From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Subject: Re: Git
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:23:08 GMT

Ever get the feeling that your picture of reality and
someone else's aren't quite the same?  

ObBook:  _The Three Christs of Ypsilanti_, by Milton Rokeach.

Anne Jessop wants me to humorless, snotty, and, my fave,
_unfairly harsh_, so here goes:
|> 
|> Graham,
|> This is in response to your humorless and snotty response. 

This is the same as when someone prefaces his really bad opening joke at 
a speech at a Prosthetic Limb convention by saying  "This joke is in
response to all the bad jokes you ever heard that opened speeches at 
the previous Prosthetic Limb conventions...".  I can just see Anne
pursing her lips and sneezing on her monitor.
 
                                                     You called what I
|> wrote a flame; this characterization surprises me, because I was not in
|> "flame mode" when I wrote it.   

anne, Anne, ANNE!!!  Reality check:  _you_ called what you wrote a flame:

  |> Anyway, please forgive me if this is an unfair, out-of-context flame.
                                                                    ^^^^^
It was, and I did...no big deal, yet, right?  "Unfairly harsh" (cf. below)
takes on new meaning when the whiner whining that phrase just said she 
flamed someone out of context ... And let's look at my response, shall
we?

  Anne Jessop flames me unfairly and out-of-context and then goes on:
  |> 
  |> Anyway, please forgive me if this is an unfair, out-of-context flame. 

OK, looking at this, _if_ I had a sense of humor, I'd say the above bears
a certain resemblance, if you take familial resemblances into account, 
LIKE A JOKE!  Can it be?  Yes! Yes!! It is, it is!!!!  Maybe there's
hope for him after all...
 
                                          As I recall, I was responding to
|> something that I found amusing -- the example of Adam naming the animals
|> with various modern-English epithets.  I don't know why you found my tone
|> or my own example sanctimonious, and I am curious about what kind of
|> attitude you are referring to.  

I apologize.  With no snot.  Really.  I re-read your post, and, trying
hard, I can see that you weren't bashing what I said (at least not in 
the first paragraph).  Why call it a flame?  And, if _you_ re-read what
you posted in the second, tell me how I'm not supposed to equate myself 
with some ignorant hick asshole who thinks Jesus taught in English?  Even 
I know that "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthini" is German, and that Jesus was 
blond. (Hmmm....maybe that wasn't funny enough to actually _be_ a joke,
but the generous [Anne?] should at least grant that he's trying).

                                Indeed, the unfairly harsh tone of your
                                            ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ (this I love...)
|> response (which in my mind is more properly a flame) seems to indicate
|> that you are the one with the holier-than-thou complex.  

Yes, Anne, but we've been through this before.  To get your knickers in
an uproar because I'm irritated with your admittedly out of context flame
is a little, well, sensitive, don't you think?
                         
                                                    I don't know who
|> started all the "fuck" business.  I don't care.  I do object to your
|> jumping all over me for posting something in innocence when others were
|> posting more mischievous things.             ^^^^^^^^^

That should be _ignorance_.  The fact that you seemed to equate _me_
with some cross-eyed backwoods (says he, posting from New Mexico) goober
[sic] farmer justifies my annoyance.  What you wrote is an _ad hominem_
attack, in big words, Anne, and a kind of mishief that warrants some
snarling and growling (I have not yet begun to bite...).

                                      When I apologized in advance if I was
|> being "unfair and out of context," it was because I was responding to an
|> example that someone else had quoted in their post, and I wanted to let
|> the original author know that that was all I had seen. If I could have
|> known that I was going to get slammed in response, well, I wouldn't have
|> done it.

So ... next time you have the nasty little urge to flame someone out of 
context, consider that the odds are good you'll provoke some snot flinging.
(Repeat after me, "Cause, effect; cause, effect; cause, effect ...")
 
|> So, Graham, some words of advice:
|> relax
|> cool down
|> fuck off :)
|> 

What's that smiley s'posed t'mean, don't take my (now veiled) hostility
seriously?  Nice try.  I bet you always attack people with an angelic
little smile and some weak little attempt at (what was that word?  Ah, 
yes...) humor. :)

And, if it's any consolation, I do feel much better.


Yours in shamelessly exhibitionistic, humorless, unfairly harsh, snotty
venting of spleen at the idiocy of we who blundered into this,


-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --