Re: Replies To Bird The Hick Post

[Matt Healy <mhealy@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>]

> I along with many probably waited by the computer for your
>predictable response to take offense with another post that didn't agree
>100% with your obviously correct point of view.
>

Your hypocrisy is noteworthy, as you slam me for my "predictable response
to take offense with another post that didn't agree 100% with your
obviously correct point of view".  In fact, I rarely if ever take offense
with a post because it doesn't agree with my point of view, regardless by
how much.  Nor do I think I am always right.  Nor am I ever closed to
listening to someone's reasoning for their point of view.  However, I am
offended by accusations that are not backed up.  For example, your
implication here that I take offense to any post that I don't agree with,
and that I think I'm always right.

>So with no further ado, for your ranting enjoyment, your own words;

I should note, in spite of your snippity sarcasm, that I sincerely
appreciate that at least you cite your reasons for thinking my response was
a personal attack on someone.  This way, I can understand what you are
thinking, and possibly explain why it was not intended that way (which it
wasn't).

>
>"I still say his criticism is totally unfounded and mostly bitter, for a
>reason I
>don't understand."

Here, for example, I am criticizing his criticism, not him personally.  I
observe that his statements sound bitter, and that I am unaware of why that
would be so.  A personal attack on him?  Not exactly.

>
>"Man, what the heck is your problem?"
>

This was actually a statement of disbelief at what I was reading.  I'd say
this is a bit picky, particular since I was responding to a post that was
calling somebody names.  Out of context, it is almost borderline.  In my
message, it was clear disbelief at the personal attacks on someone else.

>"I would love to see how you would like standing up under the level
>of criticism you put on him."

This is simply not a personal attack.  Sounds like a broken record, but I
disagree with his criticisms and feel they are unfair.  The statements are
being "attacked", once again.

>
>"I really wonder what is causing this irritation for you.  This is truly
>irrational, absurd, and cheap criticism.  It sounds personal.  Did he beat
>you up or something?"

See all statements above.  In EACH example, I am criticizing the
statements, not attacking the author.  I offer reasons and include the
relevant parts of his post.  I stand by my criticisms.  Nobody has made any
attempt to defend them.   Maybe we have a different idea of personal
attacks.  To me, attempting to make a mockery of the person, particularly
outside of the context of what they have written, is a personal attack.
For example, calling them a hick.  Saying they haven't learned how to live
life off the court. Strongly, even sharply disagreeing with someone, is
not.  It is ironic that my main reason for responding was because the
original post was a personal attack, which I do not like.  Calling somebody
names, etc.

What I do realize, however, is that my statements could have been
misinterpreted, most importantly by the original author.  If that is the
case, I humbly apologize for any hurt feelings.  It was not my intention to
attack you personally, I don't have any reason to, I don't know you
personally, and do not have any bad feelings toward you at all.  I still
disagree with what you said, but would be more than willing to listen to
any responses to my criticism.

>At least we know who can dish it out, but can't take it.

Here's a personal attack (or defense) for you: Grow up.  It has been many
years since the days I heard that taunt going around on the elementary
school playgrounds.  I do not care about dishing anything out, in fact, I
do not like to dish out personal, offensive attacks.  As for the matter of
not being able to "take it", I assure you I will not be losing any sleep.
I do not seek to irritate anyone or offend.  I will defend myself when
unfairly accused.

Matt