Flamebait

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 19:34 -0700, Patrick C wrote:
> "I think that given the right circumstances, we all are hypocrites so
> I'm
> not sure what the ultimate point was.
> 
> The discussion covered the ground of the notion that a degree doesn't
> necessarily prove anything and I amplified with further proof of that
> argument.
> 
> The second post was to amplify the notion (at least in my mind), what
> truly represents flamebait. It's not as if I use the PLUG list to
> advance my own personal political views because if I did that, you
> would
> certainly know it."
> 
> The fact that anyone can be critical does not absolve hypocrites of
> blame, nor should it suffice to clear their guilt. It's more
> disappointing, morally, that one would think hypocrisy is acceptable
> because it's common than it is that someone would be a hypocrite in
> the first place. An action's popularity isn't a moral argument--it's a
> cop-out.
> 
> I don't know how you meant for things to be interpreted, but something
> simple like an emoticon would have greatly changed the imagined
> inflection with which one reads your words. Emoticons don't have to
> damage your argument or example, either. A simple wink to acknowledge
> that the example preceding it is off-topic wouldn't discredit or
> invalidate your argument or example at all, and at the same time,
> pretty much remove any chance of it being interpreted as flamebait.
> 
> As for rigorously defining "flamebait," flaming and throwing out
> flamebait are words that relate directly to communication. If one's
> goal is to communicate successfully, it is their job to make sure that
> those receiving their communications interpret the information
> correctly. Unless you've only defined flamebait as such to live by
> some internal moral code, and not for the more useful purpose of
> communicating effectively with others, I would adjust the way you
> filter through what you say to agree as much as possible with the
> audience you're working with without compromising the sense of your
> points.
----
wow, your mail client is severely flawed in quoting, and the html mail
was painful.
but to your points...

I never agreed that my comment was hypocritical. I commented that it's
been my life experience, that everyone is hypocritical so the charge, by
itself is rather vacuous. My comment about hypocritical people was not a
cop out at all and was offered as fact, not an excuse.

To your issue that I should have included a wink/emoticon ;-) to
reference the fact that I was making a joke, perhaps...but I think that
the list members are fairly sophisticated and even if they like George
W. Bush (and approximately 28-33% of the American public do like him and
support him), I give them credit for being able to smile at the notion
that George W. Bush doesn't necessarily represent the picture of an
articulate/erudite Harvard MBA graduate.

Not only was there no mean spirit in my original post on with the above
reference, I guess I am disappointed that there seems to be little sense
of humor of the fact that our president lacks command of basic words of
our language (can you say new-cue-lehr) but note that Letterman
routinely runs Great Moments in Presidential History which absolutely
skewers this same president in good fun.

The point simply is, if I make fun of his inarticulate-ness, that really
isn't a big deal. It really doesn't rise to the level of flamebait
unless someone is hypersensitive.

But in deference to your request for a smiley (under the notion that a
picture speaks a thousand words)...

http://www.tobyhouse.com/mccain.jpg

;-)

Craig