🚀 go-pugleaf

jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter) writes:
] [ I ( Dennis O'C ) wrote : ]
]
] >It's too bad you didn't quote my original article. ( Why not ? )
] >It would make the distinction more clear, since it DEFINES
] >what I mean by "fanatic" in this particular case. My definition
] >makes the assertion you challenge axiomatic. It defines fanatics
] >as those who are intolerant. Mavens don't figure into it at all.
]
] I suspect Hossein didn't quote Mr. O'Connor's first posting because

I think it's presumptious of you to answer for Hossein. If I
had people speaking for me on my reasons to sdo things, when I
was perfectly able to do so myself, I'd feel offended, I think.
 
] it is less useful than Mr.  O'Connor seems to recall.  The following 
] is the entire body of Mr. O'Connor's first posting:
]
] >jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter) writes:
] >] [ essentially, that the mishmash of times and places destroys the
] >] "romance" for authenticity fanatics ]
] >
] >Analogy:
] >The presence of minorities undoubtedly destroys the "romance"
] >for many people, few of whom are in the SCA fortunaetely.
] >
] >The SCA does not need to solve either of these problems. 
] >The people who let the mere presence of Anachronism at
] >a Society for Creative Anachronism disturd their enjoyment
] >need to find their own solution. 
]
] There is no definition of "fanatic" here: only a reference to a
] posting of mine.

Theere is not a definition of "fanatic" the word, buit there is a
description of the group of people being referenced (i.e. people
for whom "the mishmash" destroys the "romance", whom I have labeled
( IMNSHO correctly ) "fanatics".

] I don't think my article would be much help, since it neither uses
] the word "fanatic" nor mentions anyone of the kind Mr. O'Connor describes.

I disagree with the latter. You did indeed say the "mishmash" as I call
it destroys the romance (the only word I directly quoted) of some SCAdians.

] Perhaps Mr. O'Connor should review the postings to date, before trying
] to correct others on a content he appears to have become confused over.

This is pure ad-hominem, content-free and unproductive. That makes
your posting, by my standards, an insult and a flame.

] I have pulled out of this discussion in terms of substance:

In fact, you e-mailed that you would no longer reply to my
postings on this subject, and yet you have chosen to post
into an axchange that no longer directly involved you. Worse,
you posted a flame. I feel like you've embarked on a vendetta.

] I don't think Mr. O'Connor is listening,

More useless inflamatory ad-hominem. Your rage is showing, I think.

] In Service to the Society,

Not with this post, you're not.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com