I didn't get flamed like this even in net.music!

[David M. Hardy <HAADAV@MITVMA>]

> From: Jordan@ucbarpa.berkely.edu

> ... has become commonplace. Look, we're living in an immoral world,
> and I don't think you should project your morality on a group of
> people who you associate with by choice.
> That's called oppression.

Does living in an immoral world give you the right to be immoral???
I said nothing about morality.

If you think that I am 'projecting' 'morality' then you misinterpreted
what I said.  I am not forcing anything on anyone, merely STATING MY
OPINION.  My saying I don't like something is no different than people
saying they like it.  It's just an opposing view.  Do you really expect
that people are going to stop swearing just because I find it
objectionable and unnecessary??  I certainly don't.  I didn't tell anyone
to stop doing it;  I even said that probably NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN about
it.  And to call my opinion 'opression' is simply laughable.  (How do
you express a laugh on a computer.  A smiley face just won't do it.)

> ...                                    Being offensive is a right
> that I covet strongly. Notice that I don't implore you to swear ...

And you can go right on being offensive.  I also can go right on
disliking it, and either ignore it, or bring it up if I want to.  Why
did you take a GENERAL posting so PERSONALLY anyway??  You're not the
only offensive person in the world.  Did you think I was referring to
something you specifically said?  Actually I havn't kept count of who
swears and who doesn't.

> position of being adult enough that if you can't take the discussions
> going on here seriously that you would unsubscribe. I don't think we're

I already said once that I wasn't going to go away.  I guess it didnt
sink in.  I can take SOME of the discussions here quite seriously.
I've even gotten some music I liked from listening to what people say
here.  I don't think much of it in real life if someone talks like that,
and the same goes for here.

> Right, but you are trying to force a moral issue. That makes you a
> wimp, geek AND a weenie to boot.

Resorting to name calling?  And you had the audacity to mention 'adult'?
It's laugh time again..... And I already said once I'm not forcing
anything (Do you really think I could?)  And what's a weenie?  Are you
calling me a hotdog?  That could be taken as a compliment...

>>         Flames and obscenities to /dev/null...
> That's real brave of you. Throw in your two cents worth and then say
> "I won't listen to your side".

The reason I wrote the message I did is because I have ALREADY heard
enough of what the type of people who swear have to say.
Repeatedly.  If you want to flame me for stating my opinion
you go right ahead and continue doing it.  You won't change it no matter
how hard you try.  Neither will anyone else.  All of the things I said
are true for ME, and no amount of flaming will change them.
You can try if you like, but why not do it by personal mail?
I can't believe I actually have to EXPLAIN this.  There is no other side
to an opinion.   There are just different ones.

I feel that if I did not say anything about this, then many people would
assume that it was alright because it was happening and nobody DID say
anything about it.


> From: "James J. Lippard" <Lippard@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>

> That's bull...., and this sentence is an illustration of why.

What is that supposed to mean?  The sentence in question is absolutely
true based on MY experiences.  Yours may differ. (just like highway mileage :-))
Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true for me
and doesn't give me any less right to say it.

>                                                           I could have
> said "That's nonsense", but it would not have come across as strong and would
> not have adequately expressed what I wanted.

You have NOT adequately expressed yourself.  Using profanity did not
help you.  There are plenty of good words in the English language and I
don't understand the need to have to resort to and keep repeating the
same ones when you can't think of anything else to say.  But then again,
and this is something I shouldn't even have to say, that is MY opinion.
You didn't make any attempt to explain YOUR opinion on what was wrong
with the aforementioned sentence.

> BTW, David, in your message about Les Miserables, I was unable to tell that
> you considered it to be the best album of 1986 until you said so.  Saying that
> it's "highly recommended" and "very well worth it" and that you were "mostly
> impressed" doesn't make it sound all that great.  I think you could have
> expressed your opinion more strongly by using a good metaphor and still
> avoided vulgarity, but it would have been much easier just to say "it's

That's why I said so.  Although the part where I said I looked all over
Boston for it and was depressed at not finding it should have given you
some idea that it wasn't just any old record.  'Very well worth it' and
'Highly recommended' are high praise indeed for me.  To use profanity in
trying to describe it not only might offend prospective listeners but
would also degrade the character of my posting (notwithstanding the fact
that it may have no worth at all if nobody here likes musicals).
Like I said, I'm no language expert.  If I even know any good metaphors I
didn't think of one to use there.  But I still didn't have to resort to
the degradation of profanity.  I suppose profanity has some uses in times
of extreme pain or emotional distress, but certainly not in discussions
of music.

Remember, this is all just my opinion.  I hope somebody agrees that 'Les
Miserables' is whatever you want to call it to describe a wonderful piece
of music, and I know some people agree with my views on profanity, but
if you want to continue flaming me, let's not clutter up love-hounds with
it.

                                               >>> Dave