Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

re: thoughts (words included) lil' jimi

Posted by spoc on June 21, 2004, at 10:40:03

In reply to re: thoughts (word ... relative) spoc, posted by lil' jimi on June 21, 2004, at 1:37:00

> Hi Spoc,
> Earlier I had written:
> > > Hi, Mel,
> > > Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.
> You have replied:
> > <<<< Yes Jimbo, heavens to Betsey (who the h-e-double-toothpicks WAS Betsey anyway)! Remember your "discomfort zone," wherein even innocuous banter about hot tubs is seen to disparage wife, baby, and the institute of marriage. Surely the alarms will be tripped and the dogs let out on anatomical innuendo! ;- )
> Your wink is much appreciated. I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended. Joking is a delicate thing in the land of "civil". Humor here has to not let anyone feel accused nor put down. There are a great many things which are funny which are not "civil", nor civil.
> Please don't say "anatomical".
> Ha!
<<<<<< Note, fyi, I meant that such a reference would surely trip the alarms in your own previously noted "discomfort zone," not the civility alarms. I hadn't even given the latter type a passing thought.

> I hear you. It is imaginable that folks here would see the effort I have made here, maybe decide I'm a nice, well-meaning guy, maybe like me, want to pull for me, whatever, and then read what I post and don't really detect any malicious intent nor attack mentality in an otherwise reasoned argument. I get blocked. It seems precipitious, severe, merciless. And people want me to be cut some slack because I'm a nice guy and I didn't do that much harm.
> With my humblest apologies to every one of my sweet supporters, it doesn't work that way here. And, I have a history. And, I have (have had) every reason to know better.

<<<<< I'm not shocked, nor disillusioned, nor saddened in the least. I'm pretty strong and (usually) perceptive, with a good blend of realism and idealism, that usually keeps occasional extremes of either from doing any real damage. But any beliefs I might have had here were just nicely in the middle, and not formed beyond making simple adjustments.

> > I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
> Yeah, I failed to make that clear. I think that offended some of my friends. I can see where that interpretation was possible and I regret that.

<<<<< Not an issue for this respondent. It wouldn't be a matter of "offense." Everyone really really does have a right to their own opinion, including to change it. Over certain things at certain times I do appreciate it if the other-opinion holder will discuss the thing with me, and if doing so, show that they thought about it by citing how it was reached. And, preferably not reply to specific issues only with general statements. But even if I genuinely can't see their point nor they mine, it probably wouldn't come down to taking offense just at not being agreed with.

Now, being told not to discuss something at all (if it's reasonable for the venue); or being disagreed with just for disagreeing; those could be frustrating. But other than that, I hadn't predetermined that I wouldn't try to see other points if they were offered. I may still not agree, but it would be genuine, after a decent amount of thought, and hopefully offense wouldn't have to come into it for either party.

In your case, I was "scratching my head" (that's what I meant anyway, I later noticed I said "scatching...) over what I thought you were saying, only given the tomes we had all been writing which had theorized on some of those same things already (which you have now shed more light on). But it was only curiosity and non-bothersome confusion, not offense. And I hope no one who may be reading but not participating, or who has offered a differing view, would think I necessarily feel that way either.

So fret not, no problems here anyway. I jumped in immediately behind Larry when he made his entrance, so I would have been here regardless, believing what I already believed.

P.S. to all: Looking forward to meeting Zen and having her around!! Hope you are feeling zippy and zesty and well Zen! :- )




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:spoc thread:346427