bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> >
> >Both sides of this discussion are equally moralistic and silly.
> >
> >Anyone dress for physical comfort & convenience?
>
> which is just another moralistic demand for someone to live up to. it's an
> assumption that convenience and comfort are somehow free of ideology.
>
> horse. shittery.
>
When I read this my immediatate reaction was to say, I guess b- has got me. But then I thought about it and realized this response is grounded on a serious misreading of what I wrote. But first there was one error in my original post -- "_two_ sides" was wrong, there was only variations on one side, except for someone who wandered on to the list to spout incomprehensible nonsense and get everyone roused up.
Now, my comment was NOT on what people wore. It was merely my usual objection to posts which pretend to exhibit the power of mental telepathy. Poster after poster presumed to look inside the heads of strangers and identify the thought that went into their choice of garments. This is VICIOUS, but then I've been saying that for 10 years.
So yes, my post asserted an ethical judgment -- but not on anyone's motives. It simply declared that one sort of post was at best silly and probably vicious. And posts ascribing motivesd _are_ vicious.
Carrol