Re: Candidates representing me

At 03:49 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

Ok, I did want to drop it, but I do want to answer this.

>>>It doesn't surprise me either, because honestly, your post was way
>>>out in looney-land.
>>I do take offense at that, Kynn.
>Your point?  You also took offense at Jimmie's sig, and I took offense >at
your complaining about it.

I don't think I complained. I stated a feeling & asked him to consider how
others may feel. That was it. It was a very short, very nonattacking post,
I thought. Unlike the responses to it have been. I should be used to people
reacting so to this type of thing, but it always surprises me.

>People take offense all the time, especially when arguing about
>extremely silly things.  It's part of the cost of being in a silly
>argument; if you don't like, it, don't get involved in silly arguments 

I rarely get involved in silly arguments. I do in silly discussions, tho. I
really enjoy being sillly. :)

>(and certainly don't start 'em).

It was not my intent to do so & I do not think I did.

>>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?
>Rules, rules, what is this fascination with rules?

LOL!!! PLEASE ask Tammy about how I love rules! I think I gave her apoplexy
over my irrevernce for rules. I was pointing out, as someone did earlier in
this list, that there are no rules for a reason.

>It's simple, Deborah:  You have the right to state your ideas.

Thank you.

>I have the right to state my ideas.  

True. One would hope in a nonoffensive manner, tho. That is what I objected
to. Not at all to your ideas or opinions. I do not like & see it as
condescending to be told my ideas are "stupid" or "dumb". (Now let's see
what I get for this next!) Especially coming from a male to a female. (That
was NOT to say Kynn is a sexist. Or even that Kynn is a male or a female! I
deny making any such statement right now, for the record! LOL!)

>I have the right to state my ideas about your ideas.  You have the >right
to state your ideas about my ideas.

True. And I did. Nicely. Don't we expect such behavior from all the lists?

>_You_ can call _my_ ideas looney if you like.

Nope. They are your ideas. I am not gonna judge them. Just agree or disagree.

>Welcome to an open forum!

Thank you, again. :)

>You said that Jimmie's sig could be construed as an official
>representation of the Guild.  How does that differ from my statement >above?

I feel that I wasn't quite so strident & sure that Jimmie WAS a GB member
yet. Your statement read a bit like that to me.

>Ahhhh, the refuge of the troller -- 

I find that offensive, rude, & slanderous. If you think that I do that,
then you have NO idea who or what I am. I am angered by that statement.

>saying something that's plain outright provocative, and then claiming >you
didn't mean to stir up flames.

I don't think what I said was "plain outright provocative". I think you are
overreacting.

>Who's being ridiculous?  You were, at the start.  

Again, I disagree. I was making an observation about something important to
me.

>I was above, by taking your already-ridiculous notion to an extreme.

Drop it, Kynn. I am really hurt by this. And I don't care if the whole
Guild knows. I am not trying to troll. I am not trying to get into a
hopelessly misdirected debate. What I originally said stands. You may think
it as ridiculous as you wish. And say so here. And I will say that how I
feel, too. And this will go nowhere. Let's it go.

>>>C'mon, now.  I daresay that _any_ reasonable, rational person 
>>Why am I being personally attacked here, Kynn?
>I didn't say you were unreasonable; 

Reread waht you wrote. You did say I was that by implication.

>>Have I appeared to you in other lists as being unreasonable or >>irrational?
>I honestly don't recall anything you've written; you haven't
>made enough of an impression on me before this thread to make
>any sort of lasting impression of what you're like.  So I dunno.

LOL! That's interesting. You & I had quite a discussion not too long ago in
-ops over something that escapes here & now. 

>Actually I'm quite cheery, 

:) Good.

>and matter-of-fact; 

Again, good to hear.

>I have no real emotions connected with this.  

Doesn't appear that way to me, but looks can be deceiving, as they say.

>And, quite matter-of-factly, I think your complaint was stupid.

Again, I find that rude. I do not think your complaint about me is stupid.
I don't agree. But I am not going to be judgemental & rude about it.

>I'm attacking your idea, not you.  There's a difference.  

True. However, you attacked me, also. In the section about "rational
people" & that stands as how it came out, even if you deny the intent. That
is how that type of phrase is meant to be read.

>If you present an idea publically, be prepared to defend it.

Uhhhmmmmmm, am I not doing so here?

>Well, of course you don't feel it's dumb.

Of course, including your statements. Rude, but not dumb or stupid.

>Why I'm "upset" about it?  Mainly because I find the very idea that >you
want to make religion an issue, 

I do NOT believe that is what I meant to do. It is what you are turning
this into, however. I only asked (for the fifth time) that he consider how
it may be taken.

>and make Jimmie's sig an issue, 

It wasn't meant to be so. I do think you have helped to elevate it that
lofty height now, tho. 

>when it has no place in the Guild election, to be quite laughable and,
>yes, dumb.

The h**l with it. I am tired of this game. I made a statement of how
something might look. I have a right to that opinion. And to express it
here. And to not expect such a nasty response. It obviously meant something
to me or I would not have expressed it. Do you often ridicule people for
their deeply held beliefs & ideas, Kynn? Because it does matter to me that
others are considerate of not imposing their beliefs on me. And that IS
what he is doing. And I know exactly what you will respond to THAT with:
That is what I am doing. A no win situation. Not worth it.

>That's my opinion, and I'm sticking by it; 

Cool.

>feel free to stick to your own, as well.  

I will obviously.

>Fortunately neither of us are up for election to anything this time.

True.

>MmmHmmm.  So if I find anything by you that espouses something I don't
>personally believe in -- say that you vote Republican, 

Not on a bet! LOL!

>or are Jewish, 

Oooooooooppppppppppsss, ya got me there!

>or are pro-abortion, 

Freedom of choice for me. What I think on that isn't the point.

>or anti-gun-control, 

Nope.

>or whatever (those don't really represent the opposites of my
>beliefs) -- 

They don't? Ah! Gee! And I had fun admitting it all to the world.

>maybe I should post here and object?  

If it is about the election & you feel a need to, I guess so.

>Where _is_ your personal web page, anyway?

I had it taken down becasue it had some personal info on me that was not
correct any longer. There is another, unadorned, as I have no time while
working full time & working on a PhD to do anything with it, at
http://www.lakeland.cc.il.us/~dadelman. Come & visit the online class I
will begin teaching this week at:
http://www.lakeland.cc.il.us/~dadelman/wwwboard.html.

And, Kynn, exactly what does that have to do with this?

Deborah

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