>It certainly wasn't meaning it unkindly. I keep coming up against an idea,
>predominantly USAmerican, but not exclusively, that beliefs may be adjusted
>as if they were tactical assumptions
>
>and the element in your remark which I judged rightly or wrongly to be less
>than ironic seemed to be going in that direction. if that's wrong i withdraw
>it
Yup, it's wrong. Have you ever seen anything in my writing or list presence
to suggest otherwise?
I don't, incidentally, think that all Brits kill each other at football
matches.
>i have no desire to return the tone i believe i heard (no irony on believe)
>in your post - otherwise i wouldnt have jumped in; and i wasnt the only one
>to hear that tone
"and I wasn't the only one to hear that tone" is what we call in my old
profession "passive aggressive behavior." It's designed not to convey
information but to bolster a shaky position and incidentally generate paranoia.
I tend to write with extreme economy, which I suppose opens what I say to
all manner of interpretation as to tone. In this case I certainly had no
intention to be unkind, tho I was certainly shall we say amused at the
thought that those of us who aren't believers somehow failed to achieve
their full humanity.
I don't, by the way, think that Peter meant to be demeaning--I'm not sure
he meant anything at all. It would be good to know.
OK, gotta run--there's a buffalo out front that needs shooting.
Mark
|