RC>>> Why do you get repulsed by what you have termed personal
 RC>>> attacks, yet imbibe in it yourself?

 BK>>  I have told you, over and over, I play by the rules of the echo.

 RC> Meaning you dont practice what you preach?

 If you see a man telling his children to behave and not use
 harsh language to people, and not insult people and always speak
 respectfully to others, then the next day see him pushing
 someone up against a wall and telling him to get the hell out of
 here you punk, do you call him a hypocrite, or a cop running a
 drug dealer away from a school?

 If you see a man talking to his buddies about handling a gun
 with respect, and always identifying your target, and never
 being careless, then the next day see him whip around and shoot
 a man in the back, do you call him a hypocrite, and a murderer,
 or a soldier who just saved some of his buddies from an ambush?

 If you see a man talking to some kids playing with knives, and
 telling them cutting peopel up is not a nice thing to do, and
 about not using violence to solve problems, and the next day
 find him slicing someone open, do you call him a hypocrite and a
 violent criminal, or a doctor performing surgery?

 RC> I like Earl Croasmans idea, in fact I will adopt it over
 RC> for CROSSFIRE, like I told you privately there will be
 RC> positive changes for that echo that to some degree on some
 RC> level you might like, but Earl's idea is super.

 Your conduct in this is getting as childish as Earl's. If you
 are as young as you are behaving, then perhaps this might not
 mean anything to you. When I was younger, like in the service
 about 40 years ago, a man did not swear in front of women or
 children.

 A group of men, construction workers, military, truck drivers,
 etc, might swear like stevedores when in a group by themselves,
 but never in the presense of women or children.

 I doubt anybody in the world swears as much as Marines, but when
 the are in the presence of women or children they become as well
 spoken as a preacher.

 Is this hypocricy, or good manners? If a group of marines were
 around where a group of children were passing, and you started
 swearing, those often foul mouthed marines could be expected to
 tell you to watch your language. If you responded fouly, you
 would risk a beatdown. I would be surprised if that was not
 still true. Is that hypocrisy or common decency.

 I don't tell you whether or not to smoke in your own home, but
 if you were in my home I would not allow you to smoke. Is that
 hypocrisy, or reasonable boundaries.

 I have an uncle who smoked, but never in his own home when his
 children lived there. If he was in your home and you smoked he
 would light up with you, but you would not be allowed to smoke
 in his house. Is that hypocrisy, or being willing to sacrifise
 his pleasure for the sake of his children?

 Do you swear? Would you do it on the job? Would you do it in
 church? Is that hypocrisy or just recognizing there is a time
 and place for everything?

 Have you ever given even a moments thought to this? A moment's
 thought that goes beyond your knee-jerk reflex?

 RC>>> Then in other political debate, you decry hypocrisy?

 BK>>  Yep. Still do.

 RC> I think when one decides to become a Preacher or a Priest
 RC> or other Holy Roller, that they are one 24/7/365 and should
 RC> comport themselves the same way no matter where they are at.

 If I was a preacher or priest or other holy roller that would be
 meaningful.

 Or do you say there should never be a place where one can
 restrict what is spoken, yet the same person behave in accord
 with the rules when he goes somewhere else? Remember the old
 rule, the echo belongs to the moderator. He is the owner. So now
 you decide the owner of an echo can never set rules he doesn't
 follow wherever he goes. You don't recognize the value of a
 place where issues can be discussed flame free? You see no value
 in such a thing ever?

 RC>>> This is why I got irritated with you elsewhere.

 BK>>  No, you get irritated because I point out your contribution to
 BK>>  the decline of fidonet.

 RC> HAR!

 RC> I contribute far more to Fidonet, and monetarily, than you
 RC> know.

 All the intervening deleted because it is irrelevant to the
 point.

 ...

 RC> Fidonets decline, for lack of a better word, is for the
 RC> same reason why you no longer see a wide selection of
 ...

 RC> Its the Internet!!!!!

 I did not say you were the sole cause, or even the main cause.
 Your contribution is letting the entirety of fidonet become a
 slime fest. At least that is how you are pushing it.

 More irrelevancy deleted.
 ...

 BK>>  Stop Kissing Hardegree's ass and he'll turn on you also.

 RC> Strawman, I aint kissing no ones ass.

