Thread

The Right to Offend: a response to Graham and Zak

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 17:54:58

Author wrote:
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>As for "all religion is bullshit", I read that as "all belief systems
> >>>are inherently arbitrary and not disprovable". If you're religious,
> >>>you might dislike the tone of voice, but the underlying point is at
> >>>least debatable.
> >>
> >>One invites a reasonable discussion, the other is an absolutist
> >>statement with the implication that "what I say is right and I don't
> >>give a damn about any opposing viewpoints" and is, at the least, not
> >>helpful.
> >
> > But then, so is your assertion!
> The fact that we are (it seems to me) having a reasonable discussion
> about this rather suggests that you are not correct.
> > There is a point to my making that point.
> >
> > Words do not exist in a vacuum.
> I am aware of this (and I'm resisting the temptation to make an obvious
> comment at this point!)
> > They exist in the context of a speaker and, well, a context.
> Of course.
> > If you were lit critting zak's words, then fair enough, if you had no
> > prior knowledge of the person involved.
> >
> > But zak has a style and a way of posting that is very much her own and
> > which, over time, you will develop a view of. Doesn't matter whether
> > you like or dislike it.
> I am well aware of Zak's posting style, I first encountered it in
> Fidonet's "Common Room" discussion group about nine or ten years ago and
> have seen it in other places such as uk.people.bdsm since.
> However I am interested in *what* people say and *how* they say it, not
> *who* is saying it.
> Normally I wouldn't necessarily feel inclined to remark on it, however
> when someone makes a comment that could alienate possible supporters of
> our cause, the situation is somewhat different.
> > The point about communications are that they are about transferring
> > meaning from one person to another. And they are not merely passive
> > 'things' to be deconstructed at leisure. Writers deserve to have
> > their words deconstructed in context.
> >
> > Otherwise you end up with a lot of people on high horses, responding
> > to what THEY deconstruct someone else as meaning because they prefer
> > not to allow that other person the benefit of the doubt.
> And were I have to done either of those you might have a point, however
> I do not think, in context(!) that I have.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

Then we must disagree, because I saw you as doing that - and by extension being as unhelpful as you felt zak to be being.

I have two reasons for posting on what appears to be a highly obscure subject:

First, because this sort of thing keeps happening. I have been involved in all sorts of online nastiness because individuals seem determined to interpret words in a particular way - irrespective of any construction I try to put on them afterward (or even internal to the post).

Partly because my own style is not always direct...in fact at times it is bloody obscure. But partly - and this is what I take issue with, because some people seem determined to take offence....or to use the idea that something 'nasty' has nbeen said as a means to score a point. I am being deliberately vague....but if you want to take this off-board, happy to do so with names and occasional threads so you can make your own mind up.

Anyway. Yes, partly to do with me and others posters. Paretly also to do with so much of this debate being by e-mail, without the usual verbal and nonverbal cues available in direct interaction.

So that's the first bit.

The second is that I am very much WITH zak when it comes to offence. I understand that 'offensiveness' is seen in many quarters as an issue to do with politeness and manners: basically, don't do X, because it gives offence.

But in the last couple of years, it has moved up a notch to the point where offensiveness has put on political clothes. If you read the fine print of our esteemed government, a great deal of what they are proposing by way of bans, social control, etc. is in response to people being 'offended'.

It really, really is time for people to stand up and reclaim the right to be offensive. Because if we really truly buy into the idea that 'everyone has the right not to be offended', we hoist ourselves by our own petard.

Regards,

M

Graham Marsden, 01 Nov 2005 19:56:15

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Then we must disagree, because I saw you as doing that - and by
> extension being as unhelpful as you felt zak to be being.

In which case may I just say that you're talking out of your arse.

It's clear you lack two braincells to rub together since you have
evidently failed to read, let alone comprehend, the first word of what I
am trying to say.

If you're going to whine about this bollocks any more please do it
somewhere that it is not my misfortune to have to read your pathethic crap.

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, so why
don't you just shut up and piss off.

Thank you.

NB Warning: The above post may contain irony...

;-)

Cheers,
Graham.

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 20:42:45

Well, there's a turn-up

*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 01 Nov 2005 20:49:48 ***

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 20:42:55

Ey oop,

*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 01 Nov 2005 20:47:00 ***

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 20:44:48

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 20:45:12

Graham Marsden, 01 Nov 2005 20:53:03

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Ey oop, dickhead. That's the spirit!

But it's not particularly helpful or constructive and if more of these
posts were like that I think it would put a lot of people off.

Now, please, let's drop this.

Cheers,
Graham.

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 21:35:04

As you can see,

*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 01 Nov 2005 21:35:52 ***

SnowdropExplodes, 01 Nov 2005 22:32:36

--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> I have two reasons for posting on what appears to be
> a highly obscure subject:
>
> First, because this sort of thing keeps happening.
> I have been involved in all sorts of online
> nastiness because individuals seem determined to
> interpret words in a particular way - irrespective
> of any construction I try to put on them afterward
> (or even internal to the post).
>
> Partly because my own style is not always
> direct...in fact at times it is bloody obscure. But
> partly - and this is what I take issue with, because
> some people seem determined to take offence....or to
> use the idea that something 'nasty' has nbeen said
> as a means to score a point. I am being
> deliberately vague....but if you want to take this
> off-board, happy to do so with names and occasional
> threads so you can make your own mind up.
>
> Anyway. Yes, partly to do with me and others
> posters. Paretly also to do with so much of this
> debate being by e-mail, without the usual verbal and
> nonverbal cues available in direct interaction.

There is a tacit assumption here that "context"
applies to authors, whereas "interpretation" on the
part of the reader is in a vacuum.

Context applies on both sides of the equation, and
connotation can be different depending on the reader.
I recently had a blazing row with an American on IRC
because I was unaware that in the USA the term
"prejudiced" carries a very strong connotation of
"racist", to the point of that becoming its primary
meaning. That difference in interpretation meant
that the character of the debate altered into a
slanging match.

So a writer does need to be aware of how his/her words
could be interpreted by others, and how they might
result in a degradation of debate into something more
destructive than constructive.

>
> So that's the first bit.
>
> The second is that I am very much WITH zak when it
> comes to offence. I understand that 'offensiveness'
> is seen in many quarters as an issue to do with
> politeness and manners: basically, don't do X,
> because it gives offence.
>
> But in the last couple of years, it has moved up a
> notch to the point where offensiveness has put on
> political clothes. If you read the fine print of
> our esteemed government, a great deal of what they
> are proposing by way of bans, social control, etc.
> is in response to people being 'offended'.
>
> It really, really is time for people to stand up and
> reclaim the right to be offensive. Because if we
> really truly buy into the idea that 'everyone has
> the right not to be offended', we hoist ourselves by
> our own petard.

Here we have a curious conflation of two different
sources of offence.

Zak and you both seem to be arguing for a right to be
insulting as well as offensive, but predicating your
case on a defence of offence rather than insult.

I find atheism (or more particularly, "evangelical"
atheism such as that of Dawkins) to be offensive, even
when expressed in relatively neutral terms; I find
that the position is fundamentally hypocritical, and
commits all the worst intellectual sins of religion
while despising religion for those very sins. That
offends me. However, I am happy for "evangelical"
atheists to try to convert me, as long as they are
willing to let me try to convert them in return, and
attack the premises of their own faith. It is
perfectly possible to be offended by it and not
insulted.

However, if someone proclaims "All religions are
bullshit", that is insulting to all followers of those
religions (and that includes me). It is not merely
offensive, but also abusive.

Zak's "style" tends to gravitate towards an abusive,
insulting invective and I must confess that my heart
sinks when I see messages from her in my emails; if it
weren't for the fact that she frequently has something
pertinent to say, I would delete her messages without
reading them because I find that I am not happy to
witness such haranguing. Unfortunately, Zak has
important things to say and I feel that I should read
them anyway, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes
me feel to do so.

I would be immeasurably happier if abuse and insult
were kept off the public email list, because apart
from anything else, it is intimidatory to any new
people joining the list to see that sort of thing in
their emails (which I believe was a point Graham was
trying to make). It has the inevitable effect of
persuading some people that this is not the place for
them, that this campaign is not one of which they
should be a part, and that if they were to try to
contribute to the debate, that they would also be
potential targets of a barrage of abuse.

The right to cause offence is invaluable for the
purposes of open and honest debate; however, it does
not follow from this that there is a right to be
insulting or abusive. Insulting or abusing someone
does nothing to add to a debate, but rather seeks to
put an end to the debate by belittling the other
person and dismissing their arguments without
answering them. Even if this is not the intent of
the person causing insult or abuse, it is frequently
the outcome because of the reaction by the insulted or
abused party.

On the political level, it is true that offence rather
than abuse or insult is the target of "New Labour",
and is frequently behind what they attempt to do; in
particular, it is offence felt by rich, middle-class
voters against poor, working-class or underclass
people, and in the case of "youth", non-voters.

So, by all means, be offensive, but please, in a
public forum try to do it in a polite way?

