But then again, today I received an email from a friend (I use that term loosely.) who called me "pompous" and even "threatening."
Not sure why she found me pompous. (Tongue in cheek.) Was it that I publicly contradicted the anti-dilluvian emails that she kept forwarding me? Or was it because I backed my statements up with facts which that she and her friends doubted? Was it because I am obnoxiously rude?
I don't think it was the latter. More likely that I am apt to call her contentious forwards by such terms as biased, rascist, lies, liable, slander, propaganda ... you get the idea.
But I am, in fact Pompous?
Well, OK, I guess I may come off just a little pompous sometimes: Just to be sure though, I looked up pompous on the web and found the following little web site, which,while it did not really help me much in mending my sententious ways, perhaps widened my views of the benefits and downsides of being pompous.
Some of the web definitions I found to raise interesting questions.
Some examples: grandiloquent: puffed up with vanity; "a grandiloquent and boastful manner"; "overblown oratory"; "a pompous speech"; "pseudo-scientific ... characterized by pomp and ceremony and stately display
I say one woman's overblown eloquence may be, in another man's view, a simple attempt to cut through the the other guy's bullshit, so to speak, by referring to research, government reports and so-on.
Puffed up with vanity? Who, me? I don't think I am vain, rather I am just tired of being run over rough shod by barbarians wrapped in conservative clothing, and I try to document some of my statements with verifiable facts.
Pseudo-scientific: This word is a favorite of the conservative crowd, whether the science refers to extinction of species, to global warming or to the suggestions that smoking cause lung disease. What is pseudo-science but science which does not confirm one's own world view?
Pomp and ceremony and stately display? I have no idea how that might apply, unless it referred to displaying links to websites demonstrating that illegal immigration is drying up. Not rapidly drying up but it is slowing by about one-third recently, compared to not-so-distant times past.
Threatening? Well,this one hit me right in the face. I suppose the accusation depends upon what one considers threatening.
The first accusation was trivial, really.There are some folks you just cannot please. If I used bigger words like "grandiliquent," which I usually don't, they will no doubt cry, "You are pompous", but if I use plain language they will say, "You are coarse" or "You are vulgur." If I use shorter words they will say, "You are talking down to us." I am coming to the conclusion, if someone just doesn't like you or does not like the content of your ideas, it won't matter what you say or how you say it. And it will not matter how you back it up. Hey, some folks just will not like me. Some will not like you or anybody else. I might as well get used to it.
But threatening? I don't think there is any excuse for threatening people. In my case, I may have been using a sledge hammer to drive a four penny nail, but I did not threaten anyone in my opinion. Rather, I was stricken by the unfairness of a particular participant in an email list. This particular participant closed his political posturing email with the following disclaimer (which could, in itself, be considered a threat or at least an intimidation):
"Contract Sensitive. The information contained in and/or attached to this email transmission may contain Contract Sensitive information. The information is intended only for use of the individual(s) named on this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the information contained in and transmitted with this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this email."Excuse me, but the email including the above statement did not contain any contract clauses, was not part of any contract, business transaction or secret need-to-know classified information. This was a political statement with, if I remember correctly, racist overtones. So I basically told the sender to knock it off, that I would not honor that disclaimer. What the participant in the discussion, if I may call it that, but what he wanted was to be able to rant in an unsolicited poltical email and the bind the readers f rom crediting him with the opinons included in his letter.
So what did I do that she found "threatening"?
I told the sender of the email, "No way." That I would not honor the demand for annonymity in future email messages. That in the future any emails sent from him to myself would be considered public information. Public domain. Not that I intended to publish what he said. I did not, though I would prefer to reserve that option if people are going to rail on me because of my beliefs, political, economic, religious or otherwise. So I guess someone on the list considered that as a threat.
I do not, would not knowingly threaten people under any circumstance.
However, there is a consequence to sending unwanted, unsolicited political opinions (spam) to complete strangers. I have no idea what the courts would say about this, but it seems to me that such information is not private and personal, and cannot be made so by a disclaimer such as the one quoted above. As a matter of fact, even republishing the disclaimer itself could be considered illegal by someone who holds that the recipient of such spam can be held accountable for keeping the contents secret. Am I losing my reader yet? No matter, I suppose.
Whew, I got that off my chest, whether the spiel was pompous I leave to you to decide.
