Winners, Losers and character tests

Dennis Putnam dap at ILINKS.NET
Sun Oct 20 22:20:14 MDT 1996

On Sun, 20 Oct 96 17:34:51 PDT  , Willaim Thurber - MKTG PhD
Student wrote:

> I think if one advocates a position that is tested and loses then one =

is a
> loser.  If one wins one is a winner.  The state is temporary, lasting =

> until the next battle.  The label says nothing about the virtue of
> position nor one's character.  It is the reaction to the win but more
> dramatically the loss that tests one's character.
> The choice is up to each of you.  If the current trends hold, will you
> blame the media, big labour, and apathy of a stupid electorate or
will you
> accept that some combination of message and messenger failed to
win the
> day?

--------- End quoted message ----------

So if I understand you any time one tries to determine the cause of a
loss that is considered, by you, to be a poor loser. Is that right? Also,=

when one tries to reason why one lost then what ever possibilities
one comes up with is considered blame. Is that right as well?

Since it has been determined by survey that 57% of those polled
admited they did not trust Clinton but will vote for him anyway, then it =

is considered a poor loser that questions the wisdom of why those
poeple would do what they did. Again am I right?

If the media provably distorts the truth from one side and refuses to
challange mis-information from the other, questioning that is being a
poor loser. Am I getting this right?

I need to understand your definition of a poor loser in order to
continue this discussion. However, if this is indeed your definition
then I will admit I am a poor loser by your definition. That being said, =

in the works of Henry "nostrilomus maximus" Waxman, "So what?"
You've changed the commonly accepted defintion of a poor loser so
as to make it apply to every person that loses a challange thus
making it a meaningless term.
Dennis Putnam
Loganville, Ga.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list