hutch@shark.UUCP (02/23/85)
[bug muffins] The first time I posted this the lineater got to it and ate the first half. So I am reposting it. If you got the whole thing the first time, then please ignore it but don't feed it to your lineater. Rich, please read the last paragraph. Hutch (\_____/) \*\ /*/ |\_=_/| \`_'/ Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Hutch on "impoliteness" (part B) Message-ID: <1259@shark.UUCP> Date: 18 Feb 85 07:16:33 GMT Date-Received: 18 Feb 85 07:16:33 GMT References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h> <457@pyuxd.UUCP> <1247@shark.UUCP> <519@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 105 Summary: This is an attempt to answer where everyone can see, to Rich Rosen's astonished and shocked reply to my own public censure of him as being indefensibly rude in his postings to net.religion.christian. I will be indefensibly rude in my reply, since attempted subtlety has failed in the past. My apologies for any hurt feelings. ><457@pyuxd.UUCP> - this is the very article Hutch is responding to, on the > topic of constructive/destructive (hopefully some further constructive > discussion will follow shortly in a later article) You asked in your usual impatiently superior phrasing why we even bothered with putting such artificial constraints on our behaviour. It was intrusive, and impolite, because it was NOT phrased as a question, but as a chastisement of another person for WANTING to follow what he believes to be the teachings of his religion. If you really WANT to ask a question, ASK a question. Don't go feeling all agrieved when you attempt to burst someone's irrational (to you) bubble, and you get told off for it. ><458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as > "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's > articles... ? Dubuc is no more arrogant than you. Your gripe is with his beliefs and with the fact that he refuses to accept anything you say on face value. Yeah, I know, I am claiming to know what goes on in your mind. Can you honestly say that there is nothing to my claim? (Communication Theory 099: When you talk, other people can often understand what you are saying!) ><462@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to an article on "death to gays", of which MY > response was probably one of the tamest (some of the louder responses > came from obviously devout Christians who told the guy that there was > something wrong with him) Agreed. However, your response was still condemnatory of Christians. ><465@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Bill Peter whom I had mistakenly referred to > as a Christian An embarrassing slip-up. I must admit that I thought the same thing, until his second posting. He understands (and tolerates) Christians a whole lot better than most Christians seem to. ><488@pyuxd.UUCP> - an article in response to (and in agreement with) an article > from Seifert/Snoopy on beneficial/harmful, asking (what *I* thought > were) some intriguing questions and asking for responses Not at all a bad article on the face of it. >I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at >least in this calendar year). Among the earlier ones were: 1) my requoting of >Ken Arndt's claim that I was an apostate Jew defining Christianity (isn't >that how it got defined in the first place?), I agree that I attributed an improper count of articles to you, and I apologise for making you seem worse than you are. I assume you are making a pun on the word "apostate". My dictionary has been stolen so I cannot look up etymologies for you. > ... 2) the dreaded "Blast from the Past" article, I "enned" it as soon as I read the first three lines. > ... 3) my reposting of Dave Trissel's article on his own experiences >with religions that claim "we are right and they are wrong" (that was REAL >impolite of me to do...), If it was without permission, yes, it was impolite, good of you to notice. :-) > ... 5) a reply to Marchionni, >who was busily asking me questions and saying "too bad Rich Rosen won't ever >understand this" in my presumed absence, It was not clear to me that he presumed your absence, merely that he presumed you won't ever understand the mysteries of the Trinity. That may not be true. It would take a MAJOR change in your belief structure first. Yes, I left out a few of your references. I didn't read them after seeing your name on the header and noticing that they contained flames. I do the same with other flames in non-net.flames newsgroups. >I welcome Hutch to tell all of us which of these were the rare "polite" >articles, and which were the less rare impolite ones, being sure to note which >times I was "impolite" because of impoliteness directed at me. I won't attempt to try and divine which times you thought people were being impolite to you. As Miss Manners says, "It is more satisfying to be polite in reply to rudeness because it will drive them out of their skulls." Thank you for your generous welcome. I must decline. (Feeble attempts at humor follow. You have been warned.) I often wondered why your postings seem to be so ... intense. I finally realized that py* are in Puxatawney, New Jersey, a state famous for the number of its chemical waste dumps and their proximity to the homes of the residents. Perhaps this accounts for the pervasive disdain for other human beings which is manifested in that part of the country. I have been told by easterners, especially Joisey-ites, that the mellow friendliness of the west coast is just not natural. Imagine, going into a restaurant where the waitperson actually welcomes you and takes your order with a smile, not a snarl! WE do it regularly out here... Hutch PS after the fact: I am adding this further thing due to some discussion which Rich and I have been having via private mail. It is intensely frustrating trying to talk to Rich, because he seems to speak a different language than I do. The words are the same, and the meanings are often the same, but not often enough for real communication. In a prior article, I flamed at Rich for what I considered to be his complete rudeness, forgetting for the moment that my own rudeness could never be anything but a barrier to communication. He took me to task for exaggerating his postings, and he insists that I have no basis for my claims because I did not (and for the large part cannot) produce copies of his articles, hotlining all the rude places, or showing where he has ever said that he considers Christians as a group to be moronic. He also claimed that I have slandered him by this action. I disagree with his contention that I have slandered him. Libel, maybe. Yes, I actually agree with him. By phrasing things the way I did, and by returning hostility where I perceived hostility, I made a grave error. This is a public apology to Rich for the tone of my article, and for my inaccuracy about the number of his articles. I also admit that when I level the charges about his content that I did, that I should have documentary evidence. I still believe that he was hostile in his manner and that hostility is inappropriate to the newsgroup. I do not expect Rich to forgive me for that action, nor do I expect him to forget about it. I could and would expect it of a brother or sister in Christ. It would be foolish to expect that denial of self from one who refuses His salvation. Hutch