Klarinet Archive - Posting 000554.txt from 2001/07

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Differences in language
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:41:01 -0400

I`m sorry Roger, But you are wrong again. I`m not angry at all, just
disappointed, (do you see how easy it is to slip up, and misinterpret text
and meanings). I`m not going to involve myself in personal explanations or
accusations because none of us know each other at all, and it would be quite
wrong to do so after a <communal> discussion. I feel that I don`t want to
get into a "one to one" involvement, as this is not the reason I signed up
originally for. Please try to not take my getting out as a personal slight
against you.

But I will say this. Your posts were not insulting. They were, (as other
contributors were,) mis-directed towards other issues. <I> was hasty in
using the term unintelligent to describe contributors also, and I will
withdraw this. It was caused when the debate moved away from the subject
onto a personal track, as a result of which I found I could no longer keep
to the subject myself, but had to continually fight, to correct mistaken
thoughts about my philosophies.

You are indeed an articulate and challenging debater, and I think klarinet
is very lucky to have you contributing so much - much more so, in my op.
than other considerably talented players.

We will talk again - - - - -

Best Wishes,

Tony.

----- Original Message -----
From: <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subject: Re: [kl] Differences in language

> To Tony W.:
>
> I don't know.........I just can't figure it out.
>
> I have re-read the posts for the discussion that you abruptly and angrily
> discontinued, and I just don't see how my posts were insulting or lacking
> in intelligence. For the points I asked for clarification on, I didn't
> think I was rude - and I certainly didn't bash anyone.
>
> I don't see how my posts could have been interpreted the way you described
> them. So - even though I was the main responder to your opinions (with my
> own), and even though mine was the last one you read before sending the
> angry response that said the people arguing with you were not intelligent
> (!), I have to assume you were referring to someone else. But I can't be
> sure - because you didn't specify - you just kind of lumped everyone who
> responded into the non-intelligent bin - I guess because they didn't agree
> with you (?). That seems fairly harsh to me - but - I might have
> misunderstood - or you might have just been angry and didn't make it clear
> enough.
>
> At any rate - I hope you are able to get over your anger. I certainly
> wasn't angry with you!
>
> And you are right - Annie's post was nice.
>
> Best wishes,
> Roger Garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org