A Plea for Sanity
 

"Willi" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
"I'm proud to be an asshole and anyone who doesn't like
it can **** off."

Willi

If you believe that, then why bother even saying it? Replying in kind is
not the way to "sanity".

TL
MC

A Plea for Sanity
 

All this stuff is merely providing fuel for further quite useless
argumentation and insult. It is no good blaming Ken, it takes two to tango.

Use some common sense.

I am fed up with it anyway, so once again EOT for me.

TL
MC

A Plea for Sanity
 

Mike Connor wrote:

If you believe that, then why bother even saying it? Replying in kind is
not the way to "sanity".

But invective and personal attacks don't tear at the fabric of roff
and discourage new blood when Tommy and Willi and wayno do it. It's
only a "bad thing" when someone else does it. No hypocrisy here, no
siree Bob. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

A Plea for Sanity
 

A Plea for Sanity
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
om...

Big bad Usenet talk, you sound like the putz.

And he will, doubtless, be dealt with in the same manner.

Wolfgang
REMEMBER YELLOWSTONE! :)

A Plea for Sanity
 

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Willi wrote:

The attrition of regular posters without being replaced new people, will
lead to deterioration.

Just poked my head in for a moment. For the record, I've been way too
busy to keep up with ROFF - and ROFF is no fun unless I can really
stay abreast. Carry on fellas.

Mu
missin' ya

A Plea for Sanity
 

Mike writes:
You see? You can´t forget either. Once something is said on here, then no
amount of apologising, sincere or otherwise is going to make it unsaid.


Mike, you don't see my nature. I not only have forgotten the unpleasantness, I
view it the "dumbo" comment as a self-deprecating reminder of my own errors.
As I have replied to you privately, this is all behind me, and I bear
ABSOLUTELY no ill will. I cannot make that plainer, but, if you wish, will
NEVER make light of that title again.
Tom

A Plea for Sanity
 

Jon writes:
But they really are necessary to bring us back to the realization of
how easy it is to go off into the mudpit using this type of
communication.

thanks, Jon, for putting it so well. I think it is worth clarifying again a
couple of points.
First, when Willi and I were making light of the names we have been called, it
was merely that. I kind of figure neither of us takes real offense to the times
when we have been called names. Second, if I can use the example of this
thread, Ken and I had a disagreement, to be sure. I CAN say that at no time did
I see anything Ken said to me that crossed the line I complained about. He
didn't refer to my family, bodily functions, health issues or anything more
personal than his perception of me. I would disagree strongly with his points
and style of making them, but so be it. My issue was, and is, taking arguments
to a lower depth, which HAS occured of late.
Tom

A Plea for Sanity
 

Wolfgang wrote:
...
REMEMBER YELLOWSTONE! :)

That's the second time you've used that sign off. What in the
hell is it supposed to mean ?

You remember, trip reports are not optional.

--
Ken Fortenberry

A Plea for Sanity
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
om...
Wolfgang wrote:
...
REMEMBER YELLOWSTONE! :)

That's the second time you've used that sign off. What in the
hell is it supposed to mean ?


It's a battle cry. Battle cries are little catch phrases, simple enough for
even mighty warriors to remember, whose purpose is to rally mighty warriors
upon entry into a mighty clash of arms. Typically, they hark back to a
prior mighty clash of arms in which the mighty warriors concerned (or their
mighty predecessors) failed to accomplish their stated aim and for which
they are thus compelled to compensate or make amends.

Wolfgang