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

adrian, 02 Nov 2005 00:34:01

Just to help this back on tracks, here's something describing, rather
than exemplifying, offence:

We must all be sensitive not only to others' feelings but also to our
obligations to liberal science: specifically, the obligation to put up
with criticism ? yes, offense ? from any quarter at any time. We have
a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. When we do become
offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism
or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished
or required to make restitution.

If you are unwilling to shoulder that obligation, if you insist on
punishing people who say or believe "hurtful" things (as opposed to
telling them why they are wrong, or just ignoring them), then you
cannot fairly expect to share in the peace, freedom, and
problem-solving success that liberal science is uniquely able to
provide; indeed, you are putting those very benefits at risk.
Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1993, pp. 158-162.
Longer quote in http://www.ukar.org/rauch/rauch01.html

Amelie, 02 Nov 2005 01:01:55

psychologically there is a point where a group becomes so concerned with its
own structure, interactions and survival that it loses sight of the
objective for which it was formed.

Can we actually get on with the job and talk about what we are doing or have
done to further the group aims? Amelie

----- Original Message -----

"Adrian" , 02 Nov 2005 01:01:55

To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:33 AM

> Just to help this back on tracks, here's something describing, rather
> than exemplifying, offence:
>
> We must all be sensitive not only to others' feelings but also to our
> obligations to liberal science: specifically, the obligation to put up
> with criticism \x{2014} yes, offense \x{2014} from any quarter at any time. We have
> a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. When we do become
> offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism
> or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished
> or required to make restitution.
>
> If you are unwilling to shoulder that obligation, if you insist on
> punishing people who say or believe "hurtful" things (as opposed to
> telling them why they are wrong, or just ignoring them), then you
> cannot fairly expect to share in the peace, freedom, and
> problem-solving success that liberal science is uniquely able to
> provide; indeed, you are putting those very benefits at risk.
> Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought,
> University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1993, pp. 158-162.
> Longer quote in http://www.ukar.org/rauch/rauch01.html
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> E�ֺǶ�� f�
> �\x{203A}�o{i�z��~hwp۽۩wp

Manniq, 02 Nov 2005 07:31:26

Yes: I agree that we should focus on group aims. But we each have our own and different contributions to make.

One thing that I am very keen to do is to place what is going on within other frameworks of discourse. As Marxians might have it, to deconstruct the dialectic. Or in plain English: to provide some sort of theory that underpins what is going on right now.

Is that pure navel-gazing? No. Of course SOME of it ends up being the latter. But I think it important to do this analysis for two reasons.

First, because it helps us see the bigger picture and thus a) to understand where 'the enemy' are coming from and b) not to be surprised by other initiatives. Indeed, to be ready for them. Yes: I am signed up to THIS campaign... but it has opened my eyes to the broad sweep of government thinking - and I am not interested in consigning the consultation paper to the dustbin, only to find my internet viewing is subsequently governed by the IWF.

Second, and more practical, it helps us form alliances. When this campaign started, it came across, at times, like a bunch of introverted and, to a degree, selfish individuals whinging because their train set was about to be taken away. That's not directed at anyone: more a candid view of how I think outsiders may have seen us.

Since then, we have connected in many places, with other groups pursuing parallel agendas. People arerecognising that the government is a threat to their lifestyle - and that if they try and defend that lifestyle in isolation, they are lost.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> psychologically there is a point where a group becomes so concerned with its
> own structure, interactions and survival that it loses sight of the
> objective for which it was formed.
> Can we actually get on with the job and talk about what we are doing or have
> done to further the group aims? Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----

: "Adrian" , 02 Nov 2005 07:31:26

> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] The Right to Offend: a response to Graham and Zak
> > Just to help this back on tracks, here's something describing, rather
> > than exemplifying, offence:
> >
> > We must all be sensitive not only to others' feelings but also to our
> > obligations to liberal science: specifically, the obligation to put up
> > with criticism � yes, offense � from any quarter at any time. We have
> > a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. When we do become
> > offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism
> > or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished
> > or required to make restitution.
> >
> > If you are unwilling to shoulder that obligation, if you insist on
> > punishing people who say or believe "hurtful" things (as opposed to
> > telling them why they are wrong, or just ignoring them), then you
> > cannot fairly expect to share in the peace, freedom, and
> > problem-solving success that liberal science is uniquely able to
> > provide; indeed, you are putting those very benefits at risk.
> > Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought,
> > University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1993, pp. 158-162.
> > Longer quote in http://www.ukar.org/rauch/rauch01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > E�ֺǶ�� f�
> > ��o{i�z��~hwp۽۩wp

Amelie, 02 Nov 2005 10:04:23

yes, I agree with that. my own awareness has been expanded to appreciate
the wider threat and my approach so far has been to answer the consultation
document, to write to MPs, to contact a wide range of possible
fellow-travellers and try to motivate them to do the same, to make research
available to the group, to add links and statements to my sites, to talk to
people, to prepare my book on bdsm for self-publication in a few weeks as
an ebook and in 4 months' time as paperback, and to prepare myself to defend
my position in public if it is required.

