Posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 9:20:04
In reply to Re: I'm stopping a schoolyard spat » DrBob, posted by 64bowtie on May 11, 2004, at 12:02:24
***Boy, I wish the site could be set to tell you where everything is that may pertain to you on all boards! I missed this too until now. (I do enjoy checking for things myself, but at more mature moments I try to limit it!)
> Five gals have blocked me from responding to them....> I have the door open a crack. If »spoc is willing to chat or otherwise debate, I will. I see »spoc as too busy for this medium. I see crossing in purpose between what is said and what is understood by »spoc, usually a sign of distraction by a busy complicated schedule. I can and have been wrong before, though. I'm just saying that »spoc's a "good-guy" and I'm not mad.
>
***Thanks Rod, I really don't want anyone to feel mad about anything. And I wanted to be sure you knew that I didn't tell you not to post to me, I hope to always avoid any such thing anywhere here! Yes, I see that there is a conflict in what I say and then do, as far as getting involved then trying to pull back. And for the sake of my true obligations, my remedy will have to be watching when I get involved in the first place. So anyway, I just didn't want any formal blocks to be seen as in place, although in order to take charge of my time, I should often keep my subjects 'lite' (by the definition that works for me), and respectfully pass on things sometimes.Regarding the 'schoolyard spat' reference, I wanted to say that the link you posted here was not a link to what I see as any kind of spat or invitation for one. In that post, I was responding to the matter of how to me it sounded as if you must have misread something in my first post; that you thought I had somehow advocated or excused violence and/or coercion. I thought this since you were telling me directly not to waste your time defending people who use them, and then asking if I'd gotten the hint.
I think it's understandable that anyone would want to disassociate themselves from the appearance of having stated such a thing. It hadn't even been a subject I ever touched on. Later after I posted my objection, it occurred to me that you must have been speaking in a general sense and not implying that I personally had defended those things (directly or indirectly). And I anticipated that you would understand how it could have been taken otherwise, and would simply post to me clarifying that you hadn't meant me in particular.
I was kind of surprised you didn't, then I saw this over here and was even more surprised. If to somehow convey my own message, I composed a post at some time that was directly in reply to you and did include some of your actual words, but also said "Please don't waste my time defending people who sexually abuse others. Do you get my meaning?" I assume you would be not only offended but find it inappropriate to put words in your mouth to somehow convey my own point. Anyone jumping in randomly could easily get the wrong impression. Does that help clarify how I read your words, and why they bothered me?
As for the rest of the post you linked to, there I was only presenting the side of things which says that there can also be biological component to state of mind. You say you encourage other viewpoints and there is nothing inflammatory in referencing medical aspects, so I would guess that was not a problem. So I guess overall I'm not sure what was, as regards this particular post. But it's not important now, honestly.
Now, I *can* understand if the part about me preferring not to continue to debate came across wrong. As I unfortunately only later said, that is by far due to my own needs to prioritize, since if not controlled [by reason! ;- ) ], I can spend countless hours on the Internet when I truly need desperately to be tending to other things. It's never safe for me to assume I can address, compose or surf something within only minutes. So for any aspect of mixed messages I created there, I apologize. I had hoped that it could break down neatly enough that I could reply to a point about mind-over-matter with a simple addendum about the occasional existence of true medical factors, but I should have thought more about the likelihood of it being satisfactory to end there. I will try to be more careful in the future to consider the potential for continued volleys when I am deciding whether to post to a subject!
So, I have again learned something here, which is good! But please feel free to first ask *me* directly if any confusion over meanings and intentions arises. I have faith that we could have located and addressed the simple wire-crossing over this particular exchange very efficiently on our own! :- )
poster:spoc
thread:345717
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/346085.html