From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Subject: Re: KHARE
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:11:50 GMT

In <92314.221216U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

>I understand it perfectly.  I just do not feel I have to change what
>I believe in nor my style of saying it because you object.  You want to
>control my expression on this group.  I see a lot of controllers
>cruising around these groups trying to force their ideas/attitud/styles
>on others.  I'm not buying.  What do you think this need to control is
>all about Ollie?

Ok. In words of one syllable:- you don't get it.  I have no desire to
control anything about you. On the other hand I don't have to like
anyhting you say.  More over if you ay it in a way I find offensive or
more accutaely, obnoxious, I feel free to let you know. You
unfortunately seem to have an opinion of me that is not subject to
change - your constant attempts to label me as a control freak are
indicative of this. Yet the fact remains that you know next to nothing
about me. What really seems to be the case is that you cannot tolerate
your view being challenged - let alone the rather direct attacks I make
on your style.

Ask yourself, honestly, the same question you asked me Brady. I don't
believe you can honestly answer it.
 
>That's your problem.  You own it.  It's not my issue.
>You're not going to make it my issue either.

With all due respect this is pathetic. Read what was written not what
you wished to see. 

>Here's the conclusion to draw:  I have no interest in communicating via
>e-mail with people who need to control others.  It is a waste of
>time.  It is pointless in fact.  It just results in mindless flaming
>and a nasty headache.  We don't agree.  That's fine.  You have your
>view and I have mine.  I think there is room for both without flaming.
>But, if you choose to flame me again on the nets, you will get back
>what you give out.  I'd prefer another option when possible, but I am
>not afraid of anger if I have to defend my rights.

Sounds like sophistry to me. I will flame you Brady as long as you post
in a manner that I (and from reading Echo/PK's article) deem offensive I
will show my distaste in whatever manner I choose. If you can't deal
with that then go. Again you try to paint my (very clear I thought)
opinions as some sort of net fascism...'I don't like your post' becomes
'You need to control'. 'I respect your right to any opinion' becomes
'You can't accept anything (and by converse I am a shining model of
net.sainthood'. Why do *you* feel the need to distort anothers beliefs
so? 

And you ask why I flame? *laughter*
 
>Your choice Ollie:  control vs. live and let live.

Ah. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You don't like being on
the defensive do you Brady. You like, dare I say it, being in *control*.

All amusing.

>Hate my posts all you want.  That does not give you the right to
>censor me though.  I actually like most of your posts when you are
>addressing an issue and not flaming someone.  I think you have a lot
>of good views to offer the group.  I hope to see more of them.
>When I don't agree with them, I will just say so and not flame you
>for posting them.

And flattery is the least sincere form of submission. I don't need your
praise Brady...moreover, until I respect you I don't want them. I post
what I post. Your liking it is nice but not necessary. Again you try to
create the impression that it is censorship/control that is the issue.
Well let me clue you in on some things Brady:

i) "The Big Lie" is not terribly original.
ii) People are intelligent.

Your constant attempts to mould me into your conception, your image of
me are laughable esp. from one who places so much stock in that word:
control.

I've stated my position repeatedly. I'm not going to grace this sad
attempt at pigeon-holing by doing so again.

>And, next time you see a flame, ask what the *control* issue is
>behind it.  That's what flames are all about IMHO:  Control. . . .

Ask yourself my friend. All the answers are in our heads.

>Often it seems to me ASHers feel they have little control as it is, so
>some of us may feel like flaming when something threatens us.  We want to
>control the thing/person that feels threatening.  Usually doesn't work.
>Better to try and get less threatened ourselves I guess, and work on
>getting more *control* of our own feelings and ideas and self-knowledge.
>That's my opinion.  You can disagree with it all you want.

In contrast, you are in perfect control? The dispassionate analyst among
the inmates of the asylum? An appealing fantasy Brady but I really don't
think so. You are *utterly* incapable of making me feel threatened.
After all you are ~4000 miles away and not particularly convincing. That
is your opinion. And I do disagree with it in part. I think the people
here are a lot more in touch with themselves than *you* give them credit
for. I know because I listen to more than the sound of my own voice.

>But I have a right to express it without being attacked for it I feel.
>But, too, when attacked, I will defend myself.  I'd rather get along
>though. . . .

Tiresome and trite Brady. Repeat it often enough and people will believe
you? Argumentum ad Misericordiam? 

Don't make me laugh. I'm not well don't you know.

Ollie/Lucifuge...
 
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Lord is my Shepherd............................but I'm not a Sheep
-----------------------------ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie-------------------------