================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: Temptation From: "Keith Mears" To: Date: Wed 25 Jul 2001 22:30:25 -0500 ================================================ Ahhhh, so you took my "candy temptation" line and chose to focus on that rather than the actual topic of the thread April and I were discussing. I'm with ya now. As for civility, I totally agree with you. Personal attacks, while they may be gratfiying, are not called for, which is why I refrain from them (besides, I can get plenty of those on another list I'm on!). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:25 PM Subject: Re: NCR: Temptation > Keith, > > I guess I came off wrong. The attacking someone personally was more of a > general statement. > > But to take Mad's place on the list. I don't think I'd try to do. > > Of all the rules and regulations. I feel that the personal attack on > someone's personal character is a rule to aid in civility. > > I could take the comparison to Mad as a compliment or something besides > one.I have always been able to talk civil in discussions with Mad. > Even when it came down to political conversations. > > That is what i wasd trying to get across. You don't have to agree with > another's point of view. But it is possible to express views with each > other and have a progressive debate. Instead of one that goes off into > other topics. > > Like this topic was about someone putting a sweet in arms reach of a > child. Expecting the child to not go for it. > > My temptation comment was about that situation happening until you pass > on. The candy just comes in different packages. > > Jim To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp