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

In a message dated 9/11/1999 9:33:18 AM Central Daylight Time, 
hawesj@gcnet.net writes:

<< 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.
  >>
I do not know why I am making a response- I have used restraint during this 
whole episodic event because I am not informed enough about what is happening 
behind  all the "actions" and words and most importantly I am not in a 
position to have any lasting effect.

Being that I have am up and maybe because I am not fully awake and have not 
given due consideration to my now current actions. I am making a response.

Jim I would have to say the above statement by you uses bad reasoning.
The post you refer too was as personal as they come-Now whether it is based 
on truth or if it was justified makes no difference on WHAT it was.

What we do, and why we do it are not the same and the reason we do something 
does not change what we do.
In most cases, any time a negative destructive term is applied to a person, 
this is going to be rightly called a "Personal Attack." The actual or 
perceived cause of the "attack" or justification for the use of those 
descriptive terms has no bearing on whether it was an attack or not.

Paul
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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