|
In Reply to: Re: When Peter wrote to Jim LaMattery posted by Perry on December 07, 2005 at 16:28:22:
Perry:
I apologize, again, for my clumsy, nerdy attempt at humor.
Actually, I have some time off recently, and I went and read quite a few of your posts on both GeneX as well as Journeys. You seem like an intelligent person who expresses himself very well, and I meant no insult; I apologize.
But, I am not disgruntled, and I was not baiting you--you do seem to have an antichristian grudge; however, and I believe I can infer that honestly from quite a few of your posts.
I understand your bitterness against the cult, but you actually strike me a somewhat of a "PC" bully; at times, who might just be painting with too broad of a brush--most of the time--at least by the posts of yours I took the trouble to read at length--for instance, the way you tore into that foreign sociology researcher, back on Academic/research.
I've seen that that type of treatment of those different is accepted, and even expected on most MovingOn posts. Here, it's merely immature; I'm afraid. You're just not a gentleman.
My heart actually does go out to you regarding quite a few of the experiences you've shared.
But, giving you license to be rude, angry and even self-pitying at times, in my opinion, is just not adult behavior.
I am not baiting anyone--but those PC tend to either directly or indirectly insist on the silence of those who do not choose to believe the same way as a kind of doctrine, I have noticed.
If you will use (Re)Search and check out my posts, it is never with hubris or arrogance that I refer to my IQ--I'm usually making fun of the way Berg bragged, or taking on someone like, say, Carol, who literally said no one without her education should even attempt to communicate with her on any level concerning science, religion, or philosophy. That WAS hubris, and I was answering it matter-of-factly.
I did not intend to come across as arrogant, but I do feel that exers who have gone through the very difficult process of "regaining the brain" as I called it, should be very happy and confident about it, within acceptable limits.
But, lay down the broad brush, OK (?)--that's a tactic called "ad bacculum", or appeal to general assumed knowledge or currently accepted authority--I just don't feel that you embody that kind of authority, and there are probably quite a few things we don't agree on, but could probably discuss intelligently; without you sniping at me then acting all pissy when I try to joke my way out of a situation YOU made uncomfortable.
You're kind of a bully, Perry, I think, and you just don't like people expressing points of view you don't share--I get it.
I think the true offense here is that you DO think you speak for everyone else, and being challenged on it, even as a joke, offends the arrogance you yourself possess as a defense mechanism; I suppose.
It was not an insult, or egregious error on my part, nor was it an attempt to prove that I am certain about my own opinion on every possible subject.
But, should I automatically assume your point of view will always be "reasonable" versus my own assumed "unreasonableness"?
That is an absurdity; I'm sure you realize. It's even petulant and childish.
But I am sure you'll get over it.
I certainly will.
To the allegation that you pose about what you said about "objections to your post concerning Peter have nothing to do with what I do or don't think about him", I say "Baloney!"
Of COURSE almost everyone thinks that about Peter. Now you're being ridiculous, IMO.
Please drop the subject; or , rave on. I really don't post that much these days.
Really...chill. You're embarrassing yourself, Bud.
