what else...

[duane@Sun.COM (Duane Day, I.R. - Applications Development)]

Richard Jennings writes:

>Duane Day (who obviously has nothing better to do than get upset at people's
>opinions and, refusing to acknowledge their right to hold a different one to
>his own) gets upset:

I'm certainly *not* going to presume to guess what Richard's motive might be in
saying this, but I'd like to point out that I explicitly acknowledged his right
to hold whatever opinion he likes.  I acknowledged that right more than once
within the posting to which he is responding, and in that response he even
quotes one of these acknowledgements.  I would hope that it would be apparent
that I also asked him to clarify one of his opinions, an act which also
implicitly acknowledges both the opinion and his right to have it.

A few lines later, he quotes me:

>> I guess it boils down to what constitutes a "serious rock act".  No offense
>> was meant by my assumption that Richard was somewhat unfamiliar with the
>> entire body of TfF's work.

To which he responds:

>Ah!  No it doesn't you see -- what it actually comes down to is the
>usual "My opinion is the Ultimate Truth, and you're full of
>b*llsh*t" attitude that pervades this list.

I leave it to any reader of this list who might still care about this
discussion to form his or her opinion as to which of the above passages
might be construed as vitriolic.  Each and every reader is entitled to
that opinion.

In response to another explicit request for clarification of his opinion
on TfF, he responds:

>Good grief, Duane!  I don't know what to make of you, really I don't.
>Perhaps it's culture shock or something.

I then continue:

>>My postings reflected my opinion, just as all of the postings on this
>>newsgroup reflect the opinion of the authors...

And the response is:

>...and all responses that in any way diverge from those opinions
>give the original authors the automatic right to throw virtiol at
>the network?
	
Again, I'll leave it to each individual reading this to form any judgments
he or she cares to concerning who is being vitriolic. 

In response to Richard's comment, "this all smacks of rather tacky pretension
to my eyes," I respond:

>>And again, you're entitled to that opinion.  But, please clarify - pretension
>>on the part of TfF, the hypothetical marketing types, or me?

Note the two components of the above passage: an explicit acknowledgement of
Richard's right to the opinion, and a request for clarification of that
opinion - which, to his credit, he then provides, along with the first
substantial, albeit oblique clarification of his "TfF serious...hmmm" opinion:

>No, Duane, how could I possibly think you're pretensious? -- I've
>not met you, I've not even seen you on video, sitting in a camping
>chair talking about how you "laid yourself bare".  [<-- this is IRONY]

Yes, I caught the irony.  In case anyone didn't, Richard is here referring
to one of the interview clips in the "Scenes" video.  I can see how that
comes off as pretentious, although it doesn't really strike me that way.
This is my reaction;  Richard is welcome to his, and it has no effect on my
overall impression of him as a person.

I'd just like to make one more point here.  I'm definitely capable of
vitriol, for instance in my characterization of one of the people on
nm-list who proposed bringing a bullhorn to a concert as a "nihilistic
cretin".  No vitriol was intended or expressed in my responses here to
Richard.  However, it is my opinion that each of Richard's postings on
this subject has contained a quantity of vitriol, directed first at
me personally (i.e. the "culture shock" remark, as well as many others
which I haven't re-quoted here) and then at love-hounds in general (i.e.
the "attitude that pervades this list" remark).

Needless to say at this point, I won't hold my breath waiting for an
apology.