Re: Chris and Sam Friends Forever...

[chrisw@miso.wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

>>SamiT007@aol.com (Samantha) will probably regret saying:
>
>No, I rarely *regret* anything I say (type), but that doesn't mean I can't
>admit I was mistaken, arrogant, hurt, pissed off, etc...

   Understood. Regret is unpleasant, but it's a fact of life. It's also far 
more reliable than guilt or belief in damnation in ensuring ethical behavior.

>>   Uh...my posting was about the *facts* about Kate's stated religious 
>>beliefs. You are perfectly welcome to check them. They are available
>>in the archives. 
>
>I never said I didn't believe you.  I really do appreciate the facts you
>shared with me.

   The collection of the facts was in Ron Hill's amazing _Cloudbusting_,
provided in a very nice HTML format by Richard Caley.

>>   No, I'm a JERK. Always have been when the idiotic subject of religion
>>comes up, that vast stone weighing us down, that stinking albatross 
>>hung from the neck of mankind. Against *that* I'm quite happy to be called
>>a JERK.
>
>Good thing you can be honest with yourself (and me/us) and admit it!  Some of
>us would strongly disagree with you, however, on the "stinking albatross"
>comment.

   They are of course welcome to. It's impossible for me to look away from the
hatred, wars, poverty and genocide caused and abetted by religion. For every
piece of music, cathedrel or act of kindness attributed to religion I can't 
help seeing the river of blood flowing from mankind's apparent need to make
gods in his own image.

>Actually, I prefer your answer to most of the others, as I think paganism is
>ridiculous, too.  (Don't flame me, guys--I'm not trying to start another
>flame war or discussion of paganism vs. every other world religion!)  What I
>*didn't* like was your attitude and language you used.  If you are an expert
>on Kate, good for you.  You have achieved a goal I have set that I have not
>yet reached.  "I want to be just like you when I grow up." :-)

   I assure you...you really don't want to. I'm 500 miles and two weeks away
from the person I love. 

>>  If you cannot see that I was flaming the *question* rather than the
>>questioner...well, that's your problem. 
>
>When you say it's an "idiotic" question, it's obviously implying that the
>person asking the question is an idiot, too.  Would you not agree? 

   No...any person can ask a stupid question. I'm a researcher and in
the course of my work I ask a lot of dumb questions - usually ones
that I regret asking seconds after asking it. One of the joys of e-mail
is the ability to stare at your screen before sending it.

> Only people can make questions "idiotic" or not, since the question 
>wouldn't exist without the mind that created it.  

   I disagree. "Idiotic" questions can stand on their own. Besides, it
wasn't your mind in question - you got the dumb question from someone 
else.

>Perhaps you meant to flame the question, but you could not help but 
>flame the questioner at the same time.

   Not my intention from the very first.

>>   Note that, true to form, they have popped up (usually a first
>>post.) Can you forgive me for anticipating the inevitable? Of 
>>*course* they (again true to form) offer no proof just as I said.
>
>You are certainly correct about the "witches" popping up all over the place.
> And I did think you intended to accuse me of being a witch, or at least a
>"witch-sympathizer", but as you explained it, I see now you didn't mean to.
> That's quite alright.  When I read this I was probably already bent out of
>shape just enough to skew my perspective a bit.

   Ok.

>>   Yes, I'm a crappy speller. And I'm writing on a borrowed computer with
>>a newsreader without a spell-checker. But a bit of advice...if you are
>>reduced to attacking the form rather than the content...
>
>I wasn't attacking the form (although it was wrong), I was attacking the
>"creator" of the form, just as you (whether you meant to or not) attacked the
>questioner of the question.

   It's called an "ad homin" argument, and means to attack the man (rather
than the actual argument.) I try to avoid it, a lesson painfully learned over
a very long time.

>Do I really want to piss you off?  What kind of question is that? 

   It was intended to point out that I have been here and intend to stay. I
live in this neighborhood.

> You seemed to want to piss me off--I was just fighting back!  I don't 
>want to make enemies or "piss people off", but if they do it first, I have 
>no problem dishing out what they served first!  Let's make sure we just 
>don't piss each other off again, okay?  

   No promises. But it might be instructive to read through old Love-Hounds
archives, looking for the debates involving |>oug /\lan and myself. On some
subjects we have been in complete agreement and on other subjects we 
have been diametrically opposed. Otherwise though, our relationship has
been cordial and we got along well when we met at the KBC Convention
in London.

>As for being a valuable resource,  I'm never meant to imply that you aren't.  
>There's a difference between a valuable resource, and a valuable resource 
>with an attitude, however, and if I had my choice, I would choose the former, 
>but I may have no choice and have to settle for the latter. (Hey, are you 
>insinuating again that I am one of the "clueless"?)

   I guess I have an attitude then, and probably always have. But, please
consider looking at a larger sample of my postings to see if this "attitude"
truely extends beyond the subjects that irritate me.

   As for the last, relax.

>>  I suggest that you consider apologizing for that last remark and 
>>consider just getting used to me. I'm staying.
>
>Actually, I considered apologizing for that last remark long before I read
>your response to me, because it was quite out-of-character for me--I really
>am a sweet, nice, quiet, unassuming person.  On the other hand, I had such
>fun coming up with that "last remark" that while I may not still feel the
>same way ( now that I've vented) I still can't quite apologize just yet--that
>would be admitted defeat, yes?  And it would be nullifying my remark and it
>was IMO such a *good* one!  On the other hand, you apologized for the
>misunderstanding that occurred from your "implication" that I was in fact a
>witch.  So, maybe I should.  What the heck, I can swallow my pride:   "Chris,
>will you please forgive me?  I sincerely apologize and I don't want you to be
>mad at me.  Can we make up?  Friends...?"

   Accepted. Thank you.

>Anyway, let's not discuss it further...I'm sure we've succeeded in pissing
>off and boring the other love-hounds with this "discussion." 

   It's the nature of the list. Always has been. Read the first postings... 
you'll find a level of naked hatred that has never been matched since,
not even by me. I would have been a bath toy in those waters.

>>P.S. You will like the upcoming Love-Hounds Collection.
>
>What upcoming L-H collection, oh Great One?  I don't think I've heard about
>it!

   I will be editing another Collection. It should be ready for distribution 
in time to be in everyone's hands for Katemas. More when it's ready.