On 2007-01-25, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:53:38 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>> Hmm. Three comments, all in quotations, thus claiming to be quotes from
>>> the original source. Not a one of them actually from said original source.
>>>
>>> If you're going to lie, at least _try_ to make it remotely convincing.
>>
>> Maybe that's just the characterstic of new incarnation od Hadron Quark. He
>> ran away and nymshifted when we exposed him as 'Hans Schneider'.
>
> Good goat.
>
> You know... not everyone wants to read everything I post. I ruffle a few
> feathers sometimes. Fine, great, dandy. Here's the kicker: I accept this
> and _stick_ with a _single_ ident. Occasional minor changes, such as
> using a different email address, but anyone seriously interested in seeing
> me go bye-bye is not exactly hard-pressed to do so.
>
> The reason for this is simple... I'm not perfect, I make endless mistakes,
> I can - like anyone - hold entirely mistaken views of some things and so
> forth. However, I have at least enough integrity to say look, if you
> don't want to read my stuff... don't.
I think my approach, or reasoning, behind keeping to a single identity
is because when people see my name on a post, I hope they can expect a
reasonable argument, not a flamefest. It's very much like product
branding. When one sees a name on a post, one can be reasonably sure
that the post contained therein will be of the same quality as previous
posts.
> Why can't these twits have even _that_ much integrity?
Because the _quality_ of their posts is such that the brand sinks to
below a readable level quite quickly, killing the brand. Change the name
and the populace may try it again. Different brand, must be of differing
quality, right? Well, you can wrap a bow around a pigs neck, it's still
a pig.
<snippage>
--
Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.
-- George Bernard Shaw
http://www.websterscafe.com
|
|
