Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?

sgf (sfolse@odin.cair.du.edu)
2 Sep 1996 20:50:09 GMT

Note: this is no longer on-topic for any of these newsgroups, note
follow-ups before posting an answer.

In article <50b5ib$ol8@jaxnet.southeast.net>,
Matt Beckwith <beckwith@jaxnet.com> wrote:

>>>Nonono backatcha. I started out by saying that we no longer have to
>>>worry about survival of our offspring.
>
>You're getting paranoid. There's nothing in the least complaining about
>the above paragraph.

Paranoid? Because I pointed out that you switched topics without warning
and I blindly assumed that perhaps you were still talking about the
original topic, and I was mildly upset about that? A little strong,
arent' we? Where were "we" and "our," used in your post to refer to the
population of the United States, defined as that? The previous post
discussed the human race in general, not any specific culture, and I
blindly assumed that perhaps you were actually still on-topic. Sorry.

>The remainder of your post picks apart my points in an effort to show
>that you were not in error at any point, that all points I attributed to
>you as being erroneous were misconstrued on my part, or that you
>misconstrued my points because my points were insufficiently well
>written. This isn't a discussion, it's a debate. I'm not interested in
>debating, thank-you.

They were not erroneous. They were done using a different set of
assumptions than what you intended. I arrived at those assumptions based
on teh general topic of the thread. Had I realized your agenda was to
discuss the social problems of the U.S. and not the evolution and
adaptation of the human race, then I would have responded from that
direction.

And are you worried that perhaps your points might be wrong, so you failed
to defend them and instead attacked my "debate", as you see it? Whether
or not the participants are discussing or debating makes no difference to
the truth or not-truth of facts presented.

>>[Note to anyone: I will *not* discuss the moral issues
>>in this in these newsgroups. Take it elsewhere.]
>
>How rude! As if someone were inflicting some sort of discussion on you.

Hello--- preventive measures to avoid an entirely inappropriate
discussion of abortion in this thread. If it seemed strong to you, then
good -- it would perhaps serve as a warning to anyone else whose hot
buttons were pushed and wanted to jump in and spiral the thread off-topic
in these newsgroups. The entire reason behind having separate newsgroups
in the first place is so that each one serves as a forum in which a
specific topic organizes the discussion (and, yes, debate...).

>>No, they assume that if you need a smiley to get your point across, then
>>you cannot write well enough to indicate humor with context and wording.
>Gee, thanks for the insult. What a pleasant person you are.

Insult? You call me paranoid, then try to make *this* into a direct
insult to you? It is to laugh.

>>They fight quite hard to keep the level of discourse on the newsgroup
>>higher than the average, something I find quite refreshing in the genral
>>morass of Usenet.
>
>Insults are not on a higher level than smiley faces. They're on a lower
>level.

Nope. A well-written insult is a pleasure to read, no matter whether you
are the recipient, the sender, or totally unrelated to the matter. A
smiley (which, I point out, I use in other newsgroups) is a shortcut.
Effective, yes. Gets the point across, yes. Still a shortcut, though.
A.f.u. denizens believe that there is still some value attached to the
well-written word, and prefer not to rely on shortcuts when the journey
itself can be much more rewarding.

--Stephanie

-- 

               sfolse@odin.cair.du.edu <*> http://phoebe.cair.du.edu/~sfolse/

"Assiduous and frequent questioning is indeed the first key to wisdom ...for 

by doubting we come to inquiry; through inquiring we perceive the truth..."

     --Peter Abelard        (..........I claim this .sig for Queen Elizabeth)