--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > >> > >>> As I believe I said above, "You can imagine to a certain > >>> extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to > >>> be your identical twin brother..." > >>> > >>> Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what "a > >>> certain extent" was. So why are you asking that question > >>> as though I hadn't already covered it? > >> > >> I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not > >> clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would > >> you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? > > > > That also varies. > > > > But you aren't really describing your question accurately, > > are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, > > wasn't it? > > To make the question more precise, for any given person > on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you > get and the posts directed to you either directly or > indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% > for which you feel you can accurately estimate or > guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a > post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with > the person.
Right. That's why I said "It varies." > Now your last comment above is not relevant to my question > in the previous post, but since you brought it up, this > last comment of yours seems to me a diversion, Diversion from what? I responded to your (revised) question. > and to me sounds confrontational and accusatory. Now I said > sounds, since I might be mistaken, but to me it is in line > with your posting 'style'. Why do you feel you are being > accused? Because this is what you said: "If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting?" > Further, in *my opinion* I do sometimes think you go over > the top in describing other people's motives, Right, you made that very clear in your original question that I just quoted. That's why I said it was confrontational and accusatory. > and my subjective interpretation is you are projecting > your internal state, your opinion of the situation, onto > that person. Yes, I think you could accurately say I was projecting my opinion of the situation onto the person. What else would I be doing?? > Now that is *my* projection. Now take Barry. He grossly > exaggerates often in his posts, is often rather unkind, > exceptionally unkind occasionally. And lies. You forgot lies. > But overall, my subjective interpretation of what he writes > is he is not usually intense about it, but when you do it, > it feels very intense. So, that's your experience. My experience is that when I reread my posts of that type, I'm often surprised that they're as low-key as they are, especially compared to Barry's. I seem to have a built-in tendency to take things down a notch that I'm not really conscious of while I'm writing. > That is, what he says in like vein > is not important to him nearly to the degree what you say > is important to you. That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. > Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, > for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent > post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I > have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his "enemies." Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 > It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your > method of responding to people developed in response to > some less than pleasant events, or it could a family > characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a "less than pleasant event" if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) > Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument > more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside > from the question I asked about percentages, I do think > you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this > as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, > do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) > Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to > you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There > would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. > I would assume that those who thought you were would tend > to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who > felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and > even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, > would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an > outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
