The Speaking Clock wrote:
> On 9 Apr, 20:04, Joseph Littleshoes
isp.com> wrote:
> >>The Speaking Clock wrote:
>>
>>>On 9 Apr, 06:45, Joseph Littleshoes
isp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>The Speaking Clock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 8 Apr, 20:03, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Speaking Clock wrote:
>>>>>>They remind me of Henry IV's comment to the ambassador of Don Pedro: "Do
>>>>>>you mean to say your master hasn't enough virtue to afford some faults?"
>>>>>>but alas for their sake, i have lost any interest in even trying to
>>>>>>explain it to them.
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>JL
>>>>>
>>>>>Well - I know you don't exactly get on well with them at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>"At the moment?"
>>
>>>>!!!
>>But hey, mon petit harlequine, thank you for making the effort. I
>>almost wish i could excuse them, Tommy boi and Edwina, so easily as
>>merely disabled. Unfortunately they are just the poster children of an
>>internet phenomena i can only deplore, i understand the mechanism of the
>>medium more than their conscious choice to assert themselves in their
>>chosen style.
>
>
> I was more making an inquiry into your conscious choice to respond to
> them as you occaisionally do.
Not directly, as here i am 'speaking' or addressing you, not they, or them.
I don't suppose you've had time to
> listen to the links I posted, but nevermind. :)
>
>
>>The medium provides a 'soap box' they wouldn't be given
>>in real life, allows them to express their angst in ways not generally
>>considered to be socially acceptable, and from which i would make a
>>guess that, this might be the only social life they have.
>>
>>Regrettable, but as in real life, one makes a choice, certain minimal
>>standards of behavior are a kind of filter that i find useful in real
>>life as well as here.
>
>
> Oh, I completely agree. There's just something a little hypocritical
> (or occaisionally ironic) when we throw insults around. Don't we
> insult ourselves when we do that? - Especially when we can see the
> value of demonstrating certain standards of behaviour in the
> community. I guess this is why your choice's puzzle me a little in
> this particular regard (fighting fire with fire), although I remember
> doing exactly the same myself and I'm in no way judging you. Tom and
> Erwin have over the years burnt me to a crisp,
You are making assumptions based on your reaction, i don't think i would
use quite the same terminology to describe the phenomena.
> but these days there's
> no hard feelings about that. It was, at the time - quite a painful
> experience, but now it's just something I find amusement in.
Humor is based in and/or on suffering.
> I laugh
> a lot at my old kook self. I guess I feel you're making a little bit
> of a mistake,
I have considered that, but i routinely try to be introspective and and
look at why i do anything, as i wrote , i have come to my conclusions
about the ilk, whom the 2 mentioned are just the poster children of
thereof, after several years of failure to communicate with them in a
manner i can tolerate.
And i can tolerate a lot. But i do not see them as contributing so much
that i am missing anything by ignoring them.
but hey - if we didn't make mistakes we'd all be perfect
> people. Maybe we can revisit the subject somewhere down the line -
> next week, next year, next decade, who knows? :)
Present me with some rigorously logical evidence to support your opinion
and i might consider it:)
--
JL
>
>
>>--
>>JL
>>
>>p.s. the whole touretts syndrome anecdote fails when it can be observed
>>to do so, i.e. when osculating the particularistic fallacy of the
>>previously mentioned derriers, they couldn't be nicer:)
>>
>>Have a nice day,
>>joe- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Yes, have a nice day Joe! :)
