Text 17740, 87 rader
Skriven 2007-08-25 11:53:33 av Carl (4217.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Newsgroup back!
===========================

"Wendy of NJ" <voxwoman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2le0d3h2i18ajsgmt7nbscl0gkrrcdith5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:53:52 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:<snip>

>>I've mentioned before that I've had women scream a tirade at me because
>>I opened the door for them because I was demeaning them.
>
> Well, maybe those women were also drunk/on drugs at the time. They
> certainly weren't properly socialized.

The times it's happened before I just blew it off or decided to smile.
That sometimes seems to make it worse for some reason, they take
my attitude as a failure on their part to properly condition me or 
something.

The most extreme of cases that I'm thinking of was at an entrance
to a professional building with a woman that gave me the impression
of someone accustomed to dominating business meetings.

This one particular woman became particularly abusive, as though
she felt she had to establish herself as some kind of superior to me.
Strange attitude, actually.


<snip>

>>You're suggesting that someone has to be perfect in order to criticize
>>someone else about anything?
>
> No, but I *AM* suggesting that someone be SOBER AND DRUG-FREE before I
> take whatever comes out of their pie-holes seriously. Rantings of
> drunks and druggies are more suitable for an episode of "Cops" rather
> than a politically-oriented opinion talk show.
>
> People get really weird (and often very paranoid) ideas into their
> heads while under the influence. And I don't think policy should be
> made (or suggested) by those who are under the influence. (Ever hear
> someone once they have sobered up recanting pretty much everything
> they said/did the previous evening?)

The women that I am referring to were not drunk.  It's happened several 
times.

> But then, I don't think convicted felons should get a public soapbox,
> either. *cough* Ollie North *cough*
>

I thought his conviction was overturned.  Maybe not.  I dont' recall.

If you're expecting all speakers to be perfect, then there will be a lot 
more
silence in the world...which would be a good thing, but not likely to 
happen.

He gets his say.  Everyone gets their say, they just don't have a right to
be heard.  *IF* what someone has to say is interesting enough to others,
someone gives that person a bigger soap box.  The more people, the bigger 
the
soap box.

You may or may not agree with those opinions, but that is not a
valid basis by which to determine whether someone's view
should be heard.  I would argue that it's *much* more important to
listen to the opinions of people that you disagree with than it is
to listen to others that share your beliefs.

Richard Nixon...for all his faults (and he had a lot of them) was still,
years after he left office someone with a more informed and coherent
view of world politics than most of our current political leaders of
either party.  His actions did not invalidate his opinions.

Likewise, while I don't think Bill Clinton should be the person
to express opinions on sexual harassment or how to
act professionally with interns, his opinions in
other areas are certainly not invalidated.

Carl

Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier.
    Blore's Razor


Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)