From: wally@wally.world.net
On 24/4/05 13:04, in article Rick-9981CA.22044023042005@news.telus.net,
"Rick G" wrote:
> In article ,
> Wally wrote:
>
>> I now consider any agreement made wrt a.f.m at an end .
>
> I do thank for for trying.
>
>> I will direct any posts of mine 'designed' to flame to a.f.m, but I will not
>> consider any post a flame simply because it is directed at any particular
>> poster even though this poster indulges in behavior that does fit the flame
>> definition, i.e.....simply denying that which is obvious and undeniable,
>> such as proof, explanations, or examples.
>
> So, are you still posting here? Just examples where you're intentionally
> being rude?
If ever that is my only intention, yes!, although to be honest I cannot
recall a time where that was the case, as I do not consider stating an
honestly held opinion to be rude, even if the recipient does not agree, I am
always prepared to back up my opinions if needed.
> As opposed to examples where your simply trying to correct
> Snit? It is interesting as I could see it being more than a 24/7 job.
Correcting Snit IMO would be a job for our creator whoever he/she/it may be,
as I believe his major fault is a a physiological one, a malfunction if you
will.
>> I draw a distinction between flaming and simply denying reality, the latter
>> IMO should be condemned and be scrutinized by a wider audience.
>>
>> I invite you to examine the main thread in a.f.m for clarification.
>
> Honestly, I would prefer not to.
Understandable!
> Maybe I'm unusual, but I'm that guy who, when somebody says, "Ugh, that
> tastes like shit, try it" I just look at them strangely until they
> realize why I wouldn't do such a thing...
Quite so! Perhaps I worded it badly? I should have said 'if clarification
were needed' clearly it isn't!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
