Re: OT: writing style
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <44005158$0$11068$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Mark Johnson wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>
>>>No, it wasn't. So I asked him for some clarification, as you can see >>>above. And then you butted in. And why you try to clog up this ng with >>>such pointless messages as this, is still beyond me.
>
>
>>He is not clogging up this ng, he is trying to tell you something. >>Read carefully: he is /not/ calling you a troll.
>
>
> I recall that you asked me to apologize to Spight,
Your recollection is wrong. I pointed out that he had shown patience and given nice explanations and that you called him a troll. Though I did not ask you to apologize, I would have liked it if you had done that.
> because you weren't
> sure he had fallen to calling people names. Shortly after I mistakenly
> apologized,
You did not apologize to Marshall Spight. You said something about standing corrected, but it was not a personal apology to Marshall Spight.
> apologized, his intention became clear. And I also realized that I had
> made a mistake, and should have followed my hunch and instinct on
> that. And I'll try not to repeat that mistake again.
> You don't give any indication of having discovered
> that, yourself, by the existence this very message.
This may make perfect sense to you - but it doesn't to me - I am not talking about the missing 'of'.
> So I said what I thought needed to be said to him,
> at that time, when he finally said that. I'm not going to repeat it.
>
>
>>If you are not you should find out WHY you get this criticism.
(If you are not a troll)
> It's not honest criticism. It's outright abuse. It's the pot calling
You don't have to. Just read what several people wrote to you
before they turned around and started calling you troll.
> I suspect that they found themselves in a corner
> the kettle black, when the kettle isn't even scorched. And you should
> be on my side, in this. As for the reason, it's something about which
> I can only guess.
> defending the indefensible.
Not my impression.
> They were embarrassed by that and decided
> to just lash out. I've said that. But that's just a guess. I don't
> know why they have behaved like this. But again, this is never a test
> for whether something is true, and particularly on something like
> Usenet which is known to harbor cliques of all sorts. They do this
> because they know they can get away it. Perhaps they've never been
> told, before, that they ought not to behave like this. And they do
> this, perhaps, because they think some will imagine that a complaint
> is justified simply because it is mindlessly repeated by more than one
> person. But something doesn't become true just by repetition.
>
> You need to consider the subject, any arguments, the facts as such -
> and not personality, nor popularity. Popularity is a very fickle
> thing. It's no kind of reliable standard. Many things which need to be
> said, or questioned, are not initially popular with some clique. Need
> I state the obvious?
Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 13:46:23 CET