In article et,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving
nothing
to understand.

Whatever this means :-)



It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn question
initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.

I don't "demand" that people "guess" my reasoning in any post I make on
Usenet. I don't give a rat's ass who reads what into any reasoning I
might or might not have. Opinion is opinion on Usenet.

Indeed. Usenet is also generally not considered a one-way medium. If one
states an opinion in a public forum, its not unreasonable for that
person to be asked the reasoning for that opinion.

I don't have to
justify my opinion to you any more than you have to justify yours to me.
There are people out here who will agree with what a particular person
has to say, and most certainly those who won't.


And there are still others who will withhold any notions of agreement or
disagreement until they have heard/read the basis for one's opinion.


I'm not in a popularity
context out here. I say what I want to say for the reasons I have in
saying it. The responses will be both pro and con at any given time on
any given topic.
If you're looking for a detailed account for the reasoning behind
everything someone says out here you're going to become very frustrated.
In this case, the man was pushing crash video outside the boundries of
what I (obviously from my cogent comment) consider to be in bad taste.
My reaction to that was a simple one line comment that expressed my
displeasure. "I detest people like you". It really doesn't take any
intelligence to ascertain that I don't like this person. That's all you
need to know. My reasons for disliking him are personal to me. You can
of course comment as you have, expressing whatever countering opinion
you choose. But don't sit there and tell me that I owe YOU an
explanation for the comments I make on Usenet. You've noted your opinion
as I've made my comment. That's all there is pal. Welcome to Usenet!


Thanks for the Usenet lecture, but given that I've been doing the Usenet
thing a good ten years longer than you, I think I have a pretty good
handle on Usenet discussion dynamics.


I did not read other threads on this aviation disasters topic. I simply
asked for further clarification on one statement you made. Not sure why
you would feel all defensive about it. Not every question in this n.g.
is partisan baiting. Sometimes a question is just a question.



Now, that being said, had you come back at me with a post I felt was a
neutral request for additional information on my reasoning, I would have
more than glad to enter into an intelligent discourse with you and go
much deeper into that reasoning; but you didn't. This "I'll ask you a
second time" crap is better used on someone else.


Then maybe you should try answering the question the first time.


BTW, I'm still curious to know if you have any issues with hobbyists
filming airshows for thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content
does not contain a crash?



--Mike