Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: "Reasonable" Alan Driscoll
Message-ID: <993@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 07:36:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.993
Posted: Fri Aug 17 07:36:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 14:15:51 EDT
References: <2713@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 49

>>> Well, Rich has taken credit for the orphaned quote.  I've already
>>> apologized to Lisa for the confusion.  So, any mud unfairly slung
>>> in Lisa's direction belongs on Rich.  Ok?  [ALAN DRISCOLL]

>>Thank you so much, Mr. Non-Macho Non-Asshole.  Now you can add "ENCOURAGEMENT
>>OF UNFAIR MUDSLINGING" to your resume.  It's a shame you had nothing of
>>substance to say.  Any mud unfairly slung at anybody belongs in /dev/mud, OK?
>>(Would you like your login aliased to /dev/mud? :-)   [RICH ROSEN]

> I'm getting tired of this.  I was being humorous.  Humor -- have
> you heard of it?  [ALAN DRISCOLL]

When *I'm* being humorous, I put a :-) on the article, as I did above.  Did
you?  Your article was construed as apologizing to Lisa and telling people
that "any mud unfairly slung belongs on Rich".  I took offense at that, but
I still had time to reply to it in a humorous fashion.  Humor, Alan --- have
you heard of it? :-)   (What is really interesting about this is that Alan
is getting a taste of his own medicine with regard to misinterpreting of
articles.  [remember Trish & Rainbow]  Hmm....)

> You pride yourself on being "rational," yet I've been unable to
> carry on a rational debate with you, and I haven't seen anyone
> else have better luck.

You seem to forget the rather rational discussions we've been having in
private correspondence, or don't they count?  I thought (and apparently
you did, too, else why did you continue them?) that they were quite
rational.  (But don't tell that to the public readership, Alan.)

> In net.singles, you can't discuss male/female roles without making
> one personal accusation after another against me.  In net.music, if
> a person disagrees with you, they're a snob, and in net.religion,
> anyone who doesn't see things your way is less intelligent and/or
> less rational than you are.

Isn't this called stereotyping, Alan?  Taking a small sample of items
and applying (*your* *perceptions* *of*) their characteristics to the whole
class?  I thought this was what you were arguing against in net.singles? :-)

> The one thing I've never seen you do is to discuss *ideas*, without
> the personal slurs you're so fond of.  You, rational?  My ass...

Sorry, Alan.  If anything I've been accused of talking too much about ideas
and not enough about actions.  To be quite honest at this point, your
opinion of the level of my rationality isn't of interest to me.  Can we
get back to *discussing* things, please?
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr