Re: Love-Hounds Digest #9.28

[rjc@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk]

In article <9302152113.AA11889@syrinx.umd.edu>, Jeffrey C. Burka (jcb) writes:

jcb> Vickie said "Gays in the military -- in" to which you added "(out, shake
jcb> it all about)"

jcb> You said nothing more, and you gave no context in which the readers
jcb> of r.m.g/Love-Hounds could interpret it.

Sorry? It had the context you give it above, she'd just used `in' to
mean one thing, I simply used `out' to mean the reverse -- ie that
Clinton was not supporting allowing Gays in the military anymore.
That's a pretty strong context.

jcb>  The fact that many people *did* see it as a bigoted and uncalled
jcb> for remark says a hell of a lot more about *your* writing skills
jcb> and ability for clarity than it does for *our* reading
jcb> comprehension.

The fact that 2 (possibly 3 if you also misinterpreted too) people
found a perverse reading says to me that they saw what they were
looking for, an excuse to get a warm glow from a bit of name calling
in a fashionable cause. 

And _that's_ a more important point. Yelling `bigot' at people
suspected of being mistaken in their opinions does about as much good
for Gay rights as the average speech by Jessie Helms. I don't like
witch hunting, especially in a good cause.

jcb> The idea of comparing the lack of clarity in your writing to KaTe's 
jcb> penchant for writing about subjects with multiple interpretations is
jcb> a laugh.

In the words of a famous American philosopher and rooster, ``That, I
say, that was a joke son.''.

Anyway, everyone will be glad to hear this is the last message I'll
post on this stupid thread. If LH is going to turn into a forum for
silly name calling and thought police, then at least lets stick to
enforcing orthodox KT worship.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	You cannot change what is, You cannot make it die
			But you can love with all your heart
			The wretches gone awry.
				- HR.