Re: Candidates representing me

At 05:18 p.m. 01/12/98 -0600, Deborah Adelman wrote:
>At 02:59 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>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.

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 (and certainly don't start 'em).

>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?

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

_You_ can call _my_ ideas looney if you like.

Welcome to an open forum!

>>>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.

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

>>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.

Ahhhh, the refuge of the troller -- saying something that's
plain outright provocative, and then claiming you didn't
mean to stir up flames.

Who's being ridiculous?  You were, at the start.  I was above,
by taking your already-ridiculous notion to an extreme.

>>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; however, if you do fit
the category of person who would NOT:

      "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."

...then perhaps you _aren't_ a rational person.

>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.

>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.

Actually I'm quite cheery, and matter-of-fact; I have no 
real emotions connected with this.  And, quite matter-of-factly,
I think your complaint was stupid.

>>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.

MmmHmmm.

>Again, I have to ask, why the attack.

I'm attacking your idea, not you.  There's a difference.  If you
present an idea publically, be prepared to defend it.

>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.

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

Why I'm "upset" about it?  Mainly because I find the very idea
that you want to make religion an issue, and make Jimmie's sig
an issue, when it has no place in the Guild election, to be
quite laughable and, yes, dumb.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking by it; feel free to stick
to your own, as well.  Fortunately neither of us are up for
election to anything this time.

>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.

MmmHmmm.  So if I find anything by you that espouses something
I don't personally believe in -- say that you vote Republican,
or are Jewish, or are pro-abortion, or anti-gun-control, or
whatever (those don't really represent the opposites of my
beliefs) -- maybe I should post here and object?  Where _is_
your personal web page, anyway?

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn(at)hwg.org>
President, HTML Writers Guild
http://www.hwg.org/

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