself, please. > > > > > > Keith, she was responding to Bill's very political comment. If you had a > > > problem with political comments, you would have responded to his. > > > > No, not necessarily. This is not a black and white world, made up of > > ON-OFF switches. All folks don't respond like all other folks. > > There are shades of gray. Bill's comments didn't raise my awareness > > nor change the tone of any ongoing conversation. The comments by Doe > > did, for some reason. That's okay. > > Hey, I wasn't angry then, I'm not now. Not trying to start anything! > > > > What was it my Mom once said? 'Don't make a mountain out of a > > mole-hill!' > > > > > You evidently have a problem with environmental activists, and > > > your bias is showing. > > > > Nope, no problem per se. > > I do have some problems with disciples here and there, depending on > > the particular 'follower' and their mind-set and attitude. > > As an aside, the evidence you use to come to conclusions might need a > > little work. Seems you're stretching a little here... > > I have problems with a number of 'types' of activists. But, I don't > > purposefully single out those with environmental orientations, unless > > they 'ask for it' by bringing their narrow viewpoints into some other > > venue in which I'm currently participating... "Narrow viewpoints?" Hmmm. Okay, the e in eactivist stands for electronic, as the e in email does. I am using the AOL eactivist screen name just for this list, because I've been on a mailing list before and was aware it would probably fill up a mail box. My normal AOL screen name, and an Internet handle that I have been using in some form or other for more than 8 years, is Doe. So I've been signing here as Doe aka Marnie. This will become more obvious when I sometimes point to my web pages. But what type of electronic activist eactivist is is not really specified. And since I created that screen name 4-5 years ago, I haven't done that much electronic activism, sadly. Despite all that, I support many environmental causes and would not describe them as narrow viewpoints. I see them as global viewpoints benefiting everyone and their kids, grandkids, and great grandkids. I am also mainly interested in nature, landscape, and wildlife photography, and there is a connection in my mind between that and conservation. > > > > I realize your last sentence below can hardly be 'political,' in and > > > > of itself, but if you plan to expand on that, it will escalate > > > > rapidly, I guarantee you. I'd rather stay calm and dedicated to 'just > > > > cameras and photography' if you please. > > > > > > Then why start the whole environmental debate? > > > > Hold on, ol' buddy, I didn't start an environmental debate. I wanted > > to forestall one, because I could feel this one building... > > > > > Bill began this with a political comment, and Doe replied. > > > > So I'm told. > > > > > Now you're criticizing her and not him, and you're doing it in > > > a way that inspires further argument. > > > > So it seems. Sorry about that. > > I apparently found nothing in Bill's comments that stuck a chord and > > elicited further comment. It passed right by me, without making a > > noise. Or impact. > > > > Listen, I'd be happy to take _any_ discussion offline. I have no anger > > nor axe to grind, no agenda or any of that. > > I am fundamentally a-political, but after a while, you get tired of > > accepting all the input in silence. However, I also prefer not to get into a political debate here. There are plenty of other places to do that. And by their very nature, political "discussions" degenerate into political "debates" and then into flame wars very quickly. > > Fact is, most of what I said to Doe was said and intended to be > > 'tongue-in-cheek.' No rancor included. Still isn't. I felt there might be some tongue-in-cheek, see above. But if I was overly sensitive, which I am not, I might have felt very put down. As it was I only felt slightly put down, and by only one person at that. All that said, I regretted my comment as soon as I made it, though I thought it was funny (and still do), because I am aware that name calling or name calling by implication is the last recourse of any argument. And name calling can set people off. So basically I don't support name calling. For the record, as I said, I've been on the Internet for over 8 years. I've been involved in mainly one newsgroup during that length of time, but I am aware of net etiquette and what can/cannot start flame wars. In that newsgroup, we call something that can happen the Hilter syndrome (well, syndrome isn't the right word, but it's similar). I.E. When name calling starts someone usually ends up taking it to the max and invoking Hilter. (As someone has done in other threads here, whether that started as private email or not.) But when one someone does that it really signals a failure of imagination and that they have really lost the argument because they can't think of anything else. So when I do it myself, to any degree, no matter how funny it is to me, it means that I have stooped too low. But being more descriptive when this first came up or being more descriptive now would have been and would be getting into politics, and I really do not wish to do that here. > > > See, I'm doing the same... now look what's been > started. > > :) > > > > > > chris > > > > Okay, I'm off it. <wry smile...> > > > > Down from the speaker's box. Zipped up mouth! <g> > > > > I've had my last say about that publicly in this list! > > If I've offended anyone, you have my apologies. > > > > keith HTH, Have a Nice Day!, Doe aka Marnie
