Daniel wrote: "I feel so honored to be so loved. I'm shedding a tear here as I type this response. Thanks for keeping me in your thoughts 24 h/day, sorry if I don't return the favor."
Hmmmm! Maybe my sympathy was slightly misplaced....however, I still don't agree with two individuals ganging up on one to intimidate and humiliate them. By all means disagree with someone, vigorously if necessary, but two people ganging up on one individual seems to me to be the tactics of the moronic, however objectionable the particular individual. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:25 PM Subject: [USMA:34846] RE: Vulgar > I feel so honored to be so loved. I'm shedding a tear here as I type this > response. Thanks for keeping me in your thoughts 24 h/day, sorry if I > don't return the favor. > > Dan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 2005-10-13 12:12 > Subject: [USMA:34841] RE: Vulgar > > > > At 13 10 05, 09:28 AM, Stephen Davis wrote: > >>Jim Elwell wrote: > >>" Perhaps you should address your concerns to Daniel. Or are you > >> suggesting he get to spew his venom freely?" > >> > >>No - I'm suggesting that you (and Steven Humphreys) have made your point > >>now, and continually ganging up on this particular individual with the aid > >>of Steven Humphreys is starting to smack of boring, ignorant bullying. > >> > >>OK. He doesn't share the same viewpoint as you on this particular matter. > >>That, believe it or not Jim, is allowed. You have made your point > >>forcefully several times. > >> > >>Let's drop it now, eh? And move on. That'd be nice. > > > > > > If you don't want this discussion to continue, why did you post a private > > email I sent to only you back into the public forum? Since you choose to > > do that, I will respond publicly. > > > > I agree that Daniel is entitled to his viewpoint, as ignorant as I think > > it is. However, that does not mean he is entitled to spew it without > > response from people who disagree with him. > > > > Since I don't believe this forum should be used to spread bigotry and > > ignorance, and since I believe that is Daniel's primary contribution here, > > I will continue to respond to him. > > > > Or would you prefer that Stephen Humphreys and I ignore Daniel so that new > > members to the forum to think Daniel is representative of us all? Or do > > you not agree with Humphreys' point that Daniel is more damaging than > > helpful to metrication? (A particularly interesting point given that > > Humphreys is not pro-metric.) > > > > Jim Elwell > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/131 - Release Date: > > 2005-10-12 > > >
