Neil / Mark / religious content

[James Kruse]

Well, I admit I wrote fully knowing that I was near the edge of a very
slippery slope, but stepped anyhow. I will be very brief:

> You can make any pattern you like if you taken anything out of context.
> 
agreed.
> 
> NOTE American  AND British. I meant they were both different to the
> Scandinavians. Read the comment in  context again! Here it is.
> 
> "Your being Norwegian may explain things. American and British people
> have a different cultural attitude towards nudity."
> 
> i.e The British _and_ Americans are different from the Norwegians!

agreed.
> 
> Before you consipracy theorise in any way look for an alternative explanation.

I shall endeavor to do this.

> I don't expect you to know British slang but it was relevant to the
> explanation. The reason you all responded was you didn't understand
> what this joker was up to. It was probably deliberate on his part.
> That is what Trolls are like, posting something controversial that will get
> most people going but someone will see through.

I think the record shows that I did not respond.

>> Nor do I envy the 2% religious rating of your countrymen. I
>> am not particularly religious myself, but even so, I find that figure
>> somewhat lamentable.

> Now I could accuse you of running down the British.

agreed. My comment was backhanded and I will keep such thoughts to myself.

>> I have had close and mutually useful collaborative working relationships
>> with the British in the past. I observe that your 'insights' into American
>> culture might occasionally ring of some vague degree of truth, however, the
>> polite British I have known might chide Americans that they know as
>> friends, but would never be seen overtly chastising all Americans on a
>> public forum merely for the sake of it.
>  
> I wasn't. I was stating facts and statistics. OK we all have our biases but
> your conclusions are plainly wrong.  For goodness sake! Just because I say
> someone is different from me I am not saying they are bad.
> 
Re my conclusions, perhaps I am guilty of reading in to your comments, but
maybe what bothers me is that your wording is such that I am _always_ able
to do so. I am willing to entertain the idea that perhaps I happen to
subconsciously _always try_ to read into things, but this isn't Psych-L.
> 
>> Anyhow, Neil, it is not obvious what your intentions or motivations are by
>> making such remarks, yet you take every opportunity to do so.
> 
> The reason it is not obvious is because there is NO intent there at all.

Okay, but the same comment above applies, and I can't help thinking that you
could easily avoid this sort of thing if you wanted to.

> American America-haters ?
> Perhaps I need to say this and every one in the group should follow :-)
> " I am not now, and never have been a member of the communist party".

Here I appear guilty of what I imply you are guilty of. However, your tone
is insincere and mocking (again?), and you can tell me that I may or may not
be reading into that. Oh well. I see more entertaining treads coming up.

Jim



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl