Steve...please...."misses nuance in a remarkable way" is a bit more grounded an assessment, IMHO.
>________________________________ > From: seventhray27 <steve.sun...@yahoo.com> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:44 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Portlandia season 3 tonight to Judy Ravi Gull >Alex etc. > > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >> > >> > snip >> > > Something must be wrong in the approach, understanding, or technology. >> > > >> > All those fancy words and analysis on ones side, (as well as as some >> > not so subtle condescending remarks previously), and the person Share on >> > the other, and I'll take the person Share anytime. >> > >> > That is, a person who seems happy, optimistic, very realistic and >> > grounded. >> >> Then, if that is the case, why this forever searching for the next better >> technique, the continual need for healing, guidance and advice? >To rephrase: someone continually looking for greater insight into themselves, >and wishing to bring into greater balance, unresolved issues. Last I checked, >that is a lifelong process, and one that more people would benefit from if it >were made a greater priority. >That is not grounded, possibly not content (happy), I would say yes to the >optimistic ( surely the next healer will be able to help me), >Again, I'm afraid you miss the mark. There is no desperation there. Just a >desire to deepen one's understanding about themselves and their environment. >(both near and far) >negative on the realistic (I will find the answer when I try solution #100). I >think that covers it. But I might be convinced if you want to give some >examples, >especially of the "grounded" part. Share? >You mean one who expresses herself well, captures nuance in a remarkable way, >and whose relationships with friends, family and community seem quite >balanced. >> > As far Matthew, mainstream, I liked your comments. Caveat emptor. >> >> Whew, we have less in common all the time Steve. >if you are referring to my comment about Matthew (whatever his last name is), >what is it that you find at odds with my comment? Do you feel he should be >censored? It seems to me that all I said, was that the man should be able to >speak his peace. Is that offensive? > > >
