Character -Reply -Reply

Dennis Putnam putnamd at ATLODBS1.HAYES.COM
Tue Apr 30 11:40:18 MDT 1996

> Quote that specifically, please.

On 29 Apr you wrote:

   "... I also know that there are many people who truly need help.
   How do we reconcile that?  Oh, I forgot.  We privatize it.  Kind of like -
   let someone else do it, and leave me alone."

Here you are saying I will not help those that truely need it and quite
sarcastically at that. The implication is clear that you believe I am too
greedy and uncompassionate to help the 'truely needy' unless the government
forces me to give them money via taxes. How can I not be insulted and angered
over this ridicilous implication when ou have no idea who I am or what I will
do without government intervention.

> Great.  And I am asking about the 14%.

My point was that private charities that you disdained above were doing fine
until government meddling and social engineering. The government program
reversed the downward trend and cost $5T.

> Please point out - exactly - where I said anything about Mr. Clinton doing

On 29 Apr- in response to my discussion about what the welfare state has
done and Clinton's support of it you said:

   "And I have said, many times, that I disagree with that."

Thus my question what has Clinton done that is the basis of the disagreement?

> No, sir.  You read that in all by yourself.

I don't have to be hit with a truck to get a point. How else can I possibly
interpret your statement above. Don't say you didn't mean me specifically. I
see nothing in that statement that excludes me, I'm afraid you covered me with
that huge paint brush of generalization and I was offended.

> I don't, and never claimed to.  I did not say word one about you personally.
> If you want to resent something, then at least be accurate about it.

Again, your certainly did say so. You implied I would not help the needy unless
the government confiscates my money and gives it to them. Accuracy? You made
a generalization about what I and others would or would not do then you
accuse be of being innacurate?

> No personal accusation.  You just reacted.

Again, I saw nothing in that generalization that excluded me. Who did you mean
then? My relatives, my firends. Just who is included in this group of people
you claimed will not help the needy without government interference?

> I am beginning to believe that in this group, a question is indeed seen as an
> accusation.

If your statement was a question I sure don't the the appropriate punctuation
and the form is completely wrong.

> Who's making assumptions here?

Your statement certainly does.

> Reread the article.  Carefully.  I never said anyone should be forced to do
> anything.  Please show me that statement.  You can't.  It isn't there.  Please
> show me the statement(s) that accused you personally of anything - or in any
> way questioned your character.  You can't. They're not there.

It is and I did above.

> Am I making implications about a philosophy?  You bet, and I have the articles
> and quotes here that make me question that philosophy and its range.  If I have
> something to say to you personally, I'll say it.  I won't resort to
> implications.  Again, show me where I accused you of anything personally or
> made any personal reference to your character.  Show me where I said you should
> be forced to do anything.  You are the one wielding accusations that I accused
> you personally - point them out.
> Once again, questions and disagreements are taken as accusations.  If that's
> your interpretation, I can't help that.  That's your own problem.
> I did indeed ask questions.  I asked about what would happen under certain
> circumstances.  Why?  Because I have never seen those certain circumstances
> addressed.  I don't have all of the answers.  So I ask questions.  If questions
> aren't tolerated in this group.  OK.  But what is?  Blind acceptance?  Sorry.
> I won't play that.  Blind acceptance is one of the reasons we're in all the
> trouble we're in.  I would think we would want to stop that, not perpetuate it.

I think the problem between us right now is that you made a general statement
and I am tired of being accused of being greedy and uncompassionate because I
want to eliminate the welfare state which in reality is distructive of the
very humanity it is supposed to help.

In closing I have to say I may have been too harsh and not allowed for the
possibility that you didn't know what you were really saying or you didn't
really say what you meant. I should have questioned that generalization first
but I hear it so often from liberals in congress and in the press that
is has become a mantra. It is intended solely to belittle the opposition
because their postion cannot be defended based on common sense or logic.

Dennis Putnam, Manager
Technical Planning and Services
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.

Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
Hayes or its management.

"Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties ... They safegarded
them." Tanya Mataksa, NRA-ILA Executive Director.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list