"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
snip

A few years back, when I was on the receiving end of the
rougher side of Janet's tongue, for having disagreed with her over
something (can't remember what), I received several unsolicited e-mails
of 'support' from urglers, who chose to keep out of the discussion on
the open forum. I didn't mention it at the time, because, frankly,
'flames' don't bother me, and I didn't want to embarrass them, but it's
true nonetheless.

Well I have also had online disagreements with Janet, and they have been
fairly robust ones. I have never considered Janet's comments to be in
the category of 'flames', merely robust and vigorous disagreements.

I had a couple of disagreements with Janet, on this group and another, and
the occasion which prompted e-mails of support was when she made a crack
criticising my personality rather than my argument. I agree that was not
her usual MO, I must have got her on a bad day, nobody's perfect.

No it's not her usual style but I dare say she like most of us has her
limits both online and offline.

But then I
don't run away from disagreements either. Janet has a good turn of
phrase that has a bite to it on occasions but I consider pitting wits
against someone of Janet's abilities is all part of life's experiences.

I always enjoyed my discussions with Janet, and have great respect for her
intellect and her powers of expression. I thought she would have returned
to the group by now, but she must have found another outlet.

Perhaps. No-one could ever describe her as less than astute.

I do find it astounding however that anyone would feel the need to send
off e-mails of "support" to one side but then not be prepared to state
their views in the open. It says to me that such silent and hidden
"supporters" are inadaquate in a number of ways. But then perhaps that
just reflects my loathing for any form of sneakiness.

Some people have a fear/loathing of confrontation (perhaps that's one
reason why we have secret ballots), they just can't handle it - what more
natural than that they should empathise, privately, with someone they
perceive as being bullied, yet draw the line short of backing their
'friend' in public? That's not being 'sneaky' if you ask me. Sending
private e-mails supporting one person whilst posting stuff designed to
keep 'in' with the 'other side', now that would be sneaky.

I'm afraid I simply cannot bring myself to agree with that. I see it as
being amtter of principle. I can understand how someone would not like
confrontation but if they are so moved by something that they feel is so
wrong that they need to take some action then that action should reflect
their principles. The expression "All that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good men to do nothing" comes to mind. If they think that something
is genuinely beyond the Pale then they should be prepared to stand up and be
counted.

I see it as totally unprincipled to do something in private that they are
not prepared to do in public. That falls into the sneaky category in my
personal lexicon.

Hence it is possible IMO that Helene may well have 'supporters' who
choose to remain anonymous. It takes all sorts, you know, and the fact
you clearly can't stand her doesn't mean everybody else does, too.

It's true, I do loathe her. I can't stand stalkers or liars in real life
and I like them just as little on Usenet. It could be just possible that
she has the odd supporter. Clearly they could not be very fussy about
the company they keep and it is probably just the same strange ones we
see here.


Now I understand better why Burns said, " Oh what a gift, a gift to gie
us, to see ourselves as others see us".

I've always preferred Betjeman myself. Much less censorious of human
frailty.