At 10:17 AM 10/31/02, Julia Thompson wrote:
Dan Minette wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:22 AM > Subject: Re: Some things are too good to last > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > I hit reply on a post from Sonja, and it went to her instead of the > list. > > > That's the first time that's happend to me. Anyway, here it is. > > > [great snippage] > > > I do not see how you can ask someone to have ignored your husbands > threats > > > to people's livelihoods. > > > > I haven't seen any evidence that he's about to put that sort of negative > > information up; all he's done this week is indicate displeasure with the > > list with his .sig. > > I agree, and that's fair enough. I know that Jeroen's recent responses to > me have been much easier to deal with. He has strongly pushed his points, > but has kept the conversation on topic. Yes, he has ignored some of my > questions, but in my head I just assume that he doesn't have a good answer > for those questions right now. I've seen other posters delay answers to > certain questions until they are happy with responses. > > But, Adam brought up an example of a past threat, and I was responding to > Sonja's response to that, etc. That threat no longer seems operative, > which is very good, but it is a reasonable example of a threat that could > not have been ignored.Fair enough. I just prefer not to drag up negative things from the past if it can be avoided. > > I think that on the basis of this one .sig file change, some people are > > overreacting. > > My reaction was at the time was "please let this not be the start of a > pattern." It doesn't appear to be, Jeroen seems to write lotsa different > things in the .sig file. Right. I just took it as momentary frustration (keeping in tone with the rest of the post!) rearing its head, and might have glossed over it altogether if it hadn't been pointed out. Rob, if you're going to point out stuff in Jeroen's .sig file, can you point out the good things, too? I'm liable to miss those, as well. :) > >If he actually modifies content on his website to reflect > > this negativity, that's another matter entirely, but he hasn't done a > > damn thing to it this week as far as I can tell. All he has done is > > modify his .sig file. Lighten up, guys, would ya? > > I have no problem with the .sig. However, I didn't respond to Sonja's > first comment that the original protest of Gautam, myself, and others was > just paranoia because I was willing to let things lie and because I allowed > a bit of hyperbola by someone who was subjected to a number of rude emails. > (That of course was wrong.) > > However, after it became a repeated theme for Sonja; I decided to respond. > I have no problems with Jeroen put in his sig. I have a significant > problem with any credible threat of RL consequences. That is not paranoia. > Indeed, my issue is with Sonja's posts, not Jeroen's sigs. I differ with > them and thus write a rebuttal. No hard feelings. Indeed, a casual perusal > of my posting patterns indicates that I do tend to write rebuttals for > posts I differ with, even when they are written by people I like. :-) Yes, you do. Actually, I expected nothing less from you when I hit "send". And I'd like to take the opportunity to let you know that I appreciate the cordial tone of your response to me. One thing I find interesting, going over this thread: All responses spawned by that one post of Jeroen's that come through as being part of the thread as threaded by Netscape come either from people in Jeroen's town in The Netherlands, or people who live in Texas within 3 hours' drive of each other. Does this mean anything, or is it coincidental? :) Julia waiting for a response from someone not fitting either geographical category now
That the rest of us have decided to stay out of it? -- Ronn in Birmingham, AL :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
