In my defense:
a) it was in direct reply to a post in which Wesley himself stepped rather above a reasonable tone (was 'nasty and stepped beyond polite' in Wesleys own words).
b) I considered adding a smiley at the time, but refrained because I thought for such a stupid childish insult it would be obvious it was not intended very seriously already. Obviously that was a poor judgement. So I will make it explicit. No serious insult was intended (though I did disagree with Wesleys expressed position). c) if Wesley asks for an apology or otherwise indicates he is really offended, he will get one.
d) hopefully, you are not happy with two words (or at most one message in response to Wesleys) I have contributed to the discussion, as I looked at the last few things I said, and not only did they seem reasonable, but I actually got noted for constructive contribution. If you mean you are not happy with that single message, please say so. If you actually mean you are unhappy with the tone of my contributions overall, I would respectfully ask you to be more explicit as to why.
e) yes, I was rather grumpy at the time. I thought Wesleys post was unnecessarily negative, and reacted to that. The chances are high that in general I will be nicer. And/or more liberal with the smilies.
At 11:53 PM +0200 22/6/00, Julian Lord wrote:
> > >Hmmm ... why don't we change the name of this list to Glorantha Digest 2 ?
>> Hey, I quoted no obscure sources, was brief and straight to
>> the point, and my insult was far too lowbrow.
>sorry for getting involved in this.
Whoops, forgot that damn smiley again. That comment was intended as a mildly humourous comment on the Digest style of debate.
PS mildly confused, because I thought I was ruder to Wesley later in the same message, and mildly miffed that everyone seems to think that if I really wanted to insult someone, that would be the level of eloquence I would choose.
Powered by hypermail