================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED From: "Debbi R" To: Date: Tue 28 Aug 2001 11:45:54 -0700 ================================================ I didn’t say anything because they weren't taking personal information that he'd shared with the list and shit on him with it, which is exactly what he did to Keith. The only time I saw him get shit on was specifically related to Linux. And since that was the subject matter of the discussion I had no issue with it. Any more than I did the Windoze, etc. I took it for what it was worth to me and responded accordingly. I never called him for hitting me below the belt on it nor did I think that anyone hit him below the belt because he was talking shit and couldn't back it up. Another example: If someone tells the list that they'd been paralyzed in a car accident a few years back and some time later gets into a heated discussion on the merits of stereo versus monophonic sound, I wouldn't consider comments akin to "oh go jump in a lake. Oh.. Wait... You can't. Nevermind" at all acceptable and would react the same way. It's a blindsided attack based on personal information shared with the list. He was wrong. Period. Any way you slice it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Creed Discussion List > [mailto:CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM] On Behalf Of ]\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[ > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:19 AM > To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM > Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Debbi R > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED > > > > For example, if Jim had told this list that he was a > recovering crack > > addict, I'd consider Keith's remark to him about "put down > the crack > > pipe and slowly back away" completely disrespectful and > would take him > > to task on it. The fact is, that's not what happened. We were > > discussing Linux vs. Windows. Comments went back and forth on both > > sides about each platform and their users. All related to the > > discussion. > > Say what??? So because Jim isn't a recovering crack addict, > but instead a person who doesn't use crack, it was okay for > Keith to make his comments? Sure... makes total sense now. > I'm sorry Debbi, but I think you might need to put this into > some better wording, because as it looks right now, you're > saying that it's okay for Keith to say false statements about > Jim (which were in fact VERY major personal attacks), but > it's not alright for Jim to, after 2 weeks of getting the > same abuse, lash back in retaliation. I'm pretty sure that's > not the point you were shooting for, but that's about all I > can get from the statement. > > > He was totally out of line with his comment to Keith. Period. And > > "eye for an eye" is a festering pile of bullshit too, but > I'm not in > > the mood for that discussion right now. > > I won't use the "eye for an eye"... but can I ask why you > didn't chime in when Keith made his 2 seperate statements > about Jim using Crack? Or about Kevin and the "Linux butt > buddies" or the "Linux circle jerk crew"? None of those > comments were called for... they were all way out of line. > But still, you let them slide through, them jump right in > when a retaliation is made. Jen used the term "double > standard". That seems to be coming to my mind to. It's okay > for some, but not for others, right? > > ¤]\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[¤ (who's currently suprised as hell that his > last post actually went through without a need for trimming) To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp