pschmehl_lists at tx.rr.com
Tue Jul 27 19:07:36 UTC 2010
--On Monday, July 26, 2010 18:20:48 -0600 Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com>
> 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
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
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
More information about the freebsd-questions