> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jean Laeremans > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:31 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Nazi police in Minneapolis > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:24 PM, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I finally had to state the obvious, for those of you > > socialist/communist/pinko/fags <G> > > > > JH > In earnest John, once you start calling names like those i just think > "playground stuff" and your arguments - valid as they might be - lose > all possible value...
John: I'm going to side with Jean on this one, but also defend you by putting your unhelpful response in context. Name calling, even when done with a <G>, seldom persuades anybody of anything, and often makes you look petty. It can be great fun, and cathartic when you're feeling a bit under the weather, or under attack, but it's seldom effective at rallying people to your cause. Jean is right on this point. I am no proponent of PC, and a big fan of being tolerant of even the most outrageous forms of expression (for reasons that are, I gather, self-evident), but I would advise you NOT to indulge in it like this. I find Pete's often interesting posts diminished by his occasional reference to "n-word" for example. It makes me cringe because I know it gives people an excuse to ignore the substance of his argument, whatever it may be. I understand it's a protest in the name of free speech, and am sympathetic on many levels but from experience I think it's more effective the more sparingly it's done. In this case, Ed really did impugn John's profession and accused him, personally, of "enjoying acting like a Nazi" and participating in a police state when John was being facetious (with irrefutable proof provided by that objective bastion of non-partisan news, Salon magazine). This is no less outrageous than if he'd out and called John a Nazi, but it comes across as more impassioned than personal, because Ed covered his ad hominem/guilt-by-association argument with at least the fig leaf of a magazine article on the topic of domestic surveillance. (BTW, I wonder how Bush-is-a-Nazi Dems these days would have responded to Wilson's propaganda dept and domestic KGB-style police state, which literally did round up people on baseless political charges whenever they merely criticized government policy, predating even Stalin and Hilter with that one. Wilson's actually one of their heroes, and the guy who brought us our beloved income tax. I also note that it was the Dems who got Bush to agree to create the Homeland Security Dept, after initially opposing it. But I digress.) But still, John, I think you could have shown more class with a little less pejorative humor in response. Instead of responding explicitly in-kind, which is what Ed was goading you to do, you should have simply called out Ed's mean-spirited, ad-hominem, guilt-by-association argument against you plainly for what it was. - Bob > > A+ > jml > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
