From: catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco)
Subject: Re: NHL LETTER & Roger's Response
Organization: Night People
Lines: 35

Again I assume this is not just flame bait by Roger, but actually a
truly held opinion.  

In article <1993Apr26.004705.24794@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>I would say that the letter clearly implies representation of the views of
>a group that I belong to.  And I don't share those views.  And I don't
>believe that the majority of posters on r.s.hockey share those views. 
>And so I have no intention of allowing them to simply "go ahead" without
>making my feelings on the subject clear.

Thanks.  For speaking for all those who didn't feel it was important
enough to say something themselves.  

I wouldn't say that the letter clearly implies representation of the
views of a group that you belong to.  It represents a subset (that you
don't belong to) of a larger group (which you do, if only because this
isn't a moderated group).

Look, there are several ways to state an opposing viewpoint.  Three
that come to mind are as follows:

1) Say it subtly.  Result: it may not be clear.
2) Say it directly yet politely.  Result: probably it will spark some 
   interesting conversation.
3) Say it directly and obnoxiously.  Result: validity goes right out
   the window.

>I would agree that unwarranted use of said term is entirely immature.

You realize that anything you say can, and most certainly will, be
used against you.

-- 
Paul W. Francisco        	    In the shadow an angel cries...
catcher@netcom.com                      - Front Line Assembly
