Re: [DMCForum] Gee, what a choice.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DMCForum] Gee, what a choice.

--- cruznmd <racuti1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You are impossible to talk to Marc.

i don't mean to be, really!

> In the past when I said that I would do just that,
> you said that was
> giving in and letting other people "win" because
> silence is often
> seen as admittance of guilt.

Did I say say that?  I could have.. But, we were
talking about you not attending DMA events, not a
discussion on a mailing list.

Let's go with a typical scenario..  (Presented by Dave
not too long ago).

- Some liberal on the list (like me!) makes a post,
and inserts an (unnecessary?) jab at George Bush, or
religion, or whatever topic happens to be on my mind
at the time.

- You read the message, and choose to respond to the
off topic comment made.  Now you have engaged yourself
in a topic that was not directed at you.  Even if
somehow you were *unintentionally* insulted, you have
now made it OK to continue the off topic discussion.

> The choice is as unpalatable as it is possible to
> be:
> 1. Be silent and let you and others insult me either
> by name or by
> lumping me into convenient categories, groups or
> stereotypes or:

As I say above.. If the comment is not directed at you
specifically, you only even identify yourself as a
member of the "category" by engaging in the

> 2. Get dirty and argue with you in a vain attempt to
> defend myself.

*I* have no problem with this..  I voted YES, to allow
such discussions on the list.  Remember, this thread
is now about what topics to allow on the list.  We are
no longer talking about the actually topics in

It is always your choice to respond or not.  And given
your position on eliminating politics and religion
from the list, I don't see why you would feel the need
to defend the "category" you associate yourself with.

Now, if I came on here and made comments about YOU,
"Rich is a such and such..."  I would expect, and hope
you would speak up to defend yourself.

> Either way, it was wasted effort. As I've said in
> the past, these
> debates aren't for your enlightenment, they are for
> your
> entertainment as you, Bob and others "stir the pot"
> like
> Gary/Checksix/Jetjock/Chernobyl and whatever other
> alias's the guy
> used.

I think it is for both.  But, now you are passing
judgment on me.   :)

> You know, I have to admit, I have more respect for
> Mike Pack than
> many of you people. At least he insulted me directly
> and by name

Did he insult you by name?  I don't remember that... I
could be wrong, I guess it just was not important to

> instead of making safe, general derogatory comments
> like "all non-
> religious people are smart" and constantly linking
> mental crutches
> with organized religion and no other organizations.

Ah, and I think this is the gist of the problem.  You
see any general statement made about a "category" of
people that you happen to be part of as a direct
attack on you.  As far as I am concerned, if *YOU*
were my target, I would name you and not hide behind
any stereotypes that I think may include you.

You may find it hard to believe, but I don't sit
around thinking of round about ways to insult you,
Rich.  :)

> I never set out to win any of these so-called
> discussions, or change
> anyone's point of view but I'll be damned if I'll
> sit by quietly and
> let people lump me into categories because of how I
> live my life.

Lump?  Only you can identify yourself as a member of
any "category".

> Just because you didn't say my name doesn't mean I
> should just sit
> around and take it.

"You"??  This message was addressed to Me (Marc), so
am I correct in concluding that you think my political
or religion rants are directed at you??   I don't see
how you get it that way, but it was never my


> Oh, and the only people here that are likely to get
> banned for
> breaking the new rule won't ever -need- emergency
> Forum advice. You
> are all either well equipped with other vehicles or
> don't even own
> one so that's an empty point as far as I'm
> concerned.

Did I say Need? 

And here is another thing to consider, *WHO* decides
when someone has broken the rule?  When you start
making rules that are based on judgment calls, it can
get pretty ugly...  This is one of the complaints many
of us have about the DML, the inconsistent moderation
of posts.  Is that what you want in the Forum?


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around


Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN

Copyright 2006  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive