Re: Ad hominem? I think not.

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Nov 23 2001 - 04:52:17 MST


Jacques Du Pasquier wrote:
>

>
> As far as I'm concerned, I understand it, and I do not fly into rage.
> But I note that, in the circa 200 messages you posted these last 2
> months (which coincides with my presence here), you stated your point
> of view on this topic a very large number of times almost unchanged,
> and I can't understand why.

I keep trying because it is important to me. I think that maybe
if I say it just a bit differently or with perhaps a bit more
patience or with a bit more care to not be understood then maybe
the ills of the situation can be lessened at least a little
bit. Or maybe a few who do not see some of the downsides as I
do will see things just a bit differently.

>
> I think all list members got it, whether they agree or not.
>

Apparently this is not so judging from the comments I still see
in response.
 
> I understand the importance you attach to it, but as important as it
> is, I don't think you will convince people who do not agree with you
> by massive repetition ; it will only raise their irritation.
>

The above is why I try to say it again. How can I be silent
when I see what looks to me like very hardened and dangerous
attitudes being expressed that greatly worry me. Would I not be
remiss if I did not speak out?
 
> It is not "the last who talks wins the argument", and one should not,
> based on such principle, repeat the same thing until the opponent gets
> silent... How is the resulting "repetition flood" respectful to the
> list members ?
>

I said nothing I said out of disrespect. Quite the contrary.
 
- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:07 MST