From: Rick@dot.dot   
      
   In article ,   
    Wally  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I would have to question that - an honestly held opinion can be stated   
   in a multiplicity of manners. The details of the delivery of the   
   statement makes all the difference. If this were not so, the entire   
   advertising industry would fall apart. Lawyers would also likely fall by   
   the wayside. Come to think of it, this may not be a bad thing.   
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   Hmm, an interesting theory, but hard to verify. My pet theory is simply   
   that he is a clever person who seeks gratification (don't we all on some   
   levels!) His game is simply to find a point of argument to engage a   
   person in a battle of wits. At least that is my take on it. He did seem   
   most perturbed by the technique of responding with empty messages. But,   
   then again, I found them annoying as well. (Just more useless junk)   
      
   >   
   > >> 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!   
      
   Still the results of the 'experiment' are flawed, even though the volume   
   of noise in CSMA dropped slightly by the simple fact that this was, for   
   the most part, here. Unfortunately only you worked at keeping the circus   
   in this group.  As for CSMA, IMO it was quickly filled in with the   
   *other* noise - George/Joe vs Mayor/Dawg/Nicolas. (yes I realize that   
   CSMA technically has infinite volume, and that the concept of filling in   
   such a space is fallacious, but the signal/noise did not change   
   significantly, as I had hoped... )   
      
   Again, thanks for your participation.   
      
   --   
   RickG...   
   BTW - for those who don't like reading headers, my ISP is telus.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)