From: oshiro@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Woodrow S Oshiro)
Subject: Re: Is this offensive?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:26:49 GMT

In article <RHB.93Jan25192119@world.std.com> rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.223616.23228@en.ecn.purdue.edu> oshiro@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Woodrow S Oshiro) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>   "*isn't* much difference" == "probably much more cruelly and
>   relentlessly" ???
> 
>   Doesn't look like much of an equation to me.
>
>Pardon me, I'm confused. I didn't realize we were supposed to be
>checking our math here. But as long as you brought it up, "probably"
>doesn't mean "equals" where I come from.

I said or implied no such thing.  But I think you know that. 

However, the fact still remains that your remarks about bullying in Japanese
schools remain inconsistent. 

> Maybe you should do your math
>again. Your metaphor is failing. What I said had a rough symmetry to
>it, in giving a backhanded slap to American schools and another to
>Japanese. If this wasn't equivalent to six decimal places, then please
>excuse me.

What you said does not meet my definition of "rough symmetry."  Your criticism  
of Japanese schools has much more critical weight than your criticism of
American schools.  Why?  Because it explicitly states its relationship to your 
"backhanded slap to American schools."  ("probably much more cruelly and
relentlessly")

[stuff deleted]
>   Again, when did I ever accuse you of defending "Neanderthals"?  I am accusing
    you of contradicting yourself on this issue.
>
>An accusation that has yet to be proven.

IYO

[stuff deleted]
>   Talk about putting up a strawman!  
>   Let's see, Robert.  You are accusing me of:
>    1.  Being an apologist for the problems of Japan.
> 
>Yes. Else why make so much out of such a minor thing?

That's great reasoning.  Have I come anywhere close to justifying or rational-
iziing Japanese bullying?  Nope.

>   2.  Believing that the problems of Japan should not be discussed in this forum.
>
>Apparently. I hit some kind of a nerve here that has been worth
>thousands of words so far (though this will cease).

Oh, puh-leeaase.  As I've stated several times before, my problem was with
your inconsistency on this important issue.  If you had maintained a consistent
position, I wouldn't have come in and locked horns with you.
 
>    3.  Believing "that any criticism of Nihon constitutes Japan-bashing."
>
>Possibly. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Sorry.  Better luck next time, prince.

>   Robert, I challenge you to find any evidence to back up your accusations. 
>   If you are searching for someone who is reacting on his emotions and not his
>   brains, I suggest you step into the washroom and take a look in the mirror.
>
>Ah me. As you undoubtedly are aware, to do so I would have to go back
>through all your posts, which I do not have. I would also have to get
>the original article I responded to, which you also do not reference.
>I also don't have any research assistants to help me.  But enough of
>this. I have already wasted far more time on this issue than I really
>care to.

Please excuse my net.faux.paux.  I'd be more than happy to send you copies
of the pertinent posts.  However, since you say that you will not continue
this exchange, I will refrain from doing so.  (Drop me a note if you change
your mind.)

> If your contention is that I contradicted myself in that one
>paragraph, then suffice it to say I don't agree. English is not
>mathematics. And if you want to get into a larger flame war about who
>said what to whom and what the inferences are, I simply do not care.
>
>But I do agree that I am reacting too emotionally to this. Maybe it
>was your ad hominem attack on my position earlier which accused me of
>trying to "slime" out of something. I try to be even-tempered, and not
>to be the first to resort to insults. I'm sorry I was baited into
>doing it this time. Note that I'm not apologizing to you, Wood, but to
>anyone else who may read this. I think this whole argument has
>generated more heat than light, and wasted a lot of bandwidth into the
>bargain.

I agree that "slime" is a strong word.  But, I felt that it expressed what
you were trying to do by taking such a blatantly inconsistent position.  I 
could go on, but I won't.  (A long SIGHHHH comes from the crowd.)  You are 
right; it is time to end this thread right now. 

-- 

						Woody Oshiro
						oshiro@en.ecn.purdue.edu