From: kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:20:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct5.112555.7013@pimacc.pima.edu> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.010318.426@u.washington.edu>, kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct4.062435.7006@pimacc.pima.edu> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct3.345565.35353@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>, takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
>>> 
>>>
>>>Belittlement of AM's vision of a the hypothetical world she calls Pern is
>>>a classic sign of intolerance. The same tactic has been used in the past
>>>against homosexuals & various minorities.
>>> 
>> No, this is a classic sign of literary criticism.  Yes, you won your little
>> battle, and AM has verified your interpretation.  This does not mean that 
>> we can't say that it was a poorly chosen interpretation.  
>
>It also doesn't mean that I can't post my rejection of your position &
>criticize it for what I deem intolerance.
>
True, but would you please clearly state what about it makes it intolerance?
I honestly can not see why you use that word. It does not seem to 
apply, given the definition of intolerance I know.
>> I criticize 
>> authors all the time - some people make their living off of it.  Disagreement
>> with AM is not intolerence.  
>
>All criticism does not display intolerance. Yours does.
>
Again, please support that assertion.

>> You claim to be oppressed, yet are by far the
>> most dogmatic of the bunch.  
>
>Well I most vehemently dispute that statement. In fact, I find the others
>to be "by far the most dogmatic of the bunch".
>l
Alright, I was too strong.  I do think, however that you are as equally
dogmatic as your opponents.

>> Yes, you were right, as you are boasting about
>> constantly now. (Hint: it isn't winning you any friends here.  You come 
>> across as quite egotistical.  I don't want to flame you excessively, though,
>> here.)  
>
>If there had been no posts that attempted to twist & distort my position &
>AM's endoresment of it I wouldn't have had to set the record straight. I
>think you are placing an exaggerated value upon your "friendship". I really
>don't that I would care to be friends with someone as closeminded as your
>posts show you to be.
>
My posts, huh? Did you notice that this last one was my first post? And in
it I say that your position is a valid one?  Please, support your assertion
of my closemindedness.  Not of your opponents in general, based on only
my post.   
>> Please, can you not see that intolerence is not a valid description of this?
>> Disagreement is more accurate.  This isn't the only case I disagree with
>> AM's Pern. (Or, more accurately, think she should have done it a different
>> way. She screwed up, whatever.)  The way that draconic abilities such as 
>> lifting things are handled in ATWOP (I'm being vague for spoilers sake)
>> was pretty horrendous, IMHO.  Is this intolerance of AM?  I sure doubt it.
>
>We *all* could've aggreed to disagree a long way back. Instead the others
>chose to attempt to intimidate me with flames so that their position would
>prevail. It was *their* decision, not mine.
>
From what I remember, they initially tried to dispute the claims by 
showing support from the books.  You told them that it was all irrelevent.
From my point of view, you came across as one who was refusing to see
that the other point of view was valid and better supported.  I never have
said that your opinion was invalid, just until AM came along, unsupported.
 
>> And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody on a PernMUSH has forced you to
>> have sex as a result of a mating flight.  If they say it is preferred, that
>> is not intolerance.  Once they actually force you to do it, you've got a
>> valid complaint.  (Although I'd suggest that if you have severe problems with
>> policy, you might find a different place to play rather than rant and rave
>> in the middle of everyone else's fun.)
>
>There have been an number of posts that have stated that there are a number
>of riders who do, in fact, feel intimidated into avoiding matings. This
>seems to me to reflect an atmosphere of intolerance.
>
A number equal to 1, as far as I remember.  General query: does anyone
out there actually feel that you will be obligated, despite general policy,
to have sex after a flight on a MUSH?  I haven't really seen it come up
on PernMUSH - there doesn't seem to be an atmosphere of intolerance as it
is a total non-issue there, from what I've seen.
 
>> And is telling you to shut up intolerance?  Perhaps.  But face it -   
>> virtually every issue that gets brought up now has been beaten to death
>> before.  I'd suggest that you let it die.  I'd suggest that the rest of
>> you let PHIL die. Er, I mean, stop responding to PHIL as well.  PHIL, lose
>> the persecution complex and ego trip.  You may be right, but you do come
>> across as somewhat of a jerk when you act like that.
>
>I've already let it die. More than once. I will, however, continue to
>challenge the sort of distortions that continue to be posted concern-
>ing my statements & position.
>
>PHIL
I've tried very hard only to address what you have directly stated, and
not distort your words.  I've also tried to qualify my opinions.  I have
also tried, this time, to avoid attacking you and to address your points.
I suppose I should let it die, as my own advice, but there were some 
points in here I felt I needed to address.