Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" (part B)
Message-ID: <1259@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 02:16:33 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1259
Posted: Mon Feb 18 02:16:33 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 03:02:44 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP> <519@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 105
Summary: 

This is an attempt to answer where everyone can see, to Rich Rosen's
astonished and shocked reply to my own public censure of him as being
indefensibly rude in his postings to net.religion.christian.

I will be indefensibly rude in my reply, since attempted subtlety has
failed in the past.  My apologies for any hurt feelings.

><457@pyuxd.UUCP> - this is the very article Hutch is responding to, on the
>	topic of constructive/destructive (hopefully some further constructive
>	discussion will follow shortly in a later article)

You asked in your usual impatiently superior phrasing why we even bothered
with putting such artificial constraints on our behaviour.  It was intrusive,
and impolite, because it was NOT phrased as a question, but as a chastisement
of another person for WANTING to follow what he believes to be the teachings
of his religion.  If you really WANT to ask a question, ASK a question.
Don't go feeling all agrieved when you attempt to burst someone's irrational
(to you) bubble, and you get told off for it.

><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... ?

Dubuc is no more arrogant than you.  Your gripe is with his beliefs and with
the fact that he refuses to accept anything you say on face value.  Yeah, I
know, I am claiming to know what goes on in your mind.  Can you honestly say
that there is nothing to my claim?  (Communication Theory 099:  When you talk,
other people can often understand what you are saying!)

><462@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to an article on "death to gays", of which MY
>	response was probably one of the tamest (some of the louder responses
>	came from obviously devout Christians who told the guy that there was
>	something wrong with him)

Agreed.  However, your response was still condemnatory of Christians.

><465@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Bill Peter whom I had mistakenly referred to
>	as a Christian

An embarrassing slip-up.  I must admit that I thought the same thing, until
his second posting.  He understands (and tolerates) Christians a whole lot
better than most Christians seem to.

><488@pyuxd.UUCP> - an article in response to (and in agreement with) an article
>	from Seifert/Snoopy on beneficial/harmful, asking (what *I* thought
>	were) some intriguing questions and asking for responses

Not at all a bad article on the face of it.

>I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at
>least in this calendar year).  Among the earlier ones were: 1) my requoting of
>Ken Arndt's claim that I was an apostate Jew defining Christianity (isn't
>that how it got defined in the first place?),

I agree that I attributed an improper count of articles to you, and I apologise
for making you seem worse than you are.

I assume you are making a pun on the word "apostate".  My dictionary has been
stolen so I cannot look up etymologies for you.

>  ...  2) the dreaded "Blast from the Past" article,

I "enned" it as soon as I read the first three lines.

> ... 3) my reposting of Dave Trissel's article on his own experiences
>with religions that claim "we are right and they are wrong" (that was REAL
>impolite of me to do...),

If it was without permission, yes, it was impolite, good of you to notice. :-)

> ... 5) a reply to Marchionni,
>who was busily asking me questions and saying "too bad Rich Rosen won't ever
>understand this" in my presumed absence,

It was not clear to me that he presumed your absence, merely that he presumed
you won't ever understand the mysteries of the Trinity.  That may not be true.
It would take a MAJOR change in your belief structure first.

Yes, I left out a few of your references.  I didn't read them after seeing
your name on the header and noticing that they contained flames.  I do the
same with other flames in non-net.flames newsgroups.

>I welcome Hutch to tell all of us which of these were the rare "polite"
>articles, and which were the less rare impolite ones, being sure to note which
>times I was "impolite" because of impoliteness directed at me.

I won't attempt to try and divine which times you thought people were being
impolite to you.  As Miss Manners says, "It is more satisfying to be polite
in reply to rudeness because it will drive them out of their skulls."

Thank you for your generous welcome.  I must decline.

(Feeble attempts at humor follow.  You have been warned.)

I often wondered why your postings seem to be so ... intense.  I finally
realized that py* are in Puxatawney, New Jersey, a state famous for the
number of its chemical waste dumps and their proximity to the homes of the
residents.  Perhaps this accounts for the pervasive disdain for other
human beings which is manifested in that part of the country.  I have been
told by easterners, especially Joisey-ites, that the mellow friendliness
of the west coast is just not natural.  Imagine, going into a restaurant
where the waitperson actually welcomes you and takes your order with a smile,
not a snarl!  WE do it regularly out here...

Hutch