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

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

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

(Tom Littleton) wrote in message ...

are excuses, but I am here to make a plea for tolerance of others which seems
....
I beg for sanity, and an attempt to understand
the feeling of others. Take the tongue-in-check stuff with a grain of salt,
understand the limitations of Usenet communication and try to bring something
....
just hoping that some can find it in their souls to do the right thing,
and act like adults.

Amen.

Some call these pleas useless, inappropriate, hypocritical, and worse.
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. Being reminded of that occasionally is a good thing.
It's not hypocritical -- we're all human -- it's just a good
reminder.

The only way ROFF doesn't become Jerry Springer is if we all
consciously decide we won't respond or we'll give the person the
benefit of doubt, that if they say they didn't mean it that way
we'll believe them, that we won't pile on when things start
going south for someone, etc. etc. Sure they'll always will be
a few who _want_ to get into that stuff, but if we don't respond
(no matter what they said) the thread dies. It takes at least two
to make a thread continue (on and on and on it seems!).

Actually, I'm often amazed at what I read here. Insults and name
calling that I _know_ most would rarely, maybe even never, say in
person. I shouldn't be surprised anymore but I really am. There's
a real person on the other side, and they're having a real life.
You have no idea what they are _really_ like. One of these days
a thread is going to go downhill into insults, and one of the
persons is going to be going through a layoff, divorce, cancer,
whatever and it's all going to be happening at once and they're
just going to snap and they're going to find out where you really
live and they're going to drive over and ...?

It may sound crazy, and I'm sure no ROFF regular would ever do
that :-), but all I'm saying is how do you know if that other
person isn't the next Ted Kazcinski? It'd sure give me pause if
I felt like insulting any of you :-)

Jon. (count to 20.......ok I still want to post it; besides, I'm
bach'n it tonight so might as well read ROFF. I spent most of the
day on my mule, a wonderfully simple and beautiful day.)

"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!

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

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

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

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

"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