Re: without subject ...but let's give it one..personal attacks

Dear Gerry and others,.

In your post of this AM (Sept 11, 8:56) , without subject, you indicated
that the example provided by Joe Halinar fits your earlier definition of
a personal attack.  Please do not consider that if I disagree with you,
that this is an attack on you. It is a disagreement about your opinion.(
I think we agree on this). I disagree with your opinion because of the
following reasons.

IMO, what Joe was describing was an event which took place. My
interpretation of what he said was that he had been a victim of improper
actions of three people in cahoots with each other and in positions of
power to use forgery, fraud, false testimony and other misdemeanors. He
was telling us on hosta-open that what is currently happening in the AHS
, was somewhat  similar to what had happened to him in the Amer. Hem.
Soc.

This was a descriptive narrative of the truthful events as he
experienced them. If he used strong language and used words (like whore)
which are perfectly good words to characterize the person involved, he
knows more about the incident than readers. If you are offended by
reading his account, then delete immediately if you wish. Or to find out
more about the incident,  you could always ask for veridfcation, proof,
more details to determine if Joe was lying or telling the truth. If Joe
felt so strongly about mistreatment he received, he has a perfect right
to tell others about it if he wishes. We have no right to accuse him of
a personal attack on others who are not reading or in "earsight"....to
coin a new word. I believe Joe was describing a historical event, not
attacking anyone face to face. I am sure he will exercise this right
also if he feels the need to do so.

It was Glen Williams who, in his attempt at beautiful rhetoric,
initially and erroneously attributed supreme value to the word
"perception" rather than to "belief" or  correct interpretations  based
on facts or truth.

I admit freely that my counterattack against Ben was deliberate and
strong, using the word Hell  as in "Get the Hell out of my face", a
strong  self-defence measure to shoo him away because he was irritaing
me and others in his continuous  taunting style of attacking me and
friends. As in any conflict, anyone who criticizes one or the other
party in the conflict  must know the backgound of historical events to
be able to accurately determine who is in the right and who is not. I am
sure you will agree with these caveats. I agree with both you and Clyde
that "personal attacks" are often labled incorrctly. Thanks for your
comments and for considering mine..

Jim Hawes
(who knows well from experience what is a personal attack and what is
not).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index