As I learn more about the threat and our allies, mainly from following links
and ideas raised here, I am becoming very angry about the way our
intellectual freedoms are being constrained and generating a fine head of
steam for the coming battle. Florence Nightingale, when asked for the
source of her energy, replied in one word, "Rage!" and I am beginning to
understand her better (and, possibly, even Zak?) Amelie
----- Original Message -----

, 02 Nov 2005 10:04:23

To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:31 AM

Yes: I agree that we should focus on group aims. But we each have our own
and different contributions to make.

One thing that I am very keen to do is to place what is going on within
other frameworks of discourse. As Marxians might have it, to deconstruct
the dialectic. Or in plain English: to provide some sort of theory that
underpins what is going on right now.

Is that pure navel-gazing? No. Of course SOME of it ends up being the
latter. But I think it important to do this analysis for two reasons.

First, because it helps us see the bigger picture and thus a) to understand
where 'the enemy' are coming from and b) not to be surprised by other
initiatives. Indeed, to be ready for them. Yes: I am signed up to THIS
campaign... but it has opened my eyes to the broad sweep of government
thinking - and I am not interested in consigning the consultation paper to
the dustbin, only to find my internet viewing is subsequently governed by
the IWF.

Second, and more practical, it helps us form alliances. When this campaign
started, it came across, at times, like a bunch of introverted and, to a
degree, selfish individuals whinging because their train set was about to be
taken away. That's not directed at anyone: more a candid view of how I
think outsiders may have seen us.

Since then, we have connected in many places, with other groups pursuing
parallel agendas. People are recognising that the government is a threat to
their lifestyle - and that if they try and defend that lifestyle in
isolation, they are lost.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> psychologically there is a point where a group becomes so concerned with
> its
> own structure, interactions and survival that it loses sight of the
> objective for which it was formed.
> Can we actually get on with the job and talk about what we are doing or
> have
> done to further the group aims? Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----

: "Adrian" , 02 Nov 2005 10:04:23

> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] The Right to Offend: a response to Graham and Zak
> > Just to help this back on tracks, here's something describing, rather
> > than exemplifying, offence:
> >
> > We must all be sensitive not only to others' feelings but also to our
> > obligations to liberal science: specifically, the obligation to put up
> > with criticism - yes, offense - from any quarter at any time. We have
> > a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. When we do become
> > offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism
> > or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished
> > or required to make restitution.
> >
> > If you are unwilling to shoulder that obligation, if you insist on
> > punishing people who say or believe "hurtful" things (as opposed to
> > telling them why they are wrong, or just ignoring them), then you
> > cannot fairly expect to share in the peace, freedom, and
> > problem-solving success that liberal science is uniquely able to
> > provide; indeed, you are putting those very benefits at risk.
> > Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought,
> > University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1993, pp. 158-162.
> > Longer quote in http://www.ukar.org/rauch/rauch01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > E�ֺǶ�� f�
> > �>�o{i�z��~hwp۽۩wp

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2813

zak, 02 Nov 2005 12:59:14

Original Message:
-----------------

-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 02 Nov 2005 12:59:14

Unfortunately, Zak has
important things to say and I feel that I should read
them anyway, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes
me feel to do so.

Then you are learning valuable life lessons: one, that being offended will
not make your
bollocks fall off, two, that you can't control other people's behaviour,
you can only
control your own response to it and three, that people who you might
disagree with on one
issue may have common ground with you on others.
Keep it up

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

SnowdropExplodes, 02 Nov 2005 16:12:23

--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:

> Original Message:
> -----------------

: -OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 02 Nov 2005 16:12:23

> Subject: Re: [backlash] The Right to Offend: a
> response to Graham and Zak
>
>
> Unfortunately, Zak has
> important things to say and I feel that I should
> read
> them anyway, regardless of how uncomfortable it
> makes
> me feel to do so.
>
>
> Then you are learning valuable life lessons: one,
> that being offended will
> not make your
> bollocks fall off, two, that you can't control other
> people's behaviour,
> you can only
> control your own response to it and three, that
> people who you might
> disagree with on one
> issue may have common ground with you on others.
> Keep it up

You sanctimonious, patronising, self-satisfied,
arrogant creature! I am left feeling little other
than contempt for you after this.

