Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" (part B)
Message-ID: <537@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 22:19:40 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.537
Posted: Wed Feb 13 22:19:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 03:20:00 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP>, <519@pyuxd.UUCP> <4787@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 44

>> I checked the last five articles (not including today's)
>> to see where the "impoliteness" lay:
   ...
>> <458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as
>> 	"impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's
>>	articles... ?  [ROSEN]

> I don't have any argument with you, Rich.  You seem to like to "respond"
> to my comments directed toward others, though.  [DUBUC]

In a public forum, no response is directed at particular others.  Responses are
for all to read, and re-respond to if they like.  If responses were meant only
for a single reader, private mail is appropriate.

> I think they can do pretty well without your help, don't you?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  When someone has a comment on one of *my*
articles ("directed", say, at Steve Hutchison), certain people feel free to
"respond" to my "comments directed at others".  Why the double standard?

> Yeah, I know, I'm arrogant and you're only impolite, sure.  But let *them*
> tell me if they think so, OK?  I know what you think about what I write.

And I know what you think about I write.  Enough to respond to this article
that wasn't "directed" at you, but not enough to respond to articles in direct
response to yours.  The intended "respondee" of an article should feel free to
respond in turn (the article usually addresses some points the respondee had
made), but others can and should feel free to say their own piece.  You,
however, have chosen to answer this particular article rather than many others
that are in response to your own articles (which were in turn responses to
mine).  Why this one and not those?  Moreover, why NOT articles like "Logic
based on different sets of assumptions", in which any number of questions are
asked that are an outgrowth of discussions with you?  I'd like to hear what you
(and others) have to say about the points made there.

If this trend continues, Steve Hutchison's remarks about my "rudeness and
impoliteness" will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  ("See?  Rosen has posted
all these articles to n.r.c that have nothing to do with Christianity and are
very very nasty! ... Uh, well, yes, the articles WERE in response to charges
made against Rich, and the accusatory articles *did* get abusive and Rich
responded in kind, but still...")
-- 
"Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered
 to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed."		Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr