Guest guest Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 I couldn't really discern the tone of this post, so forgive me if I'm reacting to something that wasn't intended... Sant & Brown <santbrown wrote:> > Extremism is dangerous in whatever cloak it wears. Oh I do so agree ;=) Of course, you made your extreme statement (below) without any intent of hurting or offending anyone on this list, is that right? *LOL* I don't think I made an " extreme statement " by saying that I felt for the most part, PETA people were nuts, as my comments were obviously simple subjective opinions made in partial jest. The words, " for the most part " are a quantifier, as well, keeping the statement from being totally extreme, as far as I see it. The fact is, they have done many things that I think a vast majority of people, including many on this list no doubt, would consider " nuts " or at least unwise... Sant & Brown <santbrown also wrote: >Any organization that triggers such an uncalled-for flame has to be >worth knowing! ;=) Why do you say " uncalled for " ? If you do not know the organization, how do you know my feelings are uncalled for? And why would an organization necessarily be worth knowing if it causes such contempt among others? I agree this is true sometimes...many of the organizations/groups/people I identify with cause great contempt or unrest...but it is not an absolute. I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just defending my words. The fact is, as many people know, PETA engages in very outlandish and immature behavior, with the main purpose of drawing attention to themselves, rather than their cause. A few acquaintances of mine in school were involved with PETA, and mostly what they talked about was being heard, being seen, being respected. There seemed to be much more of a focus on the group itself rather than its objectives. Plus, PETA has no respect for anyone else, really. I may not like the fact that so many people eat meat and wear fur, and that animals are being tested on so we can have more and more thingies and junk, but I am *not* going to get in someone's face about it. I do not agree with preaching in any form, and I will not do it no matter how strongly I feel for my cause/position. I will speak calmly and rationally about it, I will offer information and the like, but only in a pleasant way, and generally only when it is requested. ::jumping down from the soap-box:: ~~blessed be~~ Alison, the ana-spryte SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 Sometimes your actions and example can speak more to a person, or group of people than the " in your face, extreme visionaries " that PETA likes to display. Also, we all have accept that people have free will, and the right to make thier own choices, even if we don't agree with it. Alison, your words were well express, *bravo* Nancy-who has no soap box to get on at the moment Plus, PETA has no respect for anyone else, really. I may not like the fact that so many people eat meat and wear fur, and that animals are being tested on so we can have more and more thingies and junk, but I am *not* going to get in someone's face about it. I do not agree with preaching in any form, and I will not do it no matter how strongly I feel for my cause/position. I will speak calmly and rationally about it, I will offer information and the like, but only in a pleasant way, and generally only when it is requested. ::jumping down from the soap-box:: ~~blessed be~~ Alison, the ana-spryte SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I think so ;=) And no harm done all round, I hope. The jesting nature, as you say, of your message didn't come through to me - I only read anger there. And for some reason it upset me :=( You are quite right: I should have picked my words more carefully so that they could not be picked at ;=) Just to explain: I said 'any organization that triggers such an uncalled-for flame has to be worth knowing! ;=)' when what I should have said was that it could be 'worth knowing *better*! ;=)'. And by that I simply meant that if someone was so *against* a particular organization then I might feel the need to look into that organization, to which I do not belong but know a little bit about, more closely in order to judge for myself. Extreme reactions (I think calling someone 'nuts' is an extreme reaction to the mention of their name, but please correct me if you feel I am wrong - cultural difference might account for the discrepancy in perception here.) often provokes the opposite response to what was intended, I find. And btw my smiley after that statement in my original post was intended to indicate that I was teasing you ;=) just as this one is intended to indicate that I am not rebuking you for not realizing that. Okay? ;=) Also, I did not say your *feelings* were uncalled-for, since I could not possibly make that judgment and didn't mean to do so. I said that your *flame* was uncalled for. If you had had reasons for feeling annoyed with the original poster of the message (whether or not he had mentioned an organization for which you also feel disapproval), your feelings would have been only your own concern and his; your *flame* the concern of anyone who received it. Look, I understand that you are a caring person who belongs to a number of organizations that no doubt are also very caring, and that the organization of which we speak is not among your favourites. We all have our non-favourite things. Mine are . . . but why go on ;=) Sheesh - and all this over an inedible veggie burger! ;=) One comment: if you don't want to preach, as you say in your final par, then may I suggest that soapboxes are among those things better defined as unncecessary props? *LOL* Precarious thingies, anyway ;=) They make me feel taller, but I am always slipping off them myself *LOL* Awkward to carry around too . . . Truce? Best, Pat > > I couldn't really discern the tone of this post, so forgive me if I'm reacting > to something that wasn't intended... > > Sant & Brown <santbrown wrote:> > Extremism is dangerous in whatever > cloak it wears. > > Oh I do so agree ;=) Of course, you made your extreme statement (below) > without any intent of hurting or offending anyone on this list, is that > right? *LOL* > > I don't think I made an " extreme statement " by saying that I felt for the most > part, PETA people were nuts, as my comments were obviously simple subjective > opinions made in partial jest. The words, " for the most part " are a quantifier, > as well, keeping the statement from being totally extreme, as far as I see it. > The fact is, they have done many things that I think a vast majority of people, > including many on this list no doubt, would consider " nuts " or at least > unwise... > > Sant & Brown <santbrown also wrote: > >Any organization that triggers such an uncalled-for flame has to be >worth > knowing! ;=) > > > Why do you say " uncalled for " ? If you do not know the organization, how do you > know my feelings are uncalled for? And why would an organization necessarily be > worth knowing if it causes such contempt among others? I agree this is true > sometimes...many of the organizations/groups/people I identify with cause great > contempt or unrest...but it is not an absolute. > > I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just defending my words. The fact > is, as many people know, PETA engages in very outlandish and immature behavior, > with the main purpose of drawing attention to themselves, rather than their > cause. A few acquaintances of mine in school were involved with PETA, and > mostly what they talked about was being heard, being seen, being respected. > There seemed to be much more of a focus on the group itself rather than its > objectives. > > Plus, PETA has no respect for anyone else, really. I may not like the fact that > so many people eat meat and wear fur, and that animals are being tested on so > we can have more and more thingies and junk, but I am *not* going to get in > someone's face about it. I do not agree with preaching in any form, and I will > not do it no matter how strongly I feel for my cause/position. I will speak > calmly and rationally about it, I will offer information and the like, but only > in a pleasant way, and generally only when it is requested. > > ::jumping down from the soap-box:: -- SANTBROWN townhounds/ http://www.angelfire.com/art/pendragon/ ---------- * " He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. " - Immanuel Kant * " I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. " - Abraham Lincoln * " There are too many idiots in this world. And having said it, I have the burden of proving it. " - Franz Fanon ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 It definitely could be a cultural difference...I live in California. Being called " nuts " is practically a compliment here.... No truce needed, friend...no unrest was ever intended by either of us, I'm sure... <smoooooch!> hee hee Sant & Brown <santbrown wrote: (I think calling someone 'nuts' is an extreme reaction to the mention of their name, but please correct me if you feel I am wrong - cultural difference might account for the discrepancy in perception here.) ~~blessed be~~ Alison, the ana-spryte SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.