Burned by Bernd

> To the above-mentioned provocation, however, I
> replied with the words `I take this as an insult' and explained why.  Mark's
> only answer to this was `You shouldn't, though', whereas later on in the same
> letter he wrote `But we should be meeting in a few days (hopefully), and I'd
> rather it be friendly. OK?'
> 
> On the same day, July 15, he repeated the same contradiction between personal
> attack and peace offer in two different open letters to me when he wrote `You
> should read my posts with more attention to what's written' (which seemed
> strange to me since I had carefully read every word of his and answered to
> every thought whereas he had often neglected whole passages of my posts
only to
> insert some new distracting topics) and `I do hope you won't be angry with me
> when we meet in NYC.'

Bernd:

It was rather obvious that you did take my views on Xtianity as an insult,
and I repeatedly tried to tell you that they weren't a personal attack
(after all, I felt that way long before I ever met YOU). And still you
persist in this silly and immature behavior. Yes, I said: "I'd rather it be
friendly." because you were acting upset over something you shouldn't have
been. I'd give the same advice to anyone exhibiting that sort of behavior in
any situation. Are you so unable to detach yourself from a debate as to
insist that people act out their arguments???

> At that point, I already got the impression that Mark was afraid of his own
> courage as he was about to meet a stranger he had insulted and was only aware
> of that stranger's feelings without knowing what his possible reactions might
> be.  This seemed a little ridiculous to me, maybe even cowardly.  IMHO, he
> should rather have written `Let's finish this discussion in NYC' than what he
> actually wrote.

Well, buddy boy, you got the wrong impression. I certainly had/have no fear
of you, Bernd...so you can forget that idea. I'm not someone who looks for
trouble nor someone who fails to deal with it when confronted with it. Here
in the South we can "kick ass" (as they say) when we need to.
However, I fancy myself civilized enough not to go looking for a fight.
But...you are someone who wants to and doesn't take action when he has a
perfect chance, which says a lot IMHO. Had I been as angry as you appear to
have been, I wouldn't have hesitated to "call you out" when we met. You, on
the other hand, did nothing. Nothing at all. Nada. Zip, zilch, zero. Nothing
but grin.
I expressed a sincere wish that we be friendly despite our differences. You
want to call that cowardly, then you're at a civilization level on par with
Fred Flintstone.
BTW, it was YOU who wrote: "Let's finish this discussion in NYC." I didn't
see you make any effort, and I as told you via EMail, it wasn't that
important to me. I went to NYC to enjoy myself. Debating an outdated form of
superstition wasn't on the agenda. I had more than enough to do as it was.

> I wasn't angry with him at all, only with what he had written (yes, I make a
> clear difference between people and their actions), and apart from being
> somehow annoyed because I had spent way too much of my time on a fruitless
> discussion, I was looking forward to our meeting in NYC with some amusement.

Oh? It appears that wasn't true at all. You are quite obviously angry with me.
I am amused now, though, at your anger unrealized when it was soooo
important to you.

> But when Mark's first words at the Molly Wee were `Please don't kill me' I
> couldn't feel anything but pity for a man who knows that he might have
gone > >too far without being able to admit it.

You know, Bernd, you have no sense of humor at all. I said that, with a big
smile on my face, as a joke. Do you know what a joke is? 
Like George Bush, you just don't get it.
Can you, with a straight face, actually contend that I was serious when I
said that??? Oh, the humanity...

> When Mark came back home, he answered my last public note to him (the one he
> hadn't received anymore before his departure to NYC) in a not very friendly
> style which was his right since I hadn't been that friendly in my own writing.
> But then he began again to include totally weird assumptions (`I guess it
> really, really bothers you that I'm not a huge fan of Xtianity') in his
> arguments and to spread allusions to the Christian fundamentalism he assumes I
> am propagating (in fact I am very liberal, and Mark should have known it)
> throughout most of his other public notes that were not directed to me.  This
> was again at least a serious kind of teasing, if not close to an insult.

You were insulted by jokes. What do you think that says about your liberality?
BTW, if I was going to insult you, I would have said something like:
Nazi-boy, narrow-minded fool, chicken-shit (just to throw in a little
Southernism there), Fascist, ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray, brainless, gutless,
animal food trough wiper, simian-like, Hiney, needle dick, shit-fer-brains,
head of the German branch of NAMBLA, or stuff like that there. You will KNOW
when I insult you, Bernd. I haven't so far, although I've been more than
tempted.
And see how much it STILL bothers you that I'm not a fan of Xtianity! You
have to repeat it! But I'm not (and here Mark sinks to Bernd's level
intentionally, in order to be sure Bernd understands him), nah nah nah!
(totally serious now, and rather cold in demeanor) I don't need you, Bernd,
or anyone else to tell me what I can and cannot say regarding my feelings
about Xtianity. THIS (at least) is a free country, where we can express
ourselves as we desire without fear internally or externally. Get me?

> So, what should my conclusion be?  Doesn't all of this look like describing a
> man with a big mouth who doesn't dare to defend his position in personal
> confrontation?

Again, I was not looking for any confrontation. I can only assume that,
having been soundly trounced via EMail, you could only think to take our
your frustrations out physically. And yet, you made no move in that
direction. I, of course, assumed that you were adult enough to not be angry
about a simple disagreement. And in that I was certainly wrong. I'll be the
first to admit that.

> I don't mind if someone attacks me personally, I always know
> how to defend myself.

Yeah, you wait until you're safely back in Germany. Be proud of yourself.
That's quite a great defense plan. It works every time, I'm sure.

> I am quite sure that almost every other lister would have dared to fight >
things out with me in NYC if we had had a similar argument like this. 

I would be very surprised if that were true, Bernd. In fact, I would have
been shocked if someone has started to fight there over an EMail debate. Or
even a real or imagined insult. I can't think of a single lister, no matter
the age, who would do something quite that childish and petty in a situation
designed for pleasure. Uh, a single OTHER lister, that is.

> Not necessarily
> with fists (which really would be a little brutal in a simple discussion like
> this), but hopefully at least with words.

Clearly, you had every opportunity to do either in Molly Wee's. And did
nothing but sit there grinning. So for a "man" who wants to make statements
about someone being a "man with a big mouth who doesn't dare to defend his
position in personal confrontation," it can only appear that you are
describing yourself. I won't contradict that. And, of course, I understand
how you are projecting your own behavior onto me. That's a common reaction
to feelings of inadequacy. Quite understandable. And treatable, in case you
ever get the urge.



                   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