Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:39:29 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Purity
 <1993Jan8.031020.181@tcsi.com> <1993Jan11.200356.28074@cbnews.cb.att.com>
 <1993Jan12.022215.11913@tcsi.com>

[Mike]
>Actually, if you read Graydon's posts, one of his agenda items
>in choosing to answer ungrammatically is to see if it bothers
>(or, I suppose, delights) the other person.  If the questioner
>isn't irritated, then, Graydon says, "you're probably OK."
If I might my opinions speak from in, I neither think nor
label so; 'tis none so sweeping as 'ok', but some small
judgement concerning how fast the one on conclusions forms.

>This, from a guy who rants against those who stick people into bins.
>The message is: anyone who doesn't have the patience for little
>games like this, isn't worth knowing.  Awful big bin, lots of
>perfectly OK people in it.
Gods rot your socks, a rant that wasn't, nor came it even close;
if I a-ranting go, as strive me to refrain me from I do, it's more
the case that I will half a dozen screens go on than but half of
one!

Someone who is, to my mind, sufficently failing in politeness to
ask me a 'what are you?' question in the first place can be justly
expected to put up with having their chain lightly tugged on.

Nor do I stick people who splutter, accuse me of being a wiseass,
or otherwise react negatively, in a bin of any description.  They
do acquire a 'doesn't like me not ussing the social rules they're
familiar with' label, but tied on, not glued on.  They could be
having a bad day or have a five year old, gods know.

[Piglet]
>>Calling it an "agenda" makes me wonder about your own "agenda".
>>We all have thoughts beyond the words we choose, ideas that we
>>try to convey.  The word "agenda" conveys sinister implications
>>about those ideas.

>Words can't say it all.  Graydon, sinister?  I don't think so.
>My hidden agenda?  Gosh, what sinister motives might lie behind
>this peeve of mine, this absurd bias toward people who express
>themselves directly and unaffectedly....well, if you ever figure
>it out, please e-mail me.

>>Piglet, miffed

>--Mike, in a tizzy, or maybe in a snit, he's not sure
>---
>Michael Turner
>miket@tcs.com
Ok, so Mike gets a 'cute allergy, strong' label...

Sir, what would you me have signified?  To but disagree you go on
long, and long.

Asked for reasons, I gave them; maybe these your reasons aren't, nor
to your practices in accordance, but what bond should I have to any
custom but my own?

I will own I go on long, more oft than not; a result it is of being
much accused of loading metaphors until they if not break bog down,
and being in my accustomed thought maintaining precepts less like
(it seems) those whom I speak with hold than I would enjoin them be,
if such ordering was mine to use.

I'm 'Them' to most, and home with none, and this road also my
speach has run; it's not just les, or bi, or gay, whom their words
might self betray to one or many whom regard all difference best dead.

Graydon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
saundrsg@               "Praise then Darkness and Creation unfinished"
   qucdn.queensu.ca                   - U. K. LeGuin