OK. More people making more assumptions about me. There are many
replies that I got in private that actual had differing opinions that I
responded to, and proceeded to have reasonable discussion via those emails.
Many others have some great ideas, and have been presented in a
non-inflaming, well thought out manner. For instance, the idea of a PAX'ed
ladies class was an interesting one, and deserved some thought. Someone else
responded with my same thoughts later so there was no need to respond. Once
my original opinion on the subject was stated, many of the differing
opinions came in the form of name-calling and attacks on my intelligence.
They did not come in the form of a reasonable counter argument. If someone
disagree's with one of my posts and has a reasonable response, they may even
be able to change my mind if they present a point I had not thought of
before. And they have done so many times in the past.
mAs, you have never met me, you do not know me, and you should
refrain from making any generalizations about my character. All you have
done is attack me with name-calling and stereotyping. If you feel the need
to continue these attacks, then I have to question your real motivation.
John Moore
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TeamZ3@aol.com [SMTP:TeamZ3@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 1:13 PM
> To: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Enough already with the attacks
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> When JM responds to a post it is a differing opinion.
>
> When anyone else responds to JM's post with anything other than agreement
> it
> is a personal attack against JM.
>
> Well JM, even geniuses are capable of complete acts of ignorance such as
> getting defensive over inane flame-bait. I would have preferred to imply
> the
> dim-wittedness of your original view in private (that was only my
> differing
> opinion), but you're the one who insisted on maintaining the public
> format.
> The fact that you don't know & believe in yourself enough to disregard
> what
> some complete stranger may think, and then feel compelled to defend
> yourself
> in public, all fall under the category of personal problems. While you
> may
> consider the previous statement an attack, I can assure you it is only a
> differing opinion regarding the nature of the public format.
>
> ps: please except my humble apology as I was obviously incorrect about the
>
> dominant dim-wit gene. It is obviously a dominant insecurity gene. :-)
>
> mAs
> - sometimes this job is just way too easy
|