Fwd: RC: Re: ENOUGH!

[SandyDSA@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/29/99 6:35:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, cyclone@snet.net
writes:

<< And may the weak-willed beware.
  >>
Well, then, what about the children - and how about those who are genuinely
offended by this kind of childish nonsense? Unfortunately now, this has been
the ONLY list I allow my VERY horsey daughter to EVER view. weak-willed? I
don't think so. Young? Sensitive - to others? Yes indeed. Offended?
Absolutely.  What I don't understand personally is why this didn't go private
in the beginning.  The CONFLICT matters much less than the low class way it
was aired. SOME of us TRIED to steer the convo back to more current and
lighter subjects and you guys just wouldn't let it be. Again, if you CAN'T say
anything nice....
s

---- Begin included message ----

• To: Tivers@aol.com, Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>, ralston@aesop.rutgers.edu
• Subject: RC: Re: ENOUGH!
• From: dave & abby bloxsom <cyclone@snet.net>
• Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:33:55 -0500
• CC: Ridecamp <ridecamp@endurance.net>
• References: <41198fa7.370025ee@aol.com>
• Reply-To: cyclone@snet.net
• Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:35:14 -0800 (PST)
• Resent-From: ridecamp@endurance.net
• Resent-Message-ID: <"QVUYc3.0.657.YX30t"@starfish>
• Resent-Sender: ridecamp-request@endurance.net

Tivers@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 3/29/99 3:43:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, SandyDSA
writes:
> 
> << Rather than risk a repeat of the nonsense,  just knock it off, guys! Tom,
> your last post was following NUMEROUS posts from people who had heard
enough.
> I agree. Don't send any more of this to the list.  I didn't botehr to read
it
> - but it is past annoying.
>  s >>
> 
> If you didn't bother to read it, then how can you have anything useful to
say
> about it? This is an important issue, to others besides me and the Guardians
> of Past Pronouncements. Judging from your post, your interest seems purely
an
> emotional one. If my answer to your post is annoying to you, I don't know
what
> I can tell you except that I'm perfectly willing to answer any and all posts
> directed at me candidly and clearly--and always will. If you find that
> objectionable, there is a solution--train your invective elsewhere.
Certainly
> there will be some who are cowed by it, providing, I guess, a sense of
> accomplishment in your neck of the woods.
> 
> ti

I've been trying really hard to stay out of this thread, but since you
guys have all decided to bash Tom for contributing, I guess I'll stand
up here in the middle (where the bullets fly by) and say "Keep it
coming!"

I've said this before, but I have to commend Tom and The Susans for
being willing to air their respective scientific opinions in public.  I
honestly believe most of the slinging is tongue-in-cheek anyway, so I'm
inclined to chuckle while I read it all.

I've learned so much from watching/reading/paying attention, and it
REALLY challenges my critical thinking about ALL science.  I think it
helps to thicken everyone's skin by getting into this instead of being
turned off by it.  So go ahead - if you have a scientific opinion, yell
about it!  Then invite your worthy opponent out for a cup o' joe.

My obligatory endurance-related statement for this Would-be Short
Diatribe is that I KNOW FOR SURE that my horses are healthier and I am a
much more clever owner because of the lively debate.  I assume there are
others out there who agree with me. (?)

So thanks again, and have at it!  And may the weak-willed beware.

-Abby Bloxsom
Connecticut


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

---- End included message ----