Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" (reply) Message-ID: <581@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 18:26:52 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.581 Posted: Sun Feb 24 18:26:52 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 06:15:47 EST References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP> <519@pyuxd.UUCP> <1259@shark.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 154 >>>Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, >>>maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming >>>that we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer >>>the balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles >>>were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than >>>worthless.[HUTCH] > >>Thank you. Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. [ROSEN] > Yes, I admit it, I don't keep copies of everything Rich writes. Sorry, Rich, > about the exaggeration. I agree that it makes your postings seem worse than > they are. I made a guesstimate of how many articles you had posted and I > should have indicated that it was in fact a guess. [HUTCH] No one's asking you to keep copies of anything. But if you are going to make wild accusations about something, you'd better think twice about doing so if your evidence is based on "guesstimates". > 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. Why should the reply be any different from the original article? >><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. 1) I did ask questions. 2) If YOU felt it was a chastisement, well, that's your personal perspective, because that isn't how or why it was written. But it does say something about you yourself that you saw it that way. >><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!) 1) In answer to your question: No. My "gripe" is that I treat those I communicate with as reasonable intelligent people, expecting them to answer my reasoning with either counter-reasoning or agreement. Many people have said (including you, Hutch) that I treat my argumentative opponents like they were children or fools. If I have a failing in this area, it is that I go too far to do quite the opposite: I expect capable reasoning and intelligence, and often I get it, but just as often the response to me is empty and/or hateful. 2) About your theory (ahem ahem): I wish "often" was the right word, but it isn't. When face-to-face communication is fraught with inaccuracy, how can we expect electronic typewritten messages to be any better? >><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. It was condemnatory of Christians who quote things like "Those who are blind and will not see"-isms regarding the "wrongthinking" people (like gays, in this case) who do not think like them. I always consider it ironic that such people don't realize that such passages are better suited for THEM than for those they hate. It was NOT by any stretch of the imagination condemnatory of anyone else other than those who do such quoting. >><488@pyuxd.UUCP> - 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'm touched. I'm only sorry Seifert didn't feel the same way. His article was rather good, and I thought mine had something to offer beyond it. >>I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at >>least in this calendar year). > I agree that I attributed an improper count of articles to you, and I > apologise for making you seem worse than you are. Cute. How bad should you have made me out to be instead? >>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 assume you are making a pun on the word "apostate". My dictionary has been > stolen so I cannot look up etymologies for you. Hardly. If Jesus himself and the apostles were not "apostate Jews" according to perceptions of that time, well, what were they? >> ... 2) the dreaded "Blast from the Past" article, > I "enned" it as soon as I read the first three lines. So nice to know that you read my work before telling everyone it's impolite. >> ... 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. :-) Dave didn't think so. Are you assuming he did? With such hard work going into your investigation prior to accusation, what more can I do in my defense except to laugh out loud. >> ... 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, Then he presumed I would be there to answer. It's one or the other. > I won't attempt to try and divine which times you thought people were being > impolite to you. Instead, you chose to attempt to try and divine which times YOU thought *I* was being impolite to others. Slick. > (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... It WAS feeble, and it WAS an attempt, but at what I'm not sure. I'm glad Hutch so willingly let's us all in on how his prejudices have a strong bearing on his judgments of other people. I wonder if he's ever been to New Jersey. If you want an "eastcoast-westcoast" debate, take it offline. But realize that Puxatawney is in Pennsylvania. Next time, read a little, and make your hasty judgments after. -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr