Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" Message-ID: <4797@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 10:16:37 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4797 Posted: Thu Feb 14 10:16:37 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:33:45 EST References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP>, <519@pyuxd.UUCP> <4787@cbscc.UUCP> <537@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 79 }>> I checked the last five articles (not including today's) }>> to see where the "impoliteness" lay: } ... }>> <458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as }>> "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's }>> articles... ? [ROSEN] } }> I don't have any argument with you, Rich. You seem to like to "respond" }> to my comments directed toward others, though. [DUBUC] } }In a public forum, no response is directed at particular others. Responses are }for all to read, and re-respond to if they like. If responses were meant only }for a single reader, private mail is appropriate. That's true but your justification for posting articles here was that people are responding to you. Note my quotation of you, which you left out of this article: >I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, >and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where >appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions >of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an >argument with me. By your own admission, I do not respond directly to you very much so you justification is moot im my particular case. }> I think they can do pretty well without your help, don't you? } }Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When someone has a comment on one of *my* }articles ("directed", say, at Steve Hutchison), certain people feel free to }"respond" to my "comments directed at others". Why the double standard? Really? Do they ask for your help? How nice of you to offer it unsolicited. If they don't ask, don't you think you're being a little condescending toward them? I am responding mainly to your name calling above, directed at me I assume. (My name really is Paul Dubuc. I use no other.) If I had made a comment about you in an article that was directed at someone else, I wouldn't blame you for responding. }> Yeah, I know, I'm arrogant and you're only impolite, sure. But let *them* }> tell me if they think so, OK? I know what you think about what I write. } }And I know what you think about I write. Enough to respond to this article }that wasn't "directed" at you, but not enough to respond to articles in direct }response to yours. The intended "respondee" of an article should feel free to }respond in turn (the article usually addresses some points the respondee had }made), but others can and should feel free to say their own piece. You, }however, have chosen to answer this particular article rather than many others }that are in response to your own articles (which were in turn responses to }mine). Why this one and not those? Moreover, why NOT articles like "Logic }based on different sets of assumptions", in which any number of questions are }asked that are an outgrowth of discussions with you? I'd like to hear what you }(and others) have to say about the points made there. No, I don't think you ask questions because you honestly want answers. You can say what you like about what I write. I don't think I'm under any obligation to respond to all of it. I don't really believe that you would really like to hear it, either. I've tried to have reasonable discussions with you. You evade points which whould hamper your counter-argument and twist the arguments of others out of context to suit your purposes. And it's usless to point it out to you because, rather than admit you are wrong about anything, you do more of the same twisting to justify yourself. Getting into a discussion with you is a vicious exercise in futility more often than not. There aren't any besides you that I really have that same opinion about. I'd rather spend time with others. You've "cried wolf" many times too often with me, Rich, claiming that your "only asking questions" and really want anwers. You have answers to your questions that you like very well you don't need any others. If you think the same about me then you're welcome to return the favor and ignore me also. If I'm wrong about you, then you don't need to discuss with me. Surely then there must be many others who are willing to discuss with you in your "honest desire" for answers to your questions. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd