From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 17:24:06 MDT
On Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:08 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever@sprynet.com
wrote:
> If I'm so wrong wrong wrong, how about some proof proof proof:? (why,
of
> course, conveniently, you decided to "disengage" me, instead)
Olga, why don't you start by stating clearly what you mean. Stop
waffling around how others misread you. Restate your points clearly and
then let others be the judge. You have not done that. Instead, you've
gone back and forth on how others equated this with that.
> I suppose exaggerating and making fun of the way I chose to write
expressing
> my concern about being misrepresented beats dealing with the fact that
you
> jumped to an unfair conclusion. Dismiss me all as you want, but the
fact
> remains that you erroneously imputed "poverty" to be one of my
concerns -
> even though I never mentioned it. I know what I wrote, and I did not
want
> Techno to take your initial error and running off with it - thereby
> compounding your mistake - at my expense.
What exactly is your concern here?
> My unpardonable crime, it seems, was that I chose to write in a
> conversational tone rather than in dissertation mode - thereby
unwittingly
> heaping upon myself the horrible imbroglio of a "[sensible]"
disengagement -
> suitable punishment, I suppose, for one who had the audacity to use
the word
> ... er ... "totally."
IMHO, you made some very specific claims in a sarcastic tone. This was
hardly "convserational" -- unless your usual mode of conversation is
heckling right wing radio talk show hosts.:)
> Granted, this email list isn't journalism - so we shouldn't expect
standards
> of conduct and accountability. But, because you recently wrote how
> integrity was important to you, it may have crossed your mind that
> that principle is also vital to many of us here. And if you are a
person of
> integrity - not just someone enamored with the concept of integrity -
you
> may understand my desire to set the record straight. I am a person of
> integrity, too.
Then restate your position to give others a chance to understand exactly
what you mean. If your goal here is to have a conversation then playing
around like this and namecalling -- I mean here implicitly accusing Max
of not being a man of integrity -- is going to help much.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:37 MST