From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:35:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21504@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.142213.18247@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>In article <21492@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>During that discussion, at no time did I state that I had Joe in the
>>>KILL file.  It has always been Joe who assumes he is in the KILL file
>>>because I don't respond to what he writes.
>
>Joe, you were in the KILL file for about a week.  You've not been in the
>KILL file since last year.  I'm really sorry to break this news to you.
>You've been told this before, but you JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT UNLESS I
>REPLY TO YOUR POSTINGS.

	What's my post got to do with whether or not I believe you? If you
say I'm not in your kill file, I do believe you, John. You told Fred that
you never stated I was in your kill file. If you want to debate whether or
not my clippings are examples of you stating I'm in your kill file,
I suppose we could use some sort of statistics to prove your contention.
Something like: 95% of those polled didn't believe JFH had made the
statement.

>>]In article <20692@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>]There is an easy solution for dealing with Joe "I beat my kids even though
>>]I don't tell them not to break any rules" Mullany.
>>]
>>]Put him in your KILL file.
>>
>>>Next myth.
>>
>>	Thor makes thunder? (-:
>
>This proves NOTHING.  You need to find a quote from before Fred stated that
>I had you in my KILL file and during that discussion when Fred jumped on me
>for "having you in my KILL file".

	Nah, I don't need to. I'm happy to say: "You're right, John."

>I don't reply to your postings because they
>aren't worth replying to.

	In your opinion.

>  I don't want to be lectured to about moral
>relativism and how slavery was OK back then because, well, it was done back
>then.

	You still don't understand, then, what I'm saying, which is,
I say, my fault. There are two approaches available when regarding such as
slaveowners. One approach, which is the one I felt you took, was simply 
to condemn the slaveowners for their immorality. I tend to feel that there
are good reasons not to simply do so, not the least of which is to look
more closely at modern times and ask: In what ways am I a slaveowner?
Understanding that those men and women didn't _all_ think they were
doing anything "wrong", didn't even question the ownership of slaves,
makes me wonder what _I_ accept as okay. You see, if the Greek Olympics
took place today, I could probably win some events, judging by the 
ongoing improvement of athletes. This doesn't make me a world class
athlete any more than your condemnation of slaveowners makes you a
"good", "moral" person. So, who's going to make use of the mistake of
slave ownership- you or me? We both are. Your usage is to make yourself
feel better about yourself, IMHO. My usage is as above.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"