Michael Rossman wrote: ....You've taken an ancillary paragraph out of its context (discussion of list-behavior), and used it to poke at me in a manner completely unrelated to the content of my post. Yet the problem here is less in this formality, than in how you've done it. You seem to be trying to reduce the meaning of my contribution to a black/white litmus test: am I for or against the SLA? JW reply: Irrelevant as it may be to the main issue it was the ancillary paragraph that was of interest to me, Michael, particularly when the message that I received was, to paraphrase: - I abhor violence and killing but we must consider the circumstances around this particular act of violence - Now, I may be just a simple farm boy and perhaps I failed to see the nuances in your statement, thus misinterpreting it, but I could not tell whether you were trying to give the message that: you abhor violence, but this case is an exception because...., or that you abhor violence including this case but here are the reasons I think they did it.... As you say not very relevant to the main point of your post, but still if the ancillary points are unclear they tend to muddy the water around the main point. -- Jerry West Editor/publisher/janitor ---------------------------------------------------- THE RECORD On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast An independent, progressive regional publication http://www.island.net/~record/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/10/00 EDT