[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

[Fwd: Re: Oh, what a tangled web we weave.]

--- Begin Message ---
**shawn morris** wrote:
> At 02:24 AM 8/13/96 -0400, Ryan wrote:
> >And back to my first point, before it becomes something for a few fellow
> >SloanNet-ers to debate --- two different opinions, or three, or four,
> >are great, but when you state your opinion, then take a second stab,
> >then a third, that's how 24 of 36 messages I received tonight were on
> >the same thing.  C'mon, if you want to spar just do it between
> >yourselves.
>         Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a forum to express yr
> opinions on a certain topic, in this case Sloan. If I'm not mistaken these
> "opinions" have been based on Sloan. I could see reason for getting upset if
> it wasn't about Sloan or EC at all, but it is. This all comes as part of the
> SloanNet package. 

You see, this was my point exactly.  What I said in my last paragraph
WAS that having an opinion and expressing it is all right, but let's not
get multiples of the same arguments, there's no point to it except to
waste bandwidth. (And now someone will mail saying "Well, if you're that
concerned about BANDWIDTH, then....") No, that's not my point, my point
is arguing for the sake of arguing, or arguing and then finding no
weaknesses in the other person's position so mailing about things like
spelling (i.e. "last time I checked, coporate had an r after the first
o", etc.), it's all just syntax and virtual mudslinging and it's
ridiculous.  If you've got enough time to write about things like that,
why not write to everyone on SloanNet individually rather than cramming
the faulty minutiae of someone's argument through the server and making
ridiculous arguments like this one valid.

And for anyone who decided that my first mailing on this topic's only
weak point was my attack on spelling (and thusly made a point of
exploiting that) thank-you for either trying to create another argument
or missing the point entirely. (And of course, now someone will attack
this point).

Forever everyone's to laugh at, 
and hoping the arguments aren't endless


P.S.	I hope you noticed that up until this point I had still made my
point without attacking someone else's (i.e. Shant)

P.P.S. 	Just cause Mr. Covey asks, don't mean Mr. Covey gets.
	I mean, when he left, the first thing he asked us to do was to 

P.P.P.S.  In case anyone was thinking of pointing it out, I'm aware
that 	the P.S. paragraph is somewhat self-contradicting.  I wrote it
	that way.

Hope I didn't spell anything wrong.

--- End Message ---