Subj : Echo in shambles, sorry
To   : Todd Henson
From : Joseph Voigt
Date : Sat Nov 04 2000 08:15 am

Saturday November 04 2000 09:11, TODD HENSON wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT:

 >>  TH> Well, it seems our echo is in shambles. Looking back over the
 >>  TH> last week or so, I try to review what part I played in that
 >>  TH> process, because after all I am a participant also.
 >>
 >> Actually, it all started with you with that epithet of yours.

 TH> The really bad part started with your arrival.

That's when the good part started... well -before- the shambles.

 >>  TH> I also regret being, shall we say a bit overzealous, in naming
 >>  TH> Joe as an insane pervert. Yes Joe, I am speaking to you.I'm
 >>  TH> 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
 >>  TH> they 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
 >>  TH> "Joe, that was a perverted response, which implies clear
 >>  TH> agreement with the teaching of perversion as a matter of
 >>  TH> bucking the JudeoChristian value system", because that was the
 >>  TH> 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. I leave it up to you to decide whether
 >> there is a difference in 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.

 TH> You can "call" me on it if you wish,

I already did.  See above.

 TH> but I say it was a perverted response,

Then you are incorrect.

 TH> and can only speculate as to your intentions, given the
 TH> nature of your various other posts.

No need to, as I've already said I have none.  My reasons for posting though, 
I've already made clear.

 >>  TH> I can certainly apologize for whatever part I may have played
 >>  TH> in the beginning, but I can't rationally be held responsible
 >>  TH> for the way that someone here may choose to continue to harp in
 >>  TH> the above issue and use it as an excuse to rant and rave. So
 >>  TH> for me, the issue is 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.

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

Sure she was.  The fact that you won't admit to it, tells me you are being 
dishonest with yourself.

 >>  TH> But as I said, I can't be held responsible for how people
 >>  TH> choose to continue to exaggerate some issues and continue in
 >>  TH> 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,
 >>  TH> this 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.

 TH> I wasn't referring to Constance.

Sure, you were.  You just won't admit to it, or are just fooling yourself.

.... If you have a problem with homosexuals, don't have sex with any.
--- FastEcho 1.46 (reg)
 * Origin: The Danse - Where Norse Gods Ponder Their Navels (1:387/638)

.