Material Fellow wrote:
>
>> For how long have you thought that someone else was or claimed to be the
> Ultimate God of newsgroups?
>
Please overlook my response. It is perfectly apropos in light of
numerous other similar claims about any reference to Nazism which were
made entirely seriously. Your humor escaped me, because it was outside
my experience.
>> Avoiding the regular and proficient use of these emotinally charged
> terms is part of the old fashioned way of having social graces. It has
> been found unnecessary to call upon them in ordinary intelligent
> conversation. If you are offended by being compared to ordinary
> standards of intelligent conversation, perhaps you should be talking to
> a different newsgroup.
No, neither of your assertions are correct or reasonable. I, alas for
your sensibilities, typically use terms as I see fit in order to express
as exactly as possible the meaning of my response. If you are offended
by the term Nazi, naturally decorum requires that I apologize.
Yet...would it not be a greater insult to avoid the term where
appropriate, assuming that your level of maturity is insufficient to
enable such straightforward and honest expressino to be appreciated?
Undeniably affirmative! I could not insult you so, hence in deferrence
I used the most appropriate term.
>> >The solution - the solution for you - is to decide if the
> > label is appropriate in the contect in which it occurred. If you can do
> ^
> x spelling is also still useful
Note also that reference to typographical error is a no-no in the
decorum department. Alas, I wish to maintian the flow of my thought,
and I do so knowingly at the cost of the occasional typo. Please,
understand - and fergive!
> > this, and if you can use the terms when they are appropriate, then
> > 'Nigger', 'Nazi', and other buzz-terms no longer control your thinking
> > processes.
>> This appears to be a clever use of low taste to justify itself.
I beg to differ! Oversensitiviy to certain terms is part and parcel of
political correctness. Language is the servant of the user. Insofar as
meaning remains clear, one is not the servant of language. As
intelligent adults, we naturally wish to express meaning in as clear and
concise a manner as possible knowing full well that the unenlightened
will look ascanse at the use of certain forms which are outlawed by
'common' consent.
Look at
> the wonderful way in which you have turned this into a derogatory
> accusation. Then you top this by a logic process which claims that use
> of such words suggests superiority! Raw talent you do have!
>
And I thank you for this compliment. Surely, newsgroup discussions of
the type being carried on here are a matter of emotional sparring -
action and reaction - as much as an attempt to communicate. Although I
considered the above a minor acheivement, I do thank you for noticing
and commenting.
> There is no doubt that you will continue expressing your viewpoint in
> the way you see fit, but being taken seriously or having an effect on
> your listeners is something else entirely.
Yet, although you imply otherwise, I am taken quite seriously - very,
very seriously in fact - and the effect it has on readers (not
listeners, but I often make this descriptive error as well and I do not
think the less of you for your slip) is apparently marked. Readers have
gone so far as to threaten ostracism, and moderating the newsgroup.
Pray, will you not reconsider your admonition? It appears to me to be,
though I hesitiate to be critical, unfounded.
>> I had previously thought of you as a thinker, but somewhat crude.
>> Now you have been revealed as the related "stinker", your words become
> offal as a deliberate means of expression, or as a lack of vocabulary,
> and perhaps concepts. The frequency with which you use the F*** and
> S*** words speaks volumes. You can't fully hide from yourself forever.
I beg your pardon! Such admonition is highly offensive, and I beg to
suggest that your willingness to repeat such terms may undermine the
apparent sincerity of your admonition.
>> Please use grown up language when discussing grown up topics in groups
> populated by grownups.
>
Ala, although I understand and sympathize with your complaint, you are
in error here when you attempt to disassociate...adults...from language
of this type. I refer you to your television, and to the many popular
novels available at any booksellers. May I also suggest that the
language used by many, if not most, of our most highly respected
business and social leaders is in fact no better than that which I have
used here? Why, then, your ire? Do you expect that we, lowly denizens
of a less successful clase, should not emulate our betters? Should we
not, in fact, endeavor honestly to become more in allignment with that
culture which guides and succours us in our daily struggles? Pray, why
do you believe we should do otherwise?
> How can you be so taken in by the old horse joke of Goodwin's Law that
> you react this way? I felt that even you had some semblance of
> sophistication and worldliness.
As I have explained this before, I will not weary your ears with
repetition. I suggest, however, that you be aware that not all
experiences are your experiences. I do protest. My interpretation,
wholly justifiable in the context under which such interpretation was
made, should not be regarded as 'unworldly' by you simply because you
have not fought my battles. Alas that such misunderstanding should
bring us to this pass! Cannot we mend this rent in the garment of
mutual respect? Cannot we offer once again the hand of sincere
appreciation of each other's struggles?
>> You were right, I overestimated you. My deep aplogies for previously
> treating you with respect.
>
Alas you have hurt me to the quick. When you look upon the face of a
man, can you in truth say that you have looked upon his soul? Does the
small scar remaining years after on the skin indeed show the depth to
which the flesh was gouged? I can only say that you judge me harshly
and unfairly.
M
