Staten Island Web logo



On 8/18/99 2:43:55 PM, The Great JB wrote!

I now respond.

J.B....You said:

Aw, Donna!

Are you actually quoting to me from something published by Microsoft?

I say: Sure am!

J.B. You said: Please don't do that any more.

I say: Why??? It's as decent a source as any other. The character of the man...or the company....is exclusive of the value of the information the source provides.


My original statement which J.B. went to comment on:

"The definition of "grace" (the same source as before) is elegance. Putting the "dis" before it makes the meaning of it a "lack" of elegance. Therefore...a "scandal" ...
BY DEFINITION....is actually....a "lack of elegance".

J.B. You said:

I see. So Mr. Gates' people think a disgrace is just a possibly lamentable lack of elegance. Is that right? I could have sworn that the origins of disgrace would lead us back in the direction of a lack or misuse of the grace of God.

I say:

Then apparently you're "swearing" in the midst of a grave misconception for you see I believe in God, apparently YOU believe in God....but EVERYONE does not believe in God...and so for the benefit of a cohesiveness in the language....words are defined WITHOUT a religious connection.

As a teacher of religion I could well have given and explained the definition of the word "grace"....but if a concept or statement is "pure" at the root it can be explained in a way that is amenable to all.

Since you see to take particular issue with the "Microsoft" definition of disgrace....I'll now supply you with the American Heritage one. It is as follows:

disgrace - 1. Loss of honor, respect, or reputation; shame. 2. The condition of being out of favor or in ill repute. 3. Something that brings shame, dishonor, or disfavor.

There's much more there....but I don't think it's necessary to print it. The bottom line here is that NO WHERE in the context of the definition (a definition from a SECOND and completely respected source I might add) is "God" mentioned!

J.B. You said:

I personally am endowed with absolutely zero elegance, but I don't think that's disgraceful.

I say:

Well, I personally believe that "elegance" (in the way that you're using it) is in the eye of the beholder....so I'll let that pass.....however I remain confused about exactly what it is that you don't think is "disgraceful"!

Are you trying to say that you don't think a lack of RESPECT for boundaries is disgraceful?

Are you trying to say that you believe it wasn't a disgrace that the American people wasted time and money that could have been spent in more valuable ways dogging ONE MAN about his s*x life....and not getting anywhere anyway???

As I said...I'm confused.

Here You quoted me again:

"Soooooo, if you wanna call it all "poppycock"....


J.B. You said:

No, I don't want to do that and I didn't do that. I used the term poppycock to refer to hypocritical displays of feigned shock on the part of the President's political opponents. That behavior made a lot of them, to my eyes, seem like very bad people. Pharisaical.


I say:

Now here we totally agree! If there's one thing I can't (personally) stand...it's a hypocrite...but as I said elsewhere on this site yesterday....I'm now at the ~place~ where I rarely EXPECT much more from our so called "Leaders".

I hope for more...I pray for more....and I try to do whatever part I can to not allow the garbage to contaminate all that I know to REALLY be true......

...but be that as it may....I have my eyes WIDE OPEN...and I have since I was a very young girl.

Hero worshiping ANY "man" is just not a part of my Universe.



Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.