"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum
to
mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that using such a graphic analogy would be so
offensive to your tender sensibilities. Try this one instead:

Suppose a little girl wants to have a tea party. She has a desire to both
a) pour and consume imaginary tea from very tiny, doll-sized cups, and b)
engage in friendly, witty conversation with her doll friends.

Does the fact that she wants to drink imaginary tea negate the fact that
they also want to have a conversation with her dolls? Do we decide that she
is not a conversationalist, simply because she is also a drinker of
imaginary tea?

Why you fail to comprehend this, I can't say. But the fact remains, the
exact example is irrelevant. Whether I talk about a murderer or someone
attending a tea party, the point is that if a person has two motivations,
they are BOTH valid and open for criticism or comment. Having one
motivation in no way makes a second motivation irrelevant or nonexistent.

But you like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

Anyone here, even those who rarely agree with me, can attest to the fact
that I do *not* "like to toss around words like idiotic". I use them very
rarely, and only when they seem clearly applicable.

In other words, if the shoe fits...

Pete