🚀 go-pugleaf

mtepper@panix.com (Michele Tepper) wrote: 

> Cyronwode <cyronwode@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Look, i already apologized, in public, and repeatedly, for shooting my
> >mouth off. Maybe you didn't see those posts. The first apology was
posted
> >24 hours after my first -- and ONLY -- angry post. We are talking about
> >stuff that appeared on my server a WEEK ago by now. Telling me what i
> >should have done a week after i already told everyone i was sorry and
that
> >i myself knew that i should have done elsewise is kinda like...well,
the
> >cliche phrase is "whipping a dead horse."

> Let me try an analogy here.  You walk in to a restaurant carrying an Uzi

> and a hand grenade and threaten to blow everyone in the joint to Kingdom

> Come if you don't get precisely the sort of service you want right away.

Uh...does the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will
never hurt me" ring a bell with you? Why do you think that phrase is a
part of our vocabulary? Could it be because most of us realize -- through
experience -- that there is a true difference between physical threats and
verbal taunting? 

I posted a *message*, for the love of pete! You call this "an Uzi and a
hand grenade"? GIVE ME A BREAK. What kind of drama queen are you?
Pretending that words (presented electronically from an unseen person) are
analogous to physical threats (like guns and hand grenades) is sloppy
thinking that can lead to no productive results. It seems to have led
*you* to confuse free will with coersion (see below).

> Rather than deal with bozos like you, the restaurant shuts its doors.  
> The patrons of the restaurant, who are rightfully pissed off that you 
> behaved like such an aggressive spoiled brat, blame you for your 
> behavior.  Is an apology going to be enough to make things right so 
> everyone can be best friends again? I don't think so.

Sorry, but you are SERIOUSLY mistaken in your analogous attribution of
causality here. I apologized FIRST. Several days LATER (4 days on my
server) Fletcher closed the gateway. Think about what you wrote
immediately above -- which implies the opposite -- and see below for how
this reversal of timed events has led you to not only to confusion about
causality but has also contributed to your confusion of free will with
coersion. 

> > But, hey, you're right. I should have been polite. We both know that.
And
> > so does everyone else who is following this thread. Okay? 

> It's too fucking late for that.  

This is a repeat of the above. Once again, you have the time sequence
reversed. The apology came DAYS before Fletcher closed the gateway. You
imply otherwise. You are not straight on the facts (or you may be chosing
to deliberately obscure them). 

> You've destroyed something useful, 

No, i did not. *Fletcher* took the gateway down. No amount of *words*
could have forced him to. It was his choice. His free will. Live with it.
By manufacturing the analogy of physical force ("an Uzi and hand
grneades") you prop up the false construct of my having coerced Fletcher
to shut the gateway and thus you attribute final cause ("destroying
something useful") to me. 

Had you refrained from leaping into the bogus physical threat analogy, you
would not have made this mistake. 

Had you refrained from reversing the sequence of events -- whereby (my
post>my apology>Fletcher closing the gateway) became (my post>Fletcher
closing the gateway>my apology) -- you would not have made this mistake
either.

> you've earned the enmity of untold thousands, and you've branded
yourself 
> as a shmuck in an international forum.  

Granted, i have earned some enmity for my original post, which i deeply
regret -- and, judging by writers such as yourself, i am the *subject* of
some enmity, but i cannot accept that i have "earned" enmity for
FLETCHER'S actions. 

> Start up your own well-managed 
> gateway, maybe you'll get forgiven... but I wouldn't count on it.

To tell the truth, being "forgiven" by people who cannot think straight,
and/or who argue from specious analogies, and/or who may be deliberately
twisting facts to suit a flawed premise is not a high priority on my list
of life goals.