Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!news.service.uci.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!tclock
From: tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Nntp-Posting-Host: orion.oac.uci.edu
Message-ID: <2BCF3455.26986@news.service.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 25
Date: 16 Apr 93 22:33:57 GMT
References: <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <2BCE0918.6105@news.service.uci.edu> <Apr16.182858.51611@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>

In article <Apr16.182858.51611@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes:
>In article <2BCE0918.6105@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>|> In article <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes:
>
>[.....]
>
>|> Your view of this entire matter is far too serenely one-sided and
>|> selectively naive.
>
>Oooh... now THAT hurts.  I will not suffer you through more naive
>and one-sided views of mine.   Please skip my articles in the future
>Oh Wise Tim, and have a good day.
>
>Basil

What is the point in throwing out one-sided viewpoints (which means:
ignoring that the "other side's" perspective and experience HAS ANY 
LEGITIMACY) while assuming that "your side" possesses no faults and 
bears no responbility for ANY of the negative impacts of a particular 
event? Isn't the former onesided? Isn't the latter naive? If you feel 
that my opinion is wrong then please tell me how. "Strategic withdrawal" 
under the cover of a snide remark seems to be the favored tactic on this
net but doesn't accomplish anything.


