[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Michael Moore Responds to All This Crap




Grady ultimately wrote:
> So then Todd wrote:
> > So, are you now speaking for Chris, Ruby, et al?
> >
> > I repeat: you speak for yourself, no matter how much you may want "us" to
> > think you speak for a cadre of like-minded allies.
> > 
> so Todd wrote back:
> >
> > Kinda embarassing, ain't it, that none of us thought to check the headers on
> > the first Michael Moore note, huh?


Um, I never got this message.  Anyway, my beef at the moment is the fact
that what I was saying was obviously not as important as the way in
which I said it.  If the problem is semantics,then fine.  Feel free to
correct my grammar. Perhaps I shouldn't havesaid "we".  That certainly
doesn't give Todd the right to define it for me though, as I meant it to
be inclusive of anyone who felt the same as I at the time.  He didn't
seem to care as much about what he was saying to me as he did about
venting some of his hostility towards me. I've heard you on NHL, Todd,
and I know your method of discourse is "Your wrong, I think this" (a
good thing).  But as intelligent as you are (and prove yourself to be
time and time again), the reply that you wrote doesn't encourage debate
to the drgree in which it encourages aggression and hostility.  I have
no problem with the venting of anger on the old newsgroup.  It tends to
give a person the ability to say things he or she or I (s'that better?) 
might not say in public.  But I do not want to argue about whether or
not I should have used the word 'I'.  I'd rather argue that Sebadoh's
new album has a Toad the Wet Sprocket feel to it.