Subj : Echo in shambles, sorry
To   : JOSEPH VOIGT
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Sat Nov 04 2000 01:11 am

> Friday November 03 2000 04:06, TODD HENSON wrote to ALL:
> 
>  TH> This message is to all, but some parts are to certain people
>  TH> specifically.
> 
>  TH> Well, it seems our echo is in shambles. Looking back over the last
>  TH> week or so, I try to review what part I played in that process,
>  TH> because after all I am a participant also.
> 
> Actually, it all started with you with that epithet of yours.


The really bad part started with your arrival.


>  TH> I do not believe it was
>  TH> wrong to introduce the recent presence of the topic of
>  TH> sexual perversions here, because it's a valid topic, and was spoken of
>  TH> in a rational discussion involving it's presence in the public school
>  TH> system. I can't be held responsible for how people choose to
>  TH> react, but I almost regret even mentioning it, because of the way it
>  TH> has been blown out of proportion.
> 
>  TH> I also regret being, shall we say a bit overzealous, in naming Joe as
>  TH> an insane pervert. Yes Joe, I am speaking to you.I'm sorry.
> 
> Okay, accepted, if you no longer have me down as an insane pervert.
> 
>  TH> However, I do maintain that your
>  TH> statements which prompted that WERE indeed meant to be just as they
>  TH> were - provocative.
> 
> No, they weren't.  They were made to be pointed, not provocative.
> 
>  TH> I would not however apologize for characterizing
>  TH> that response as being a perverted response, wording it as "Joe, that
>  TH> was a perverted response, which implies clear agreement with the
>  TH> teaching of perversion as a matter of bucking the JudeoChristian value
>  TH> system", because that was the clear meaning of your words.
> 
> Then you would have been incorrect as well, since your implication would not
> have been correct.  My comment about a school board said nothing about
> perversion at all.  My comment was deliberate and intended to come out just 
as
> it did... that being that it's always good to see when a school board will
> stand up for itself.  Perversion wasn't the issue.
> 
>  TH> I leave it up to you to decide whether there is a difference in
>  TH> calling you a pervert and my reworded statement above.
> 
> There is a difference.  Calling me an insane pervert is far worse than your
> reworded above, but the latter would still not have been correct and I'd have
> called you on it as well.


You can "call" me on it if you wish, but I say it was a perverted response,
and can only 
speculate as to your intentions, given the nature of your various other
posts.



>  TH> I can certainly apologize for whatever part I may have played in the
>  TH> beginning, but I can't rationally be held responsible for the way
>  TH> that someone here may choose to continue to harp in the above issue
>  TH> and use it as an excuse to rant and rave. So for me, the issue is
>  TH> closed.
> 
> Good enough, then, I'll consider the issue closed on your end.  I'll leave it
> to that "someone" to continue to harp away with her -perversion- problems as 
an
> excuse to rant and rave.  She's about all sputtered out now anyway, her
> arguments becoming obtuse.


That "other" person wasn't who you think it is.


>  TH> But as I said, I can't be held responsible for how people choose to
>  TH> continue to exaggerate some issues and continue in that direction.
> 
> Perhaps you might have noticed that I only had been addressing this pervert
> issue of Constance's when attacks were aimed at me directly.
> 
>  TH> I think that if the resident hate-spewers are handled properly, this
>  TH> recent spike in hostility will die down.
> 
> I think you are talking about Constance here.  As she has been spewing her 
hate
> at me, she's receiving it in kind, as should be expected.


I wasn't referring to Constance.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.