At 08:04 PM 9/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
...
>Oh, by the way, I am insulted by your depiction of my reply as spurious
>(not true or genuine, false, counterfeit). You make it sound like I lied
>to everyone on purpose. And to my input being a red-herring (someting used
>to divert attention from the basic issue). My intent was not to mislead.
>I was speaking from my recollection and from what I thought to be true.
>
>I certainly respect your knowledge on this subject but it's a good thing I
>now have lost respect for your ability to transfer that information
>inoffensively in these conversations or I would be even more offended. You
>say that I should read the article that you have but you make no provision
>to make it available; is that you you can retain the information for
>yourself? Didn't anyone teach you to share?
>
>With your permission, I will continue to voice my opinion, interchange
>ideas and learn. If I make mistakes, gaffes, or just plain screw-up, just
>grit your teeth.
I think Bob was only attempting to add a little color to what many
on this list may feel is a boring technical discussion. Each of us tries
to develop a little style and its difficult to have someone critique our
response to assure that someone can't be somehow offended.
You jumped on my case a few of months ago for using religious
arguments in defense of the STOA TAC Program. Truth is, I am an Atheist.
I used that line of reasoning only because I thought it was the best way
to make my points understood. I am certainly zealous, maybe even over
zealous, about the TAC program and my self appointed responsibility as a
defender of this Marque that Ian was responsible for. Ian was a long time
friend of mine and that relationship colors my perspectives even more
strongly today.
I would like to propose some reasonable allowances for color and
style before offense is taken. I'm sure that some of the spelling and
punctuation errors on some submissions are not held in the highest regard
by some recipients. Cut some slack.
Tom Hall
|