Text 8609, 222 rader
Skriven 2007-12-21 09:32:02 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Kommentar till text 8588 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: George W. Bush
======================
Hello David.
21 Dec 07 22:28, you wrote to me:
DD> Jeff Smith -> David Drummond wrote:
DD>>> Even when the insulter has intended it, the insultee can just
DD>>> ignore it.
JS>> Sure they could but the fact that the insultee chooses to
JS>> ignore or not respond to an insult from someone does not mean
JS>> that there was no insult. If I throw a ball at you and it hits
JS>> you. You have the choice of throwing it back at me or ignoring
JS>> the fact that it hit you and moving on. The fact that you may
JS>> have ignored the ball hitting you doesn't mean that I didn't thow
JS>> a ball at you with intent to hit you.
DD> Once again you confuse physical actions with mere hollow words. Words
DD> cannot harm you unless you wish them to. My are you so masochistic
No, you are choosing to appear to be obtuse.
DD>>> It just words.
JS>> I don't totally disagree with you David. Often times the
JS>> insultee can minimize the effect of an insult by ignoring it or
JS>> at least by not responding to the insult. People who insult or
JS>> call others names often times feed off the effect it has on the
JS>> insultee and the manner in which they respond.
DD> All the more reason for the insultee to disregard the harmless words.
DD> If the insultee will not rise to the intended slur, there is no slur.
The fact that the slur was not reacted to does not mean that it did not
exist. If someone insults you and you do not respond your logic suggests
that the insult does not exist. Then how is it that others can respond to
the insult that you say doesn't exist? Simple, the insult once generated
exists regardless of whether it is reacted to or not. The effectiveness
of the insult is proportional to the reaction of the insultee.
DD>>> Do you remember the rhyme from your childhood "Sticks and stones
DD>>> may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."?
JS>> Sure do David.
DD>>> It is still relevant today.
JS>> Can't speak for others but I have always tried to live by the
JS>> principle that I can argue or disagree without resorting to
JS>> getting personal or calling people names. Lets take the original
JS>> statement to Ward. I was not overtly offended by the statement
JS>> but Ward was and calmly stated so. My initial question to Bjorn
JS>> was why he felt the need to be insulting. And yes, the same
JS>> question could very well be asked of others here too.
DD> This is Ward's problem, not yours to blow up out of all proportion.
Feel the need to exagerate there David?
DD>>> Or is it that your litigeous society has you looking fro wrong
DD>>> in other people all of the time???
JS>> I don't think that is the case but I imagine that I see
JS>> things from a slightly differant perspective than you do. Not
JS>> suggesting better or worse, just differant.
DD> It may be time you reviewed your outlook - you'll go grey and give
DD> yourself ulcers.
Already arrived at that point. At least regarding the grey hair. I
still have the ulcers to look forward too. <g>
DD> [...]
DD>>> Or should people learn not to be insulted? Words are just words.
JS>> Possibly. But that does not address the cause of the
JS>> problem. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. If you were
JS>> to ignore people insulting you. That by itself would not make the
JS>> people stop insulting you. If those that are insulting you are
JS>> convinced to stop. You don't have to concern yourself with having
JS>> to ignore anything. And others don't have to put up reading the
JS>> insults or coming to your defense.
DD> Of course it stops them insulting you, they can only make useless
DD> attempts is you won't rise to the bait. [...]
JS>>>> How about the standards (Rules) specified by the
JS>>>> moderator? The standards that I refer to are not my standards.
JS>>>> They are Bjorn's.
DD>>> As is the interpretation of those rules. You still seem to be
DD>>> working with your interpretation even when Bjorn has explained
DD>>> his.
JS>> He explained his re-interpretation of his rules which
JS>> allowed him more freedom cuss and swear and to express his
JS>> personal views of who and what he happended to hate or dislike
JS>> about people or their country, government, or religon. I chose to
JS>> speak up as I didn't see that as the intended purpose of this
JS>> echo. This echo is NOT Bjorn's personal soapbox.
DD> Correct - it is the soapbox of us all - including you.
Yes, but that is NOT it's intended purpose. This echo was not
meant to serve as a soapbox for anyone including Felten. There is
a distinct differance between allowing some straying in the permitted
topics and allowing the echo to be used as a podium from which people
are allowed to preach or express their hatred and prejustices.
DD> And you are one of the bigger users of said soapbox - in
DD> contravention with YOUR i nterpretation of the rules. You are a
DD> hypocrite with a personal vendetta. [...]
The answer to that is easy. Convince the moderator to work toward
getting this echo back to it's intended purpose and I will cease the
vendetta that you seem to think that I have.
DD>>> Then lead by example. Stop your bullshit in this echo
DD>>> immediately if you fee that the echo is not for such.
JS>> Ask and get Bjorn to do the same and I would be more than
JS>> glad stop further comments on the suject. As I have stated to
JS>> Bjorn. I am reacting to him and his actions. I would be willing
JS>> to help but Bjorn has to take the first step.
DD> Why - he obviously has no problem with his actions here.
And that IS and will continue to be the problem until he sees that
his attitude is part of the problem instead of a solution.
DD> It your misinterpretation of his rules that is your problem.
I simply read his rules and interpreted them as written. He is the
one that needed to re-interprerate his rules so that he had more freedom
to act and say whatever he wanted. Seems he didn't want to be hindered by
his own rules.
DD>>> Even with the non-Fidonews related chatter in here, there is
DD>>> nothing to stop people discussing Fidonews content (if there was
DD>>> any).
JS>> How many have gave up or lost interest in Fidonews related
JS>> content due to the insults, name calling and general bullshit
JS>> that one has to wade through here?
DD> Please provide a list of such people. How many of those do your feel
DD> your bullshit has driven away.
Whatever David. You choose not to see the real problem here because
you have already made up your mind and feel the need to defend Felten. Why
not try working toward a solution instead of working toward defending the
problem?
DD>>> Except that the Moderator has mandated a certain amount of
DD>>> deviation from just Fidonews discussion. It's right there in the
DD>>> rules.
JS>> And I wouldn't see a problem with that. And that isn't what
JS>> we are talking about either now is it? There is a differance
JS>> between the moderator allowing some varying of the topics
JS>> permitted and the allowing of anything and everything be it
JS>> insulting, profane.
DD> Profane? As in
DD> 1. characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred
DD> principles or things; irreligious. 2. not devoted to holy or
DD> religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred). 3.
DD> unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
DD> I suspect you may be exhibiting some religious intolerance here.
Not at all. I notice that you declined to quote the full definition
of the word which included "4. vulgar language' which was what I was
refering to.
JS>> When Bjorn who is the moderator here is among others who are
JS>> doing the insulting and the name calling. The importance and
JS>> respect does that inspire in others for his rules.
DD> What in the rules suggests to you that this echo is for sucking up to
DD> others (gaining respect)? Are you really that far up yourself that you
DD> need everyone to look up to you?
Again you miss the point David. It has nothing to do with sucking up
to anyone. It has to do with people seeing a moderator that applies a given
set of rules or a standard of behaviour and applying that standard equally
to everyone including himself. It has to do with a moderator that does not
portray himself as being above the rules that he expects others to follow.
DD> What have you done to earn my respect?
I'm sure that there isn't anything that I could do that would
accomplish that since you seem predisposed to find fault with whatever
I might say. In fact it hadn't occurred to me to even try.
DD> You've done nothing but wine and moan ever since you showed up here.
DD> Respect, my arse!
Why would I want to respect your ass? <g> Is it that special?
DD> --
DD> regards
DD> David
DD> ---
DD> * Origin: GodZone (3:640/305)
Jeff
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
* Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)
|