View Single Post
  #73   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2007, 02:33 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
BAC BAC is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 243
Default :-((Off we go again :-((


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


snip

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.


They have not necessarily seen something they find offensive or
unacceptable, since that may not be their motivation for contacting a poster
by private e-mail. They may well just empathise with a person for receiving
a tongue lashing they don't think was entirely deserved. Their support may
also be couched in terms of mitigation of the 'offence' of the 'bully', e.g.
'don't take it to heart, old so and so does go off on one every now and
again, but he/she means well and has been a great servant to the group,
etc.'.


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?


We're not all fearless 'have a go heroes' willing to risk life and limb
regardless of the possible consequences. Sometimes, people won't even come
forward as witnesses, for fear of the possible consequences.


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.


Betjeman was a great poet, IMO, unfairly looked own on by some as trite and
populist, rather than accessible and relevant to his period, but Burns was a
considerable genius. Fortunately, we don't have to 'rank' them, but can
enjoy them both as the mood takes us :-)