Re: correction: SPTNCAWHS_eD

From: Darryl Maddox (
Date: Sat Aug 18 2001 - 19:15:27 EDT

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: SP...blah, blah, blah"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bob Gilm" <>
    To: "Darryl Maddox" <>; <>
    Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 10:31 AM
    Subject: correction: SPTNCAWHS_eD

    > I'd like to make a correction. My theory should be
    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