You should learn that second point yourself, hun, and
perhaps consider that you can affect other people's
reactions to you by choosing one's own approach
appropriately. You should perhaps practice what you
preach, and curb your tendency to abusive responses to
those with whom you disagree (i.e. recognise that
being offended doesn't do you any harm).

You should also remember that you have no idea what
"life lessons" I have learnt, or am learning, or am
yet to learn. You know F-all about my history, who I
am or what I've been through, and frankly, I'm happy
with it that way.

And for the record, while it is true that I have taken
offence at your remarks, I once again find thhat they
are presented in a manner that renders them abusive
and a deliberate attempt to belittle someone else, and
it is this rather than the offence, that makes me
angry enough to respond in this fashion.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Amelie, 02 Nov 2005 18:07:12

any government observers keeping an eye on our site are hardly likely to
take us as a serious threat if this is the standard of debate. It makes me
wonder , as silver suggested, if Zak is actually a civil servant fifth
columnist! Amelie
----- Original Message -----

"-OJT-" , 02 Nov 2005 18:07:12

To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:11 PM

> --- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
> wrote:
>
>> Original Message:
>> -----------------

m: -OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 02 Nov 2005 18:07:12

>> Subject: Re: [backlash] The Right to Offend: a
>> response to Graham and Zak
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, Zak has
>> important things to say and I feel that I should
>> read
>> them anyway, regardless of how uncomfortable it
>> makes
>> me feel to do so.
>>
>>
>> Then you are learning valuable life lessons: one,
>> that being offended will
>> not make your
>> bollocks fall off, two, that you can't control other
>> people's behaviour,
>> you can only
>> control your own response to it and three, that
>> people who you might
>> disagree with on one
>> issue may have common ground with you on others.
>> Keep it up
>
> You sanctimonious, patronising, self-satisfied,
> arrogant creature! I am left feeling little other
> than contempt for you after this.
>
> You should learn that second point yourself, hun, and
> perhaps consider that you can affect other people's
> reactions to you by choosing one's own approach
> appropriately. You should perhaps practice what you
> preach, and curb your tendency to abusive responses to
> those with whom you disagree (i.e. recognise that
> being offended doesn't do you any harm).
>
> You should also remember that you have no idea what
> "life lessons" I have learnt, or am learning, or am
> yet to learn. You know F-all about my history, who I
> am or what I've been through, and frankly, I'm happy
> with it that way.
>
> And for the record, while it is true that I have taken
> offence at your remarks, I once again find thhat they
> are presented in a manner that renders them abusive
> and a deliberate attempt to belittle someone else, and
> it is this rather than the offence, that makes me
> angry enough to respond in this fashion.
>
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2836
>

Paul C. Dickie, 02 Nov 2005 18:11:57

In message <20051102161105.22540.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
>--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
> wrote:
>>Then you are learning valuable life lessons: one, that being offended
>>will not make your bollocks fall off,

True but, if someone is gratuitously offensive, one might wonder if his
bollocks had recently fallen or, indeed, if he hoped they might do soon.

>>two, that you can't control other people's behaviour,

Go tell that to the gormless Goggins.

>You should learn that second point yourself, hun, and
>perhaps consider that you can affect other people's
>reactions to you by choosing one's own approach
>appropriately. You should perhaps practice what you
>preach, and curb your tendency to abusive responses to
>those with whom you disagree (i.e. recognise that
>being offended doesn't do you any harm).

One should also bear in mind that merely being offensive almost always
indicates that one has lose the argument if not also the plot and/or
one's wits.

It would be as well for zak to refrain from an offensive retort, for it
*would* be a shame for her to imperil her amateur status.

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 02 Nov 2005 18:16:37

zak, 02 Nov 2005 23:03:45

Original Message:
-----------------

-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 02 Nov 2005 23:03:45

--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:

> Original Message:
> -----------------

: -OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:11:05 +0000 (GMT)

zak, 02 Nov 2005 23:15:32

Original Message:
-----------------

Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 02 Nov 2005 23:15:32

In message <002801c5dfd7$7897e3b0$6501a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>any government observers keeping an eye on our site are hardly likely to
>take us as a serious threat if this is the standard of debate. It makes me
>wonder , as silver suggested, if Zak is actually a civil servant fifth
>columnist! Amelie

Are you *sure* she has exhibited sufficient intelligence? o-)

--
< Paul >

All bribes welcome. Cash only in small denominations.

z

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2852

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .