----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Gilm" <email@example.com>
To: "Darryl Maddox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: correction: SPTNCAWHS_eD
> I'd like to make a correction. My theory should be
> called SPTNCAWHS_eD: SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT NOBODY
> CARES ABOUT WHAT HAMMOND SAYS _ EXCEPT DARRYL :-)
That is a nice touch. I've never been so important as to have the name of a
theory changed for my benefit!. Joke very much appreciated and enjoyed.
> It seems rather strange that you feel bad about
> "personal attacks" against Hammond, but you don't say
> anything about Hammond attacking other people.
Oh, I ment it both ways. I may not have been clear about the way I stated it
but I certainly ment it both ways. What I did allow was for Hammond, to
call someone an idiot as a pure and simple statement of fact from his
perspective, without it being ment as personal attack or slander. If the
other person, or even a third party percieves it as ad hominim argument then
that goes to the part I wrote about not being able to know for certainty how
someone will interpret something you say so saying what you think simply and
straight out is one way of addressing the problem. My wife tells me I have
almost no people skills and I suspect she is correct. OTOH, once a person
has made an evaluation type statement about another it seems to me they had
better be ready and prepared to provide good data, relevant to the context
of the conversation, for making the statement and that the person so
addressed has every reason to ask "Based on what criteria have you made this
statement about me?". Then he may or may not accept the criteria and the
evaluation as being valid without there being anything personal involved.
That is probably a bit much to ask, huh?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 18 2001 - 18:57:24 EDT