On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:33:14PM -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > No; I think it's rude to assume that the entire world will sit quietly > at your lotus-flower feet and play rapt attention as dulcet strains > of truth fall like gems from your ruby lips, carefully taking note of > every jewel of absolute truth you care to condescend to deposit before > our unworthy snouts.
Ah, then I'm not rude by your standards. > I also think it's rude to offer advice on a topic and, when asked > for further information, to behave as though you've been massively > inconvenienced, your attention diverted from other matters of much > greater moment than continuing a discussion in which you did not, > strictly speaking, have to participate from the beginning. You are rather prone to exaggeration, aren't you? > (Which response do *you* believe is the greater waste of time? Do you > have a keystroke counter? Yours, mostly -- just about everything you write, in fact. Periodically, I may explain myself as I have done in this thread, so that discussions may improve in the future. If it becomes clear that that won't be the case, as it has, then I tend not to reply to that person for a while until I decide to try again. > Not in general. At least, I never had any ex complain. I've just > observed, casually, that people who feel it necessary to behave in a > consistently bully-like fashion online were usually the saddest, most > tortured kids in high school. Good psychoanalytical theory. Almost as good as everything being the result of one's relationship with their mother. I'll leave you to your psychoanalysis. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