 Bull shit.

 BK>>  Did you send a msg like this to him? Why not? Did you send it to
 BK>>  me because you know I am not going to go postal on you for this?
 BK>>  Are you afraid Hardegree will?

 RC> Stan doesnt preach echo decorum, then deviate from it
 RC> elsewhere..

 AAMOF, yes, he does.

 Hardegree accused me of racism by a guilt by omission, when I
 let one comment about wet backs slip by without comment. That is
 a demand for decorum, yet he let "nigger lover" slip by until I
 called him specifically on it. At that he still objected only to
 the words, not the intent behind them.

 He stood back and let a stream of racism pass him by, with narry
 a word of objection.


 Hardegree, and others, have slammed Ross Sauer endlessly for
 puffing up his military resume, but Hardegree has painted
 himself as a retired army major, without near enough time to
 qualify for that.

 RC> When in Rome, perhaps dont do as the Romans do?

 When in Rome do as the romans do, or die.

 BK>>  After all, above you ascribed as much responsibility to him as
 BK>>  to me.

 RC> and I know he could read this message and probably has.

 Then you should have sent it to him and I would have read it.

 RC>>> So what is the common denominator, perhaps there is a
 RC>>> mutual hate? Hate too strong a word, a harsh emotion
 RC>>> perhaps, but still...

 BK>>  No, Hardegree needs worshipers, or at least the deferential
 BK>>  around him. I do not defer to him, so he hates me.

 RC> Hardegree needs worshippers only because you say he does,
 RC> which doesnt mean he really does.

 Again, look at his behavior. He attacked Frank Scheidt, who is a
 devout Bush loving conservative, but Frank won't kiss up to
 Hardegree.

 He fought it out with Peter Bradie, who is a die hard
 conservative, but wouldn't kiss up to anybody.

 He attacked John Wilson, who is about as innofensive as anyone
 you ever met, and who is a real combat vet, a survivor, though
 somewhat disabled, of some of the hardest combat this country
 has ever seen. Yet Hardegree tries to pass himself off as a
 loyal veteran and supporter of the military.

 He trashed Mimi with comments like "slut" when she did not
 kowtow to him. Now that she kisses up to him she is his little
 pet.

 He stands by and says nothing while his posse trashes the
 honorable military service of those who disagree with him, yet
 those posse trashers have no military record at all. Guilty in
 silence.

 Hell, it's all there. Hardegree want's worshippers, or at least
 lapdogs.

 RC>>> I think you know what he thinks of you and you of him, why
 RC>>> expend the energy, it changes nothing?

 BK>>  Not fighting back would change me.

 RC> How?

 A man must not only be decent, but must be seen to be decent.

 Paraphrased from an old Jewish teaching.

 Oh, and you could have asked Hardegree the same question, why
 didn't you? Oh, I know, you see that I am the better person so
 you think it might get a response from me. Thanks for the vote
 of confidence.

 BK>>  You do not realize how much it says about you that you do not
 BK>>  denounce his nastiness.

 RC> He is consistent, you are not being consistent.

 He is consistently nasty. I only take the attack to those who
 attack.

 RC>>> This rift you have with Stan and others does not leave you
 RC>>> tee-totally absent of any responsibility for it either, or
 RC>>> have you tangoed alone?

 BK>>  Lots of people get hurt in a one sided fight. I chose to fight
 BK>>  back. The attacked is *NOT* guilty of the attack. Don't seek to
 BK>>  spread the guilt for what he does.

 RC> and sometimes it is best to ignore the attacker, which on
 RC> many levels is the same thing as disarming them.

 Tell that to Hardegree. Oh, wait, that's your way of saying you
 recognize that Hardegree is the one guilty of attack, so you
 suggest I step back. I see, again, thanks for the vote of
 confidence.

 RC> If you let them know that what they said garnered a
 RC> reaction, then they continue to press.

 IOW, you admit Hardegree is the guilty one. If not, you would
 have addressed all this to him. Not doing so would be kissing
 his ass. And we all know you wouldn't do that.

 If you institute that rule in your echo you will be amazed how
 it turns out.

 You will have to enforce it equally, or show yourself as the
 hypocrite.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Getting your hands dirty isn't bad, it's getting your soul dirty that is.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a