Hello Nick,
"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"John Reimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hello Nick,
"John Reimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very
hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you
are quite unfamiliar with. I didn't see you mention this sort of
thing while people were talking about physically harming the
internet marketer's in horrible ways in the javascript discussion.
:)
It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were
not intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also*
clearly fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments
against it were more serious.
Yes, they were serious. The fact that they are fictional is not an
argument for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought
other analogies into the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce
their limits at some point, fictional or otherwise.
I was merely explaining the discrepancy between how most of us
reacted to the content in the javascript discussion and how we
reacted to your original post against bearophile.
In other words, while you may not consider "real" vs "not-real" to be
a useful variable to include in the "acceptability" equation, many of
us do, and that is why we reacted differently in the different
situations. In that particular portion of my message above, I wasn't
attempting to make any point beyond that.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood you there. Thanks for the clarification.
-JJR
