BSD logo

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Monday, July 26, 2010 18:20:48 -0600 Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:24:21PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> --On Saturday, July 24, 2010 00:24:46 -0600 Chad Perrin
>> <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > When this is the way someone starts a "discussion" about wanting to use a
>> > new OS, I tend to believe there is no genuine interest in using the OS in
>> > question.
>>
>> When this is the way one answers a simple question, I tend to believe
>> there's no genuine interest in dialog.  I am therefore left to wonder who
>> really is the intolerant one.  One cannot claim to be tolerant while
>> demonstrating intolerance any more than one can claim to be educated
>> without every having read a book.
>
> How perspicacious of you.  I'll quote myself basically saying exactly
> that -- that I am not particularly interested in "dialog" with someone
> who, I'm sure, has already made up his or her mind:
>
> In any case, I didn't claim to be "tolerant".  In fact, I very
> specifically said I was sure someone would accuse me of intolerance, and
> went on to explain that I am guilty of intolerance of those who are
> intolerant themselves.  Why are you just repeating what I have said, but
> in the tone of an accusation?  How intolerant are *you* today?
>

We can let the readers decide that.  (Not that it matters to me one way or the 
other.)

The man asked a simple question.  You then launched into a lengthy diatribe 
against intolerance, and you continue to lash out at anyone who takes issue 
with your responses.  I made no value judgments about you.  I simply parroted 
your own words.  Yet you rise up in self-righteous anger in response.

Then you cement your apparent ntolerance of any criticism with "pot, kettle, 
black".  Perhaps the mote in your eye is obscuring the mite in others.

>>
>> It's amazing to me the ridicule heaped upon the man for asking a question.
>> Would it have been too difficult to simply answer the question, as the
>> first response did?  No, we have to attack the man for having beliefs that
>> are different from our own.  Because we're so enlightened?  Or because we
>> are even more ignorant than we suppose he is?
>
> I *did* answer the question before heaping ridicule on someone who, as I
> stated, I believe had already made up his or her mind, and had no genuine
> interest in dialog in the first place.
>

So now that you know you were wrong, will you apologize?  (I'm not holding my 
breath.)

At a minimum, get some help for the anger issues.

-- 
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson