Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 16:46:34
In reply to Lou's reply gardenergirl-byondscop » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 15:51:40
> > > > Never mind, Lou.
> > > >
> > > > I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
> > > >
> > > > gg
> > >
> > > gardenergirl,
> > > You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.
> >
> > What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
> >
> > As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
> >
> > I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
> >
> > Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
> >
> > Namasté
> >
> > gg
> >
> gardenergir,
> You wrote,[...what is your best guess...?{as to what you mean by |never mind,Lou|}...].
> I really would not like to prejudge your intent as to what you mean by the use of the idiom here with a guess.
> You wrote,[...your ..questions...go beyond the scope..I do not have the energy to..address them..the likelyhood of more questions...].
> I am unsure as to what you mean by the above.
> If the scope of our dialog is to clarify what you wrote to me, could you clarify why any reply to me from you concerning that, could be beyond the scope of our dialog?
> In what you write as not having the energy, are you saying any of the following?
> A. The energy required to address the questions here could be answerd by someone else that has more energy?
> B. The questions require more energy to answer than most other members have here? If so, could you write how that could be concluded, and if in your opinion, let's say for an example, that another deputy, could or could not answer them?
> C. The questions require more energy to answer because they are questions about what is meant by what you wrote?
> D. The questions require more energy to answer because they are important questions?
> E. something else
> To be continued...
> Lou
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...suddenly the channel has changed..more complicated..a simple need...problem of {yours}...discrimination..two standards..disengage...].
I am unsure of what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is more helpfull to not clarify what is written here?
B. It would be good for the community as a whole if requests for clarification were not responded to?
C. Resolving the past, which could find solutions for the present, is not helpfull?
D. something else?
Lou
>
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:726277
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/728497.html