response to the responses

[Greg Marsh <gdmarsh@gdi.net>]

Bill, Jim and others:
I saw the first comment and I thought I would let it "roll off my back".
However, a second one denotes some animosity.  

>I agree these kinds of discussions are silly and that they don't matter,
>but we have them anyway because we have opinions about them and because
>they're fun!  
First and foremost, I think you all should think about your definition of
fun.   I don't know about any of you, but I'm having a blast!

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the whole point of my previous post was that on
such as this, we should be able to tolerate more than just one opinion.
There is a lot of room for discussion here.

Isn't the point of these discussion groups is to share information,
opinions and knowledge?  Don't you think we should be able to challenge our
thinking even the slightest bit?  I took the opportunity to input some
edifying conversation.  I had three reasons for submitting the post:
First, to consider and develop my own position; second, to challenge
McGoo's position; and third, was to see if anyone else would interact.  I
just wanted to "stir up the pot" a little.

>If these kinds of topics are too silly for you, ignore them or start a 
>Who Mailing List for Really Serious People.  
Just because, I start some stimulating conversation (having my own kind of
fun) this makes me a serious person?  If you sincerely think I was
proposing anyone without posts of substancial content should "take their
business elsewhere", I think you missed my point.  If you ask me, it sounds
like you are asking me to leave.

>As long as the content is relevant to the Who, please don't presume 
>to tell people that topics don't belong on the list.  
Are you telling me *my* topic was not relevant?  I presumed nothing.  I
never said McGoo's topic was not relevant.  Essentially, what I said was
that McGoo's overly critical stance of the argument should be rethought.
(Just as a point of interest, I not too sure whether this discussion has
too much to contribute relative nature of the list.)

>As far as I can tell, we have enough of a problem as it is getting 
>people to join and post regularly. 
Maybe for the exact reason no one generations of insightful dialog.  Now
that is a presumption!  Ideally, wouldn't it be a little better of we could
talk about stories experiences, life, interact, converse and challenge each
other, rather than "my guitar player is better than your guitar player"
discussions?  Sure, I admit *some* of these post are "silly".  Rock music
by nature is silly.  It makes people do silly things.  However, the strange
dichotomy is that rock music can be quite necessary and serious at the same
time.  I think everyone is over-inflating the "silly" examples and not
catching the reason behind what supports those examples.  I'm not a cranky
old fart waiting to pounce on another victim.  I am not suggesting that
this is the only way to maintain this sort of forum.  Whether you believe
me or not, I'm a very tolerant person; The whole point of my post was just
that!  There is room for everyone, rather than have such a critical dialog.
 Whether or not you realize, my whole point was made using inclusive
rhetoric rather than exclusive!

Yes, I admit I was a bit harsh in my post *but* I acknowledged it among any
other comments.  If you read the message, I said my comments were not a
personal attack!  I admit I took several liberties, but as I said it was
only to prove a point.  For some, it was in poor judgement or bad taste.
Again, if it was too extreme for some, I am sorry.

Did anyone notice the fact that I actually agreed with McGoo's position?  I
*even* admired McGoo's taste in fine art.  I really do think Dickinson is a
better writer…but, I don't care.  Art cannot be criticized when you
consider the impact it has on an individual.  Just because Dickinson is
better doesn't mean I have to like it. All I asked in that verbose display
what the fact that McGoo rethink his way of considering the
*co*-relationships of Pete and Emily.  I agreed with what McGoo was saying,
just not the way he was saying it.

I thought I made it clear that were no personal intentions in my post.
Heaven forbid anyone disagrees with anyone in this rediculous politically
correct world.  Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I think
they are a looser, they are stupid and that they should die.  

Hey, I'll stand up and be the bad guy here, if it will make a point.  I
just wanted to express my views.   I thought this lists was about the free
exchange of these kind of ideas.  If given the choice, I would rather have
a somewhat meaningful rather than just have a bunch of fluff in my inbox
every day.  Maybe that does make me "serious".

Again, thanks for the space....regards!