sigrun
Posts: 1023
Joined: 7/18/2003
From: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline
|
G'day BM
quote:
Sigrun, I do believe you were being quite harsh on Stykaas in your first post.
And I would respond - not at all. As my yet unrequited courtesy and friendly intent clarified clearly in my second post to him.
If you care to re-read the entire thread verbatim yourself, you'll note that my first post in this thread to which you presumably refer was in response to and addressing comments made by shortman. In that post, I made a singular remark, far from inaccurate in regard to the thread header, that "The question itself is silly, and one doesn't have to look for what the original poster was seeking by how he framed his question.".
To wit.
Strykaas has made in excess of 460 posts on this forum in English in just 7 months since joining in March, an average in excess of 2 per day every day. And he has presumably read considerably more...in English. He certainly understands how to use angry bee "smileys" along with the usenet derived conventions of "shouting" and "foot stamping" and an acquired rudeness which were inarguably deliberate and demonstratively indicative of considerably greater comprehension of both language and convention than he otherwise cares to let on - and of which you excuse him? Despite his expressed indignation and threat to 'take his ball home and not play on RCU any more', he is still around reading this thread as you are undoubtedly aware - I saw him perusing here again yesterday - as well as participating in other threads. 
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that one doesn't have to be a potential Mensa candidate to logically determine that his grasp of the English language and convention is sufficiently adequate, and in fact wasn't the culprit of the manner in which he expressed himself in the header or text of the thread to which we now refer despite his belated protestations to the contrary having subsequently picked up on his faux pas. Though English is presumably (?) not his first language and does allow a convenient and face saving "benefit of the doubt" out...which was proffered with a grace considerably more commendable than the reciprocal appreciation.
As I took considerable time at the time to point out accurately, succinctly and yet politely, strykaas's attitude by implication to C/L further expressed in the context of several comments he made during the thread before I commented gave the game away to anyone with an IQ numerically greater than their own shoe size despite his later vociferous extortations of contrary intent when he 'read' the mood. Clearly he gave many others the same impression. You may choose to believe his exhortations if you wish. I don't, but didn't and still don't choose to make issue of it further. In fact to the contrary as my final post to his uncalled for rudeness and indignation makes quite clear. As such and I find your public criticism of my courteously expressed right of reply not only uncalled for, but aimed at totally the wrong target. By way of example, I don't agree with your opinion that I was harsh, but note the courtesy and respect with which I respond addressing the issue non ad hominem?
I contend that I had a right to courteously express my opinion in my post to shortman, and my first post to styrkaas was made in reasonable right of reply in response to his own, as is this.
quote:
By that time we had already determined that his unfortunate tone was unintended, unfortunate and had much to do with his lack of familiarity with English.
Au contraire. Unless you are reading an entirely different thread from me, according to English 'as she is spoke' and any definition of logic with which I am familiar, I would contend that you are mistaken.
quote:
The tone of his post had been brougt up and dealt with to the satisfaction of all and did not need your harsh words added to the heap.
Need one point out the all too obvious self-irony in that sentence? 
What "harsh words" are you referring to specifically? If you are referring to my second post addressed to strykaas, are you suggesting that I shouldn't have reasonable right of reply? In fact if you wish to remonstrate, I suggest you remonstrate his rudeness and behaviour, as in my post I was not only courteous of which given his manner it could be argued he was undeserving, but kept my comments friendly, civil and relevant to the thread rather than replicating strykaas's own indulgance in shouting and a totally unnecessary emotive outburst.
quote:
Perhaps if you'd taken the time to read all the posts and look between the lines? (Ooh, I made a pun )
With respect that statement deserves, this is a written medium. Perhaps if you took your own advice? Re-read what I said, in the context I said it, the manner in which I said it, and why I said it...along with the context of my subsequent quite friendly invitational post to strykaas all made abundantly clear.
quote:
And for the record there is NOTHING IN MODELING that I have ever done that can equal the excitement of control line combat.
With which I concur. It's nice to close agreeably on common ground - wouldn't you agree? 
cheers
< Message edited by sigrun -- 10/18/2003 4:54:35 AM >
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Control Lines >> RE: Why not move on to R/C ? 
RE: Why not move on to R/C ? - 
RE: Why not move on to R/C ? - 
) 
