KWJ199F@SMSVMA.BITNET (Ken Jeffreys) (02/06/90)
Foolish? (How so?)
Far right wing? (By whose definition?)
So far removed from the mainstream? (Any polls to quote? Or perhaps
your definition of mainstream is only those who
agree with you.)
Barely deserve comment? (Your opinion, are you speaking for everyone?)
Utter disgrace? (By your measure? Exactly what statement or idea do
YOU deem to be an utter disgrace? AND WHY?)
An embarrassment? (Don't ever apologize for me! I can do that myself -
if and when necessary.)
Odious? (Definition: Arousing OR deserving of hatred. OK, which one?
But, please don't choose for me. I found his posting benign.)
Outrageous? (Definition: Having the nature of, involving, or doing,
great injury or wrong. Exceeding all bounds of decency
or reasonableness; very offensive or shocking. Violent
in action or disposition; unrestrained. Again, which
part of Len's posting do YOU feel is described by the
above?)
Go back, read the posting that Len responded to. Then re-read
Len's posting. Then ask yourself if Len's posting deserved your
response. Your posting reminds me of one of the lessons I learned
in my Intro Speech class. Emotionalism, devoid of substance, can
do more damage with less reasoning than logical and substantial debate.
Your message reminds me of *** THE BUND ****. There was so much venom
in your posting people will remember it. But??? Where was the sub-
stance??? WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF AMERICANISM OR WHAT IS UN-
AMERICAN??? With such a definitive, and emotional posting you must
have the final answer, and I for one want to know what it is.
The only thing of substance I got out of your posting was that
you are very emotional and object to something in Len's posting. I am
not sure what it is that you object to. You never really said.
I am not trying to defend Len Abbey. I am sure he is capable of
doing that himself. What I am doing is objecting to this kind of
personal attack. An attack I think was unwarranted. An attack that
is designed to denigrate another for an idea or ideal. What could be
more 'un-american' than that? Where was the tolerance for another's
idea, Ken? Where was the substantive debate?