> Paul is using one poorly made comment by JMS to turn everyone who was
> not on *your side* of your original posts about JMS not having the
> right to sell his property for money to your side.
That's a difficult sentence to parse, but I am not remotely interested
in turning anyone anywhere.
JMS answered the point I wanted to make (in case anyone can't remember
in the dim and much-diluted past, it was that it would have been fairer
to raffle the items instead of sell them to the highest (and presumably
richest) individual) by saying it was none of my business. Fair enough.
Doesn't stop me having a view on it, since I don't need anyone's
permission to speak, even here in the Church of Joe.
He's got his view, I have mine. Sadly, in the expression of his view he
used racist terminology. *That* is what's being criticised now, the
original point having been asked and answered with, basically, "stuff
you".
> Frankly from where I stand you had lost that battle even before JMS
> made his first reply. So you're playing on other people's emotions
(in
> this case our British friends), to gain some semblance of victory
> over JMS.
Nope. Just calling it like it is. The dictionary agrees with me. I am
not remotely interested in "victory over JMS" since such a thing is
meaningless and of no value. I would like an apology to the British
fans he offended, or at the very least a retraction of the offending
sections of his text.
> A poor choice of words? With all due respect to JMS, I'd have to say
> yes. But JMS a racist? No bloody way.
Probably best not to use racist terms then, huh?
Paul.
