Re: Candidates representing me

At 02:59 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>Somehow it does not surprise me that I am receiving a good deal of
>>flack about what I wrote, not just from Ann.

>It doesn't surprise me either, because honestly, your post was way out >in
looney-land.

I do take offense at that, Kynn. I do not believe that there was any reason
to get so nasty. I have a right to express what I wish to express here,
unless there are now some new rules I am not aware of?

>>I still stand by what I said. Statements of a
>>religious/gender/racial/political/what-have-you nature are
>>going to be misconstrued to be offical representations of the Guild >>by
some.
>Ahhhhh, so you came to the conclusion that Jimmie's sig represented an
>official stance by the HTML Writers Guild on the Divinity of Jesus of
>Nazareth?

I don't believe that was what I said there, if you will read it again.

>Or is it your fear that, if Jimmie were elected, the Governing Board
>would quickly pass an official motion declaring Jesus to be the Son of
>God, according to the HTML Writers Guild?

Now who is being ridiculous, Kynn? It makes me wonder what this is all
really about. It was a simple statement. Not meant to generate flaming. It
was an observation.

>C'mon, now.  I daresay that _any_ reasonable, rational person 

Why am I being personally attacked here, Kynn? Have I appeared to you in
other lists as being unreasonable or irrational? I think that *I* am not
the irrational one on this issue. I only made a mild statement about
something I found offensive. If you are reading anything irrational or
unreasonable into it, I can't help that. Try rereading it with less
emotion. It was certainly typed in an matter of fact manner.

>would see Jimmie's sig as exactly what it is -- a personal >opinion/belief
of one person, and in NO way, shape, or form indicative >of the HTML
Writers Guild's official position on anything.

If I see that it might be so construed, I do think other sane, rational
people may also come to that conclusion, too.

>>I feel like *I* am now being attacked for expressing my
>>opinion. And yet I am told we all have that right. Interesting, that.
>You're being attacked for a dumb opinion that relates to election.

Again, I have to ask, why the attack. I really do not feel thatmy opinion
is dumb. Anymore than I feel that your overreacting to it is dumb. I just
have to wonder why you are so upset over it.

>Actually, it's not _you_ who are being attacked, but that dumb
>opinion of yours.

I see. Nice rationalization. Reread your post to me. I think you have
attacked me several times.

>Welcome to the realm of debate:  

I entered it knowing what might be coming. So it seems I must feel that it
was worth expressing.

>If you have the right to say something stupid, 

Again an unnecessary attack that I do not appreciate. I have not ever
expressed myself towards you in such a manner when I disagreed with you.
You have a right to your opinion. And I do not consider it dumb or stupid.
Just your opinion, which may happen to differ from mine.

>I have the right to point out just how silly it was.

You have the right to disagree. I would have hoped it would not have been
in such a manner.

I also see what your point is. And I still think we all need to consider
that we DO represent the Guild to the world. All of us. And how we do that
is important to me.

Deborah

HWG: hwg-elections mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA