In a message dated 3/1/01 11:48:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc@bas.ac.uk writes:
<< There are just a few decent, honest human beings who have for whatever reason been upset or angered by some of your words. >>
Hmmm... so "they" were "angered" by my words and so in result "they" make the assumption that I have called Henry Jenkins (who, to the best of my knowledge isn't on this list) "unethical." Yeah. That makes a LOT of sense. NOT.
Annie
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 Ashton7@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/01 11:48:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc@bas.ac.uk writes:
<< There are just a few decent, honest human beings who have for whatever reason been upset or angered by some of your words. >>
Hmmm... so "they" were "angered" by my words and so in result "they" make the assumption that I have called Henry Jenkins (who, to the best of my knowledge isn't on this list) "unethical." Yeah. That makes a LOT of sense. NOT.
You're right, it doesn't make any sense at all. That's because it's not what happened -- in fact it's pretty much the exact opposite.
I see little point in continuing to fill everyone's inboxes with this stuff. If you want to pursue the point further, please mail me.
Iain
-
Ashton7＠aol.com -
Iain Coleman