Previous Next Index Thread
Gee Jeanne- If this wasn't a blatant "ad hominem" attack on ME I don't know what is. And that's always you're biggest gripe about people and how it should happen in email. Well you didn't email me, you just publicly attacked me personally. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but I am. No, my discussions with you never had anything to do with your effort to get me disconnected from aol. I just felt I had to support another who you made the same attempt on concerning their edu. account. ( and it seems that this thread which has concerned repeatedly the issue of people using edu. accounts for non university business has gone a long way towards quashing your screams on that issue). Your "strongly opinionated" comments were not about money dancing. They were about the PEOPLE who follow that tradition- ALL of the people, regardless of their heritage or motives. And yes I could ignore anyone who attacked a tradition without slandering everyone who would/had/will follow the tradition. There's no conflict here. No, Jeanne, after all this time you still don't get it. My issue with you was your condemning an entire group of people indiscriminately, (your "all money dancers are greedy money grubbers" statement) vs. condemning a tradition you don't like which would be, as below,"barbaric, raunchy, sleazy and tacky" custom." It's fine to denigrate the tradition, but not fine to degrade ANYONE who would ever follow it. Seems that you're really the queen of personal attacks afterall. Just like when you've tried/threaten to censor me and others on this group because you don't like our views. Paul In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeanne M. Hinds) wrote: > In article <email@example.com> > firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Stonkus) writes: > > > OK- > > I think a lot of you really need to get a life and figure out when to > > get upset about something and when to have a constructive discussion. > > (I'm not posting this directly to Jean Healy's post- it was kinda just the > > last straw since this thread spun off on it's own flamewar. I'm > > responding to all the people who can't seem to discuss an issue but would > > rather criticize the personality of the responder.) > > If you're going to get offended because someone called SOME college > > students kids, then you obviously aren't living in the real world with > > issues which should REALLY offend you. Kid may be a derogatory term to > > you, but I don't believe that it is a derogatory term to Jon. He says > > below "SOME of the "kids"". He's trying to discuss this issue and all he > > seems to get is flames from people who don't like his tone. He never said > > "all of you are dreaming" or all of you are ignorant, or all of you are > > immature. He said "some". I think you better start choosing your battles > > wisely or you're going to be termed as "one who doesn't play well with > > others". > > Jon's posts have always been strongly opinionated- if you don't like > > his tone, in general, then don't read his posts. > > > > Hmm, too bad you didn't adhere to this philosophy in regards to my > "strongly opinionated" comments about money dancing being "tacky and > greedy" while simultaneously ignoring people who referred to the garter > removal as a "barbaric, raunchy, sleazy and tacky" custom. But then, > your flame wars with me really had more to do with the fact that you > were once advertising on this newsgroup from an AOL account (and > violating your Terms of Service) and I issued you a warning to cease.