From: radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: t: Is The New Tai Rising?
Reply-To: radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 17:41:06 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-041192111240@192.35.50.131>,
mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov03.173914.21952@bnr.ca>, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
|>wrote:
[...]
|>           In this situation, the follow-up was posted immediately after
|>the message itself, and was titled, "My previous message."  It explicitly
|>stated that I wrote "You are a horse's ass, you jerk." to illustrate that
|>"I don't buy it.  The meaning of a message is solely determined by the
|>sender.  It is the responsibility of the receiver to correctly interpret
|>it.  A receiver's belief in the meaning cannot in any way alter the
|>sender's intent." is erroneous.  I find it hard to believe that you
|>received one message and not the other.

I use a threaded news reader, so perhaps the response was not a true follow-up
of the previous message in that the previous message was not included in the
"References:" list.  If that were the case, then the later message might not 
immediately followed the first.  More likely, I was probably so annoyed by
your original post that I just skipped through the rest of your posts with
little more than a glance at each.  In hindsight, I seem to have exemplified
your argument in that I apparently did receive your message in the manner,
though not the meaning, that you had intended.  You argued that the 
responsibility for correctly interpreting the meaning of a message could not 
lie solely with the receiver, and such have I unintentionally shown.  Somewhat
ironic that you seem to expect the opposite from me, isn't it?

|>> Furthermore, the included post is completely in line with many of
the previous
|>> posts that I have seen from you.  You have frequently attacked the poster 
|>> rather than the content of what is posted.  Such epithets, I believe, are 
|>> probably responsible for the
thought-I-would-join-Mensa-but-now-I-know-better 
|>> people that have come and gone on this newsgroup.
|>
|>If you had been paying any attention, you would realize that the only time
|>I attack the poster is if the poster attacks first.

I have never argued against your attacks per se, but against the targets and
the manner of your attacks.

|>> |>Your use of that extract out of context is reprehensible.  I'm not
going to
|>> |>say anything about you for doing it, but will let your act speak for
|>> |>itself.
|>> 
|>> Enough negatives.  Your follow-up is an improvement over your name-calling.
|>
|>It is much bettewr than your chastising me for something that I don't do.

If name-calling is something that you don't do, then I applaud your recent
decision to cease such activity.  The fact stands that your attacks have
frequently devolved into name-calling, and, in fact, your recently post to
Tai is little better than such.

|>> As I said early last summer, your epithets do not affect only those you 
|>> single out.  Such things, in my opinion, reflect more upon you than upon
|>> your intended target.  If you really must call someone an ass, why not use
|>> e-mail?  To your credit, however, I do see some improvement -- your belated
|>> decision to show some restaint against Steve Franklin, for example.  Let
|>> your writing be a vehicle for your mind, and not your mouth, and I will no
|>> longer feel a need to express my objections to you.
|>
|>My, aren't you being sanctimonious lately?  I'm glad that you see an
|>improvement in me.  It makes me feel so much better that the great Rodney
|>Adams has judged me so.

Albeit without complete success, I try neither to judge you nor to tell you
how to life your life.  What concerns me in this forum is your manner of
writing; I ask you merely to show some respect for your fellow readers of
this newsgroup.

|>                         Speaking of Franklin, did you notice that he
|>flamed first, and that I responded in kind after he did so?  I didn't
|>decide to show restraint against him; I decided that because he is a
|>professional flamer, the worst thing that I could do to him was ignore him.
|> People such as he hate to be ignored.

In that case, perhaps I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Now think about that last sentence, which was obviously an intentional barb.
Did I write it because it felt good?  Because I wished to continue this
childishness?  No, I did it to make a point, because whenever I say something
of that sort I feel petty and immature.  These feelings are not something 
which I particularly like to experience, do you?  Why then do you feel the
need to "respond in kind," rather than rising above the manner of your opponent
to expose the errors of that person's arguments?  Witty banter is one thing,
but I do not think that I am asking too much.

By the way, I stand by my previous assertion that your posts have shown
some improvement, and I sincerely hope that this improvement will continue. 
                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
"Only a mediocre person is always at his best." - Somerset Maugham