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

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.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but there are those who prefer
to do good by stealth, and who do not see any contradiction in expressing
private support and encouragement, from the sidelines, to an individual
involved in a dispute, without themselves becoming embroiled in the
dispute.

Interesting description. If I was asked to define "do good by stealth", I'd
say it was those who chose to do charitable work by being prepared to work
behind the scenes for years without recogniton.

Like you said, I'm entitled to my opinion and I just can't reconcile
remaining silent in a public forum, which is by it's very nature a
community, when they see something occurring with which they don't agree.

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.

The mind boggles! I can think of many things I would be very reluctant to
say or do in public, which I have said and done without turning a hair in
private. I bet you can too.

I'm not thinking of pubic scatching here or farting or some such similar
behaviour. We both know that we are writing about what those "supporters"
you mention who have identified something that they find offensive and which
they see in their own minds as being unacceptable behaviour.

Would they stand and do nothing if they saw a shoplifter or an assault? And
if they wouldn't, where do they draw the line in their sense of personal
responsibility?

I do recognise that what I see as being a matter of principle may not seen
that way by others.

(snip)
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.

Burns also said 'a man's a man for a that' which was pretty understanding.

Yeah but he doesn't have Betjeman's sense of whimsy or humour or skill with
words.