Danny,
Once again Seeker, you resort to waving red flags, when someone dosen't see it your way.
I really don't see it that way. I express opinions. Others express theirs. If I disagree with an opinion, I say so. If someone disagrees with my opinion, I express myself back. I try to do so without resorting to insult (don't always succeed, but I usually do). I try to attack the argument, not the person (don't always succeed, but I usually do).
But why would I get upset when others don't see it my way? Most of the time people don't see things my way around here. I'm so used to it I get startled when I get a compliment such as the ones Julie and Tina made in this thread. The fact is, I'm often jumping into threads where everyone is saying, "A, A, A, A..." to say, "Uh, actually, B, B, B, B..." Then I get my head handed to me, I try not to resort to personal comments, I sometimes get to reach common ground with the person even if we ultimately don't agree, and I move on. So to say I can't handle things when people don't agree with me is quite funny.
Appologize for the obvious, no I don't think so. Why is it that when people stick their necks out, and make statements on a public forum, they are so ready to take offense, when someone calls their statements into question? Not even thick skin, no tolerance for the least bit of critique. Danny
Saving appologies, for when they really count class.
I agree, apologies should be saved for when they are really called for. Let me explain why I felt this was such a situation, since you clearly don't think so, and rhett called me on it as well. When you referred to what Julie and Tina said as "groupie" behavior, you did what You Know has done, and Rex has done, and other fundy or hard-nosed types have done when the bulk of opinion went against them: they discounted those other comments as being nothing more than cheerleading. Usually this sort of comment has been directed at ladies here, sometimes explicitly stated in a sexist manner. So when I saw your comment, and felt that the only persons in this thread that you were probably accusing of being groupies, I viewed it as I had all those other comments in the past.
Julie and Tina have their own brains, and they use their brains with skill and insight. They do not 'follow' anybody. The are not 'cheerleaders' for anyone. They are not anyone's "groupies," let alone mine as you explictly charged. To diminish the contribution of a woman's comments in a discussion thread down the level of "groupie" is sexist. Yes, it would have been different if they had been male, for the gender difference would have been eliminated, and with it all the political sexual history that comes with such a comment when directed at a woman. It was demeaning to them personally, and that is why I suggested an apology from you.
You say you were calling their statements into question. You did that and you used a word that was a personal affront to their person. That's the difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person. Now, you are perfectly in your right to not apologize. It's your call, and we can all see how you respond when you make personal insults.
Ps: Ken Hamblin's program is syndicated in almost every state in the union. I would have presumed (shame on me) that you would have concluded that since he has such a popular program (albeit most of his audience is white) that there are many blacks, who may also subscribe to his way of thinking. Guess you couldn't make the leap.
It also doesn't help that I've never heard of Ken Hamblin, nor do I ever listen to talk radio. Thus I wouldn't know who his audience is. As I said, I can only go on what I have heard from the black community. If it turns out that I have not heard the majority view, I will have shown to be wrong and I'll admit it.
Wrong, I don't have to "deal with it", I will continue to comment as I see fit, to any post, any subject, I choose. Thank you very much.
I didn't say you
had to deal with discussion dynamics. I merely said you should do so, but as always the final choice is in your hands.
My masochist comment was refering to the exchanges between Seeker and myself. He and I have had sparks fly, since the day we met in cyber-space, but I thought things were on the up and up....
I thought so too, which is why I was so surprised to see your initial comment toward me in this thread. It came out of the blue, it seemed. Yes, I know, you have told me that you don't like it when I express dogmatic views that differ from your views. Yet I do it anyway, and will continue to do it anyway. If you jump on me every time I do it, we'll get nowhere.
Seeker I will continue to read your comments, even if you ignore mine.
Why would I ignore your comments? When did I suggest I would do so? Where did that question come from then?
I read whatever I want to read. I read You Know's garbage. I read Rex's jihads. I read sf's paranoid posts. Of course I will read your stuff, for you are capable of intellgent, well thought-out posts. The fact that we don't see eye-to-eye is immaterial to me; I don't agree with most of the posters on this board, and most Americans, and most humans. I'm used to being different, and I will continue to be different, and I hope you will let my method of expressing my opinions pass in peace, while you take issue with my opinions themselves.
