Subject:
|
Re: blowharding (was: Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:21:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
562 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > From: moulton@hscis.net (Matthew)
> >
> > Well let's see who told me to grow up, you were encouraging people to
> > not visit my site, you accused me of being egotistical, ranting, being
> > rude, being insulting, am I missing anything Mark? ... • <snip>
> >
> > No Mark, you've done far worse than that, even if you don't believe
> > you have, it doesn't make it any less true. What's ironic is that I
> > seem to be one of the only people here who has been acting in a civil
> > manner. I mean I stooped the childish insults hours and hours before
> > any of you finally started to slow down with your verbal bashings.
> >
> > -Matthew
>
> Jeez, I know that by now he's been banned, but:
>
> I fully admit to telling him he should grow up and not be so rude, but he
> makes it sound like I ran over his dog or something.
>
> I tried very hard today to attack the -behavior- and not the -person-
>
> Did I fail in this?
IMHO, no, you didn't fail; you've been quite measured and
careful throughout. For our protagonist to claim the high
ground of "civility" at this late juncture is analogous to
expecting an apology to atone for, say, running over some-
one's dog and being taken aback when the dog owner's still
upset and therefore claiming that running over said dog was
justified. It's a matter of quality and context of behaviour,
not quantity of admonitions.
best Victorian language,
LFB.nl
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
