triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Knock-offs WANTEED

To: John Peacock <pearesto@totcon.com>
Subject: Re: Knock-offs WANTEED
From: SUCHAK <suchak@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:03:23 -0500
Cc: triumphs@Autox.Team.Net
References: <199711171306.GAA06491@triumph.cs.utah.edu>
Hey John..

I suspect that in a medium such as e-mail, where there is an absence of
the usual visual cues found in "normal" conversation, that jokes and
sarcasm are easy to misunderstand...  For some reason I seem to "set
people off" when I least expect it, so I guess I need to be more
careful.  I certainly don't want to be responsible for squelching
discussion on the list, as you suggested the net result of my exchange
with Joe might have done.

Thanks,
John

-- 
Come see us on the Web!
http://www.jacksonville.se.mediaone.net/~suchak/home.htm


John Peacock wrote:
> 
> I am not sure that it really matters anymore the original poster will
> probably never ask another question again for fear of starting a brawl.  I
> think that we all sometimes take things to heart that maybe we should not.
> I am no exception, as I got angry about a couple of TR7 jokes on the TR7
> list.  They were in kindof bad taste but I overreacted and caused an uproar
> unintentionally.  I think people should be careful what they say and others
> should not take things so personally.
> 
> I want to stress that this is not meant to cause another argument simply an
> observation and an opinion.
> 
> John
> 
> ----------
> > From: SUCHAK <suchak@mediaone.net>
> > To: Larry Wilcox <lwilcox@webzone.net>
> > Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Knock-offs WANTEED
> > Date: Sunday, November 16, 1997 6:33 PM
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > Your "correction" of my interpretation of my role in my moth to flame
> > analogy seems to be somewhat unnecessary..  Clearly I considered myself
> > to be the "flame" that attracts the nut cases, so I'm not sure what your
> > point is...
> >
> > All I did was post a (correct) part number, and then point out to Joe
> > that it was in fact correct after he leaped to dispute it.  Thats it.
> > If that's "inflammatory", I guess I must be...
> >
> > (And as long as we *have* to continue this discussion, I'm not the one
> > throwing around threats about "sticking one's neck out", so who's really
> > the inflammatory one?!?!?)
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --
> > Come see us on the Web!
> > http://www.jacksonville.se.mediaone.net/~suchak/home.htm

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>