Re: Doggeral

[Brian Flynn <bkflynn@email.unc.edu>]

Yup, middle ground is dangerous.  There seems to have been some 
confusion, so let me restate that I agree neither with the original post, 
nor with the way it was posted.  The anonymous shot was, IMHO, cheap.  

But I still maintain that, _in_certain_cases_, it is the _safest_ 
course of action.

Again - Sometimes the safest thing is to say nothing.  If you have to say 
something in a bad situation, saying it anonymously is _safest_.  The 
honorability of doing this is another question entirely.

One more time - I am talking about no reprisals.  I am not considering 
honor in this.

There, I've said it three ways.  Just a thought - has anyone asked Cuan 
what he thinks of this?

On Wed, 24 May 1995, Nik Hughes wrote:

[deletia]

> My Pet Peeve is people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves 
> and their actions. We have silly waiver rules because of this problem. 
> This anonymous doggerel is another example. Here we have someone who 
> runs down members of the kingdom, but doesn't want to face the 
> consequences.

[much good stuff deleted]

> without spreading them about. The sin is not voicing an unpopular 
> opinion. The sin is lack of responsibility. This person didn't have to 
> voice the opinion at all and certainly could have voiced in a more 
> constructive fashion.

Agreed.  My point though is that with some recipients, the sin IS 
voicing an unpopular opinion.  There are just some people who can't take 
criticism.  Apparently, this person did feel that they had to voice an 
opinion.  I just wish they had chosen to do it with a little more tact 
and in a more responsible manner.

Uther