Ray (a@b.c) on 12/2/05 wrote:

...

>Hmm. That's a bit stiff.

We may just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I think there is real merit in trying to be polite all
>the time.

Really? For soldiers in combat, for example - or is it possible that you just glibly generalized without really thinking it through?

> You can still tell someone they are being foolish without resorting to name calling.

Indeed I can, and that's exactly what I do when that seems appropriate.

>
>Although I happen to be partially aligned with you in this thread, I tend to find
>your style a little annoying.

I guess that's something that I'll just have to learn to live with unless I'm able to convince you of the need for it.

Not as bad as Paul, but he seems to be trying to hold
>back a bit.

Yes, he does, and I appreciate it. However, that's primarily in discussing technical matters, which can (and should) be discussed on their merits. When it comes to crap like inferring 'sinister' overtones and imputing invidious motives rather than taking people at their word, I tend to favor more direct confrontation.

It may be (though I will stop short of asserting that it *is*) reasonable to turn a blind eye to this kind of McCarthyism when it's confined to a few isolated morons. But when it starts becoming anything resembling de rigueur, IMO it's time to break out the heavy artillery in response.

- bill