Samantha Atkins wrote (22.11.2001/19:48) :
> Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> > Well, your comments seemed to condone the groups that massacred
> > thousands of American citizens. There are some people who take
> > civility as weakness. Also, rather then just restrict reality to
> > the realm of ideas or debate, the 9-11 attacks force somebody to
> > make real-world choices.
> It would be a very weak reading of what I wrote to say I
> condoned WTC. I don't and never did. But I also don't condone
> the pretense that WTC came out of a vaccuum or the notion that
> we can just by using enough force eradicate all anger and
> despair in the mideast and thus make ourselves safe.
> > Your comments were taken seriously, perhaps people shouldn't have
> > taken what you have written, so seriously?
> Perhaps people should bother to understand what I have written
> before they fly into a rage.
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 think all list members got it, whether they agree or not.
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.
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 ?
Of course this apply to John equally, whatever I think of your two
points of view. (In fact I broadly agree with John, and very partially
with you. But that's incidental. I gave up contradicting you 2 months
ago, leaving you the last word, on the very same topic !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT