[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Right Back Atcha, Bernd



>I have given you three days to think about what you and I wrote on Friday
>night, hoping that you would calm down from a totally unnecessary anger and
>finally get my point.

Bernd:

Oh, yes...how very nice of you to "give" me 3 days. How very noble and
forward thinking of you. I'm underwhelmed. Were your insults during that
period designed to help me calm down? Was that your plan? Bad plan, Bernd.
Take it from me: It'll never work.
BTW, I don't think that getting angry over being backstabbed or called
cowardly is "totally unnecessary anger." Especially since the evidence
points in the other direction. Perhaps, in your country, doing that sort of
thing is socially acceptable behavior and you're quite used to it. But it's
not here.

>Considering the amount of insults and false assumptions
>concerning my character you conveyed to this list or via private e-mail to me,
>I assume that you haven't regained your peace of mind yet.  Thus it might be
>somehow difficult for you to grasp what I am writing about here, but I feel
>nevertheless compelled to end this stupid flame war right now and not later on.

Since you were the one who butted in uninvited on the Mardi Gras
conversation with no knowledge of the subject, it IS only right that you end
this flame war.
And all your whining to the contrary, I have not insulted you once either
privately or publicly. I have made a few observations about your reasoning
and the possible causes for it, which are only observations after all, but
they are not insults. I wrote some terms that I could have used as insults,
mainly for the humor of it (you've got to be quite humorless to have missed
it, with "animal food trough wiper" in there regarding the Monty Python
thread) but once again it went right over your head.
BTW, I don't think you really want to open the can of worms that is our
private EMail...I mean, you already have posted some quotes from them and I
have not brought out the things you said to me. I might not like you...but
I'm not a cruel guy.
So walk softly around that area...you're quite vulnerable there.

>The problem you have during discussions here on the list (and maybe also in the
>rest of your life)

Bernd, my life is just about perfect right now, and I made it so against the
odds, with no help at all. I have a happy wife and daughter, friends, a
great little business that keeps ME happy all day and with great and
interesting customers, spiritual peace, health, and a boot of the MSG show I
just got in the mail today.
You don't know what you're talking about.

>is that you are totally confusing eloquence and reasoning.
>Indeed, given the rhetoric skills you are lucky to have, it is not very
>difficult to declaim nonsense and make it sound good.

No, that was your end of the conversation. Apparently, you have no problem
concocting a fantasy and then trying to claim it as a truth. You also ignore
facts when they don't suit your side of things. Case in point: when recently
a Digest member wrote us both with a bit of Mardi Gras history that
supported what I said from the beginning, and in more depth than I had gone
into (because my books are in upstate NY at the moment, lent to a friend).
Your response to me: "Unless I see proof..." That's proof you will never
see, for you refuse to search for it. And this typifies your style of
"debate" quite clearly.

>Politicians are often a
>shining example for behaviour like this when they want to veil their own
>ignorance.

Yadda yadda yadda. More insults. Make a point, fer Gawd's sake.

>I am not the first lister here to make this observation.  Ask Ian and Scott
>about your `Gospel, Jazz, and Blues' thread or Mark S.E. about your `Pot'
>thread.

Bernd, I had no problem with that thread, nor the Pot one. As I told you
once before: you need to pay more attention to what is being written. A
debate is about two or more points of view...and the truth is somewhere in
the middle. Debating is a good thing. Don't try and make it otherwise. The
people involved want to debate, or they wouldn't. I don't mind that Ian and
Scott had some disagreement with me about when Jazz started, or Blues. I
didn't take it personally when they countered me, nor did they when I did
the same back.
When it came down to it, the difference was one of our own definitions.
There were others that quoted sources that supported me, too, so don't make
out like it was just them against me. In the end, I think we all agreed that
it was a matter of definition. And some here on the Digest got a peep at
some information they otherwise might not have ever seen. So what problem,
pray tell, was there?
The same goes for the Pot thread. Some said this, others said that...good
healthy debate. If you were paying attention, you would have seen this.

>There are two consequences
>of your behaviour:  a) Less and less people take your arguing serious at all -
>you are losing your base of credibility.  b) Sometimes discussions run out of
>your control which causes you to reassure all listers of your friendship - an
>act that can easily be understood as cowardly, since you don't hesitate to
>continue your style of respectless arguing as soon as you think no one is angry
>with you.

Bernd, you cannot paint me into your little characterization. I can only
wonder if you realize the consequences of your posts yet...I don't think so. 
However, I am not worried about losing credibility or the wrath of someone
who gets upset about something I post. I am well aware of what I'm saying
and doing.
Yes, I reassured you that I meant no harm...as you were quite obviously
upset about something that anyone with a minimal intellect could debate
without anger. Because I could see that a lot of what I was saying was going
over your head, or you were taking it as an insult. You just didn't
understand, and still don't. But as it turns out, you are completely unable
to discuss a subject with out falling prey to it becoming a personal matter.
I suppose as you feel your grasp slipping from the debated subject, you can
only think to resort to insults (as you did privately, and I pointed out at
the time). In the end, all you have left is to get angry and start making
accusations. I feel sorry for you, but given your venomous behavior...not
very. I feel more sorry for those around you. If any.

>You didn't keep the discussion a
>reasonable one but were turning it into an attempt to spread a caricature of my
>personal attitude and my character all over your notes to the list - not only
>over those that were addressed to me, but also over others that had nothing to
>do with me at all.  I don't regret that I became angry with you because of
>this, as well as I don't regret that you misunderstood my point and went into a
>tirade of insults.  This was a healthy way to end a useless discussion, maybe
>the best way for you to learn something from it.

Bernd, I don't know when you were chosen as the one who decides what is and
isn't reasonable in a discussion...when was that election? I certainly
missed it.
Actually, upon reading your backbiting and completely inaccurate post, I did
allow my anger to take over my fingers for a few minutes. And I also don't
regret it, because someone should have told you a long time ago that that
sort of behavior isn't socially acceptable. Before you damage your life further.
As for your little tirade about me "spreading a caricature" over the list, I
not only didn't do anything of the sort but in fact allowed you to hang
yourself. Which you did quite well, thank you. Now, with what you're saying
above ("There are two consequences of your behaviour") you are definitely
trying to spread a caricature of me...so it's a case of the pot calling the
kettle black. Once again, you are projecting your own behavior onto me.
Yes, Bernd, I understood full well that you were trying like mad to blame my
post-Molly Wee's notes for your insults. I dismissed that automatically
because I was already aware of what you had written to me personally
previously, and didn't really stop to think that the Digest was unaware of
those things. Maybe I should have posted all of our notes?
But IF your contention is that you were insulted by my post-MW notes...if
you seriously want to call that your justification...then I can only say
that you were insulted by jokes, and jokes that were obviously jokes by
their presentation. And that certainly tells the world where you're at,
intellectually.

>But after your tirade of insults, it seems like you have taken more damage
>which somehow puts things right again.

Oh? Are we involved here in some sort of popularity contest or something?
Maybe you are, and have been posturing for just that reason, but not me. I'm
not shooting for the title of "Darling of the Digest." That is of no
importance to me.
Really, Bernd...your computer shouldn't be your life. There is a real world
out there just waiting for you.
But that does clear a lot of things up. I can only shake my head in disgust.

>In any future discussion with you, I will simply ignore everything which
>doesn't belong to the topic,

Bernd, if you try to become my hall monitor...you'll expose yourself truly
to the others. Are you sure you want to do that?
And I would much rather you take my suggestion of some three days ago to
stay out of my messages, as I would yours. But no, you want to be my hall
monitor. Speaks volumes, that.

>Maybe this will help you to realize how a reasonable discussion has to be
>proceeded.

Rich T is reborn. Listen, pal...you don't have the intelligence, the
evenhandedness, or the right to do that to anyone. YOU are no one to judge
what is and isn't reasonable in a discussion. No one died and made you God,
last I heard.

>Having said this, I have no bad feelings left.  I forgive you, but I will
>handle you with care from now on.  I invite you to as many future discussions
>as my time allows, preferably about The Who.

Once again, you play at being noble. Keep your forgiveness; it's worthless.
I won't forgive you either for being what you are or the pompous nature of
your post. You are what you are, and you've revealed some of that already to
the Digest. My advice: watch out, or you'll reveal some more.
Me, I'll just disregard you..."Let's forget you better still." I don't deal
with people on your level here in MB, so why should I waste my time on the
Digest doing so? I know, I did for a while...my mistake...for I thought you
were someone who could handle it. But I won't be fooled again.
And yes, I have learned something from this debate after all. And this is it:
A) Do not debate with someone who isn't able to keep from personalizing.
They will get nasty and petty when they can't make headway.
B) Don't expect fact and logic to persuade someone who has decided not to
change their mind. They will disregard or dismiss any evidence.
C) You can't trust people who smile at you (I already knew that one, but
tend to give people the benefit of the doubt...a weakness, I know). You will
oft times find a dagger in your back.
D) Don't assume that people are intelligent. Again, it's that "benefit of
the doubt" thing haunting me.
E) Don't assume that everyone is of fine character, just because they're a
Who fan.

>(1) It isn't very wise to question my intellect.  I might want to challenge
>you, and then you could have a hard time.

I'm certainly not afraid of your intellect, Bernd. It's not exactly
towering, as you seem to think. Your intolerance, now...that I should pay
attention to, I guess.

(2) I'm everything but a paper tiger.

Your behavior regarding Molly Wee's, given your mindset, proves that you are
beyond the shadow of a doubt.

>People who know me could speak volumes about how I never avoid any conflict.  

Of that I have no doubt. You seem to go looking for it, in fact, whether
it's a wise thing for you to do or not. BTW, it's not. In this part of the
country, it's called: being a redneck.

>(3) Pride isn't my style.

Oh? And did you happen to note the tone of your post? You might want to
rethink that one. There is evidence to the contrary, right here.

>(4) I don't use any drugs because, due to a
>physical problem, I have to be very careful about anything which might cause
>addiction.

A non sequitur. But since addiction is a psychological problem, I think
you're wise to do just that.

>(5)  I hate Pepsi.  There are only very few things tasting worse in this world.

On that, at least, we certainly agree. How `bout that?




                   Cheers                   ML


"For three generations, Pepsi has trying to make people to believe it's `The
Pepsi Generation.' This is the first one dumb enough to believe it."
                                                                    Unknown