🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <57ol1o$sc7@boursy.news.erols.com>, jtitus@erols.com says...

>By now, this particular sub-conversation has drifted from "being short" to 
>everyone�s favorite topic, "how to express disagreement without flaming."
>Lets see if we can get it back on track.

rmottare@powerup.com.au (Raymot) wrote:
>In article <57g3fl$38l@boursy.news.erols.com>, jtitus@erols.com says...
>>
>>rmottare@powerup.com.au (Raymot) wrote:

>>>>Nonsense. Sheryl's comment on Patrick's apparent hypocrisy
>>>was no more than he deserved. 
>>>I don't know, maybe where you come from calling someone's
>>>(eg. Sheryl's) genuine response to what they see as hypocrisy 
>>>"a low blow" is accepted as being a positive comment.

>>>As explained in post to which you respond, it should have been 
>>>obvious that there was no hypocrisy, simply a choice of words that, 
>>>when taken out of context could be construed to mean something 
>>>other than what Patrick had said. 
>
>>This is irrelevant. I was not accusing Patrick of being hypocritical.
>>I was suggesting that Sheryl had a right to point out what *she*
>>saw as hypocrisy without being told it was a "low blow", 
>>You then dismiss my opinion...

>     Actually, I am continuing to respond to you--so I clearly am not 
>dismissing your opinion.  If I understand you correctly, you agree with my 
>original point that Patrick is not a hypocrite, but you are annoyed that I 
>stepped in to defend him and in so doing referred to Sheryl�s 
>characterization as a "low blow."  

Exactly.

>You believe that it is more appropriate 
>to state "I detect hypocricy in your post." than it is to step in and say 
>"That is a low blow and here�s why I think the two of you actually see 
>eye-to-eye."  

I don't know about appropriateness. But I detected that Sheryl
felt a legitimate grievance, and was not just striking a low blow
for the hell of it. By saying, "I detect hypocrisy in your post"
she is not necessarily being mean, but is pointing out what I 
would call a paradox that goes to the very heart of the topic
being discussed.

>In fact, you suggest that one has a "right" to make the 
>former statement without a third party making the latter statement.  

No. Anyone has a right to make whatever statements they wish
as long as they are prepared to accept the consequences. As long
as the statement is an honest reflection of the poster's belief,
is related to the topic, and is not gratuitously insulting, I have
no problem with it.

>Anyway, I did start out by conceeding my own imperfection.

Well, perhaps none of us is without sin. :) I apologise for calling
your opinion "nonsense", even though I still don't agree with it.

>    This reflects a difference in our perceptions of etiquette ...

Ah, well I usually inhabit less gentile newsgroups where 
discussion is more "animated"--so perhaps you're right.

>and I 
>think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.  I saw not 
>even a hint of hyprocrisy when Patrick essentially said (paraphrasing)
> "I am short.  I wish women did not all want a man who is taller than 
>them.  Oh well....I hope I can find a short woman."   Sheryl thought it 
>was hypocritical.  

Without wishing to revive a dead issue, let's look again at what
Patrick wrote:
">I get sick to my stomach when I read personals by women who 
>specify the guy must be tall.  How shallow and superficial can those
> women be?"
Perhaps these women are not shallow or superficial at all, but have 
been rejected by men in the past with the excuse, "Well, you're really
too tall for me", so they are being realistic just like Patrick is.

>     The more constructive lesson to take out of this, implicit if not 
>explicit in the Patrick-Sheryl exchange that you and I jumped on is:  To 
>what extent do people, and to what extent should people, develop criteria 
>based--not on what is important to them,but--on what experience has taught 
>them is the type of person that likes them.  Patrick mentioned short for 
>this reason.  The men who are "threatened" (to quote LadyG and others) by 
>tall women may in fact have found by experience that tall women want a 
>taller man.  I personally tend to focus on women who are over about 33, 
>not because that is my own requirement, but  because experience suggests 
>that younger women usually want a man younger than me (a problem made 
>worse by the fact that I look younger than I am).
>
>Jim

Yes I understand all that. It still remains to be shown that the 
average personal ad that says "Minimum height 5'8"  or
"preferably over 30" is more likely an example of contemptible 
prejudice rather than a realistic request based on past experiences, 
as apparently was Patrick's comment.

Ciao,
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[