From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:25:55 GMT
 <1992Oct4.062435.7006@pimacc.pima.edu> <1992Oct5.010318.426@u.washington.edu>

In article <1992Oct5.010318.426@u.washington.edu>, kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.062435.7006@pimacc.pima.edu> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.345565.35353@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>, takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
>> 
>>
>>Belittlement of AM's vision of a the hypothetical world she calls Pern is
>>a classic sign of intolerance. The same tactic has been used in the past
>>against homosexuals & various minorities.
>> 
> No, this is a classic sign of literary criticism.  Yes, you won your little
> battle, and AM has verified your interpretation.  This does not mean that 
> we can't say that it was a poorly chosen interpretation.  

It also doesn't mean that I can't post my rejection of your position &
criticize it for what I deem intolerance.

> I criticize 
> authors all the time - some people make their living off of it.  Disagreement
> with AM is not intolerence.  

All criticism does not display intolerance. Yours does.

> You claim to be oppressed, yet are by far the
> most dogmatic of the bunch.  

Well I most vehemently dispute that statement. In fact, I find the others
to be "by far the most dogmatic of the bunch".

> Yes, you were right, as you are boasting about
> constantly now. (Hint: it isn't winning you any friends here.  You come 
> across as quite egotistical.  I don't want to flame you excessively, though,
> here.)  

If there had been no posts that attempted to twist & distort my position &
AM's endoresment of it I wouldn't have had to set the record straight. I
think you are placing an exaggerated value upon your "friendship". I really
don't that I would care to be friends with someone as closeminded as your
posts show you to be.
 
> Please, can you not see that intolerence is not a valid description of this?
> Disagreement is more accurate.  This isn't the only case I disagree with
> AM's Pern. (Or, more accurately, think she should have done it a different
> way. She screwed up, whatever.)  The way that draconic abilities such as 
> lifting things are handled in ATWOP (I'm being vague for spoilers sake)
> was pretty horrendous, IMHO.  Is this intolerance of AM?  I sure doubt it.

We *all* could've aggreed to disagree a long way back. Instead the others
chose to attempt to intimidate me with flames so that their position would
prevail. It was *their* decision, not mine.
 
> And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody on a PernMUSH has forced you to
> have sex as a result of a mating flight.  If they say it is preferred, that
> is not intolerance.  Once they actually force you to do it, you've got a
> valid complaint.  (Although I'd suggest that if you have severe problems with
> policy, you might find a different place to play rather than rant and rave
> in the middle of everyone else's fun.)

There have been an number of posts that have stated that there are a number
of riders who do, in fact, feel intimidated into avoiding matings. This
seems to me to reflect an atmosphere of intolerance.
 
> And is telling you to shut up intolerance?  Perhaps.  But face it -   
> virtually every issue that gets brought up now has been beaten to death
> before.  I'd suggest that you let it die.  I'd suggest that the rest of
> you let PHIL die. Er, I mean, stop responding to PHIL as well.  PHIL, lose
> the persecution complex and ego trip.  You may be right, but you do come
> across as somewhat of a jerk when you act like that.

I've already let it die. More than once. I will, however, continue to
challenge the sort of distortions that continue to be posted concern-
ing my statements & position.

PHIL