J. van Baardwijk wrote: > >No one seems to care but you. > > If that is true, then I might just as well restore the > previous content of > the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite > accurate -- you > know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal > attacks are completely accepted and tolerated behaviour here. > > But you really would not want that, now would you?
You mean Rob's stated preference would actually have a bearing this particular decision of yours? Strange, it doesn't seem to affect the rest of your decisions. > But hey, I am confident that someday you will come to agree > with me -- > because one day, sooner or later (could be tomorrow, could be > next month, > could be next year), *you* will say something that Giorgis > does not like to > hear and then *you* will become the next victim of his > intolerance and his > personal attacks. So? The world is full of intolerant people and enough number of them seem to delight in launching personal attacks. What I or you can change is our response to their attacks, not their nature or beliefs. > In a way, he is. My responses are triggered by *his* > misbehaviour; if he > does not misbehave, I do not criticise his behaviour. I do believe that you are abrogating the responsibility for your own actions here. Whether you criticise JDG or not is your choie, that you continue doing so on-list *after* repeated requests to the contrary is also your choice. You can't blame either of these personal choices on JDG. > >If you claim that you will continue your tirade until John > does what you > >want, you are holding the list hostage. And for that I would > ask for your > >expulsion from the list. Not the outcome I would prefer. > > Oh, now I get it! How stupid of me to forget -- as an > American, you are of > course using the *American* definition of "threat"! (Which, > as we all know, > includes a hell of a lot more than the European definition.) I don't know the difference between the American and the European definitions of 'threat'. Could you kindly enlighten me? > If you do not want all this to happen again in the future, > then you will > have to convince the person causing it in the first place > (Giorgis) to > start behaving in such a way that "all this" will not happen again. I don't understand. Why should anyone *have* to convince JDG of anything? The way it appears to me, JDG doesn't listen to you and you don't listen to anyone else. You do seem to listen a lot to JDG though. Until the two of you sort out your personal dynamics, the rest of us seem doomed to tolerate this argument over and over again. > I think that "irresponsible" better describes > those who > think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on > this list over > and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people > do not share > his narrow-minded, black-and-white worldview. I think our perspectives would differ here - y'see, there's no point trying to talk to certain people on certain issues. For instance, doesn't seem much point talking to you on this issues...but feel free to pleasantly surprise me by proving me wrong. :) > That is what I start out with: treating people the way I want > them to treat > me. However, with some people such an attitude is just not > going to work; > to get through to people like Giorgis, you need to lower > yourself to his level. Well, do so if you choose to but then, don't wonder why others perceive your actions in a different light. Ritu GCU Don Quixote _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
