|
|
Posted by Connie Pierce on 03/26/06 08:49
In article <MPG.1e8faf7191ea79989860@news.isp.com>, Neredbojias
<invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
> ><snipped for length>
> > No, but you have to understand that your opinion may not wash in
> > certain circumstances. In the circum. of the crime-ridden streets, the
> > best choice might be to have those cameras. It's certainly cut down on
> > drive-bys and gang violence.
>
> I _do_ understand that! Special circumstances beget special conditions.
> No problemo. Say I got a flat tyre and found myself walking in one of
> "those" areas around 10:00 pm. Do you think I _wouldn't_ want video
> surveillance?
LOL, I can relate. I am absolutely addicted to my cell phone - not
because I like to talk, though. Once, when my kids were 11 mo and 4, I
was driving on a very dadrk, very lonely "country road" when my clutch
cable broke. I was over 2 hours away from home. Anyway, I had to wait
on the side of the road, huddled on the floorboards with my kids
(really dark, really scary - one of the worst places to be stranded in
those days) for 6 hours waiting for the hubby to come looking for us.
FTR, we huddled on the floorboards to make it seem as if it were an
abandoned car - that there weren't a woman and two babies left
stranded. Didn't want to advertise our presence, you know.
>
> > Mainly, the person who takes a limo to work everyday might not complain
> > about higher gas prices, but the lil guy driving a 30 yo Pacer - well
> > for him, it HURTS. In the case of being searched at the airport, it
> > might be a pain in the ass, but it COULD prevent a hijacking (no
> > flaming, anyone, please for that one - just putting another example out
> > there). EOS, you have to weigh your inconvenience in one hand and the
> > lives it could save in the other. To me, at the risk of being flamed or
> > accused of being mindless, I'd rather suffer a bit of delay and
> > irritation vs not preventing someone else's suffering or death.
> >
> > That's why I spoke of someone picking their nose on the street and
> > being VTd as being a consequence of stupid behavior. If ten guys are
> > caught picking their noses on tape (and being laughed at for it - and
> > yeah, I'd laugh - c'mon, it's gross!!), but 2 kids get to grow up (not
> > being shot like dogs in the street by a Crip or Blood - those there are
> > PLENTY more gangs out there), I look at those ten guys and shrug.
> >
> > But I only got defensive (and probably insulting) because you didn't
> > ask WHY I thought the way I did. You accused me of being a mindless
> > puppet who just listens to political rhetoric. If you had ASKED instead
> > of flaming the crap out of me, I would have explained why. But instead,
> > not only did you accuse me of being mindless, you called me "dark" and
> > so on.
>
> Uh, I didn't really think I was "flaming the crap out of" you. I talk
> to everybody that way.
It felt that way - but bear in mind that I'm a total newbie at this
Usenet thing. (: Too, I have an AWFUL temper. At least, that's what the
hubby tells me! ( ;
>
> Anyhow, I believe you and one or two others made some comments
> rhetorically asking what the difference would be if we had video cameras
> in all public places. I responded by suggesting there would be a
> difference and it would (not could but would) eventually lead to a
> severe abridgement of our freedoms as we know them today.
Yes, I agree. I woudn't want them in EVERY public place. But the ones
that have the highest crime where it could some GOOD, yes. I'd be fine
with that.
And I wouldn't be fine with one in a dressing room, either! ( ; My
"sins" should remain a secret! LOL
>
> > > On another subject, I was terrifically surprised at O. Hatter's reply to
> > > one of the posts in the thread. I really didn't think he had that much
> > > sense and wisdom in him. You seem to know him better than most so I'll
> > > ask you why does he go into "cuss-word/sarcasm mode" so often? It makes
> > > him look like a child and/or fool. I _know_ he is better than that, but
> > > he seems to like to make himself look ridiculous. Any ideas?
> >
> > Yeah, I have a couple. Hat can be an utter ass, but as I've said (and
> > gotten HUGELY flamed for), he's also intelligent and well-thought out
> > sort of guy. Can he be arrogant? Yep. Can he be an ass? Yep, again. But
> > the basics of his intelligence ARE there and ARE considerable.
> >
> > Personally, I think when it's related to art, talent, or technical
> > skill, he expects attack. How many people here have given him
> > reasonable answers to his requests for critiques? Very, very few. Most
> > say "Yeah, your site sucks." They don't say, "Oh, well I like this, and
> > this, but don't do this because of this." Fred, in another thread, gave
> > reasonable critique and suggestions to Hat's design and didn't get
> > flamed for it. Connection? I think so.
>
> Yeah, I agree with you there. The replies are not always as gentlemanly
> as they could be. And that means "gentlewomanly" as well. There's this
> one broad, Barbara de Zoete (I think correct sp.) who used to be the
> biggest bitch you'd ever want to see. Yes, she's better now because I
> believe enough people told her how she was acting and she realized it
> herself, but Boy! - in the old daze! The Wicked Witch of the West
> seemed like Tinkerbell in comparison. I can understand someone being so
> daunted by frustration that it manifests itself in unusual ways, but to
> display such behaviour in something as non-intimate as a newsgroup
> posting...? Of course men can be pissy, too, and I certainly don't wish
> to display a bias toward the excessively emotional nature of the typical
> woman.
Ugh, I rarely get along with women. I don't get into the whole
backstabbing thing. Or the whole vanity thing. And my sense of humor is
typically more a long the lines of a man's - onee of the reasons I
thought it was perfectly fine to admit that I thought Hat was funny. I
liked Sam Kinison, too. And Denis Leary . . . Hat reminds of those
guys . . .
But as to Hat, he can be pissy, but he's intelligent when he does it.
Instead of just saying "Fuck you" or "Up yours" he gets clever. And if
I'm going to be insulted, I'd like it if it was at the very least a
creative insult. ( ;
That being said, I DO feel sorry for the average schmuck who posts for
the first time, asking an innocent question. It's rouogh seeing them at
Hat's mercy. The first time I ever talked to Hat was in my trying to
defend some poor schmuck Hat verbally reamed. While I still feel sorry
for the odd joe he attacks, I don't interfere anymore. It does no good
.. . .
But I've been able to talk to Hat off and on, and he's even more
intelligent when he's being decent. Well, I thnk it's smarter to say
that it's a different intelligence. The attacking Hat is clever, witty,
and harsh. The non-attacking (AKA contributing) Hat is thoughtful,
insightful and wise. Someone once posted that they thought he was two
people . . . but I maintain that there is one and only Hat. ( ;
>
> > Just MHO. And watch, yet again, I'm sure I'll get flamed for it. I hope
> > you're wearing an asbestos suit. ( :
>
> Er, some like it hot.
And some don't. Sometimes, I don't mind being flamed. Miimic pissed me
off, flaming me a few days/weeks back and I got REALLY pissed off. I do
that more often nowadays. I used to worry about doing that - worrying
that I might go too far and hurt someone's feelings. But I'm learning
more about the Usenet and what's okay. And if you're flamed, I've
learned it's okay to flame right back.
But still, I thought I should warn you that saying ANYTHING nice or
reasonably decent about Hat is cause for flaming. It seemed the fair
thing to do.
BTW, I don't often see your name pop up here - can I ask what your
"home group" is? Just curios, since you're a designer and I know only
about 2 designer's groups!
--
C Pierce
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|