stuart wrote:
> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>> stuart wrote:
>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks. They
>>>>>> need helping up before they can look at themselves. It took me
>>>>>> long enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing. Hizzoner
>>>>> often doesn't care about these things. He's usually choked when he
>>>>> has someone in front of him who drank and drove. That was my
>>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like you
>>>> were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>
>>> Was that your perception?
>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>
>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier in
>>> this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the other
>>> poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's missing, so we
>>> unconsciously mentally insert it into the text, according to our own
>>> interpretations, which are sometimes flavoured by our own intrinsic
>>> psychology.
>>>
>>> Make sense to you?
>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>
> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that make
> sense then?
The term? yes. The reason? No.

--
-
Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.

"Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
news:d2ce3u$9uv$0@pita.alt.net...
> stuart wrote:
>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>>> stuart wrote:
>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks. They
>>>>>>> need helping up before they can look at themselves. It took me
>>>>>>> long enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing. Hizzoner
>>>>>> often doesn't care about these things. He's usually choked when he
>>>>>> has someone in front of him who drank and drove. That was my
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like you
>>>>> were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>>
>>>> Was that your perception?
>>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier in
>>>> this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the other
>>>> poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's missing, so we
>>>> unconsciously mentally insert it into the text, according to our own
>>>> interpretations, which are sometimes flavoured by our own intrinsic
>>>> psychology.
>>>>
>>>> Make sense to you?
>>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>>
>> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that make
>> sense then?
> The term? yes. The reason? No.

I proposed the idea conceptually..

>
> --
> -
> Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.
>
>

stuart wrote:
> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
> news:d2ce3u$9uv$0@pita.alt.net...
>> stuart wrote:
>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks.
>>>>>>>> They need helping up before they can look at themselves. It
>>>>>>>> took me long enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing.
>>>>>>> Hizzoner often doesn't care about these things. He's usually
>>>>>>> choked when he has someone in front of him who drank and drove.
>>>>>>> That was my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like
>>>>>> you were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that your perception?
>>>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier in
>>>>> this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the other
>>>>> poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's missing, so
>>>>> we unconsciously mentally insert it into the text, according to
>>>>> our own interpretations, which are sometimes flavoured by our own
>>>>> intrinsic psychology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make sense to you?
>>>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>>>
>>> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that make
>>> sense then?
>> The term? yes. The reason? No.
>
> I proposed the idea conceptually..

Far to complicated for me.

--
-
Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.

"Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
news:d2cmpu$qa1$0@pita.alt.net...
> stuart wrote:
>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>> news:d2ce3u$9uv$0@pita.alt.net...
>>> stuart wrote:
>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks.
>>>>>>>>> They need helping up before they can look at themselves. It
>>>>>>>>> took me long enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing.
>>>>>>>> Hizzoner often doesn't care about these things. He's usually
>>>>>>>> choked when he has someone in front of him who drank and drove.
>>>>>>>> That was my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like
>>>>>>> you were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that your perception?
>>>>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>>>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>>>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier in
>>>>>> this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the other
>>>>>> poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's missing, so
>>>>>> we unconsciously mentally insert it into the text, according to
>>>>>> our own interpretations, which are sometimes flavoured by our own
>>>>>> intrinsic psychology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make sense to you?
>>>>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that make
>>>> sense then?
>>> The term? yes. The reason? No.
>>
>> I proposed the idea conceptually..
>
> Far to complicated for me.

I don't think so. Let me give you the example found in a W.C Fields skit. He
is meeting his "friends", Edgar and Charlie early one morning..
It goes something like;

Charlie: "Good morning Mr. Fields."
Fields: "Eh? Whadidhesay?"
Charlie: "I said, good morning, that's all."
Fields" Harrumphh, yes well, er let's not jump to any conclusions."

Fields correctly detected hostility in Charlie's voice, even tho' he just
said "good morning". Fields also, no doubt, saw a sneer on Charlies's face.
These are two very important clues regarding exactly what Charlie was
feeling at the time.
But here, you see, both of these clues are unavailable. So how we interpret
the text depends on us, the intent of the author of the text, his honest,
his skill in wordsmithing, and whether or not he is mischievious.
You may have issues with all of the above and have no hostility, you see?



> --
> -
> Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.
>
>

stuart wrote:
> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
> news:d2cmpu$qa1$0@pita.alt.net...
>> stuart wrote:
>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d2ce3u$9uv$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks.
>>>>>>>>>> They need helping up before they can look at themselves. It
>>>>>>>>>> took me long enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing.
>>>>>>>>> Hizzoner often doesn't care about these things. He's usually
>>>>>>>>> choked when he has someone in front of him who drank and
>>>>>>>>> drove. That was my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like
>>>>>>>> you were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that your perception?
>>>>>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>>>>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>>>>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier
>>>>>>> in this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the
>>>>>>> other poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's
>>>>>>> missing, so we unconsciously mentally insert it into the text,
>>>>>>> according to our own interpretations, which are sometimes
>>>>>>> flavoured by our own intrinsic psychology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Make sense to you?
>>>>>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that
>>>>> make sense then?
>>>> The term? yes. The reason? No.
>>>
>>> I proposed the idea conceptually..
>>
>> Far to complicated for me.
>
> I don't think so. Let me give you the example found in a W.C Fields
> skit. He is meeting his "friends", Edgar and Charlie early one
> morning..
> It goes something like;
>
> Charlie: "Good morning Mr. Fields."
> Fields: "Eh? Whadidhesay?"
> Charlie: "I said, good morning, that's all."
> Fields" Harrumphh, yes well, er let's not jump to any conclusions."
>
> Fields correctly detected hostility in Charlie's voice, even tho' he
> just said "good morning". Fields also, no doubt, saw a sneer on
> Charlies's face. These are two very important clues regarding exactly
> what Charlie was feeling at the time.
> But here, you see, both of these clues are unavailable. So how we
> interpret the text depends on us, the intent of the author of the
> text, his honest, his skill in wordsmithing, and whether or not he is
> mischievious.
> You may have issues with all of the above and have no hostility, you
> see?
>
You mean in the same way that you had no way of knowing I was having fun
with you?
>
>
>> --
>> -
>> Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.

--
-
Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.

"Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
news:d2co67$su7$0@pita.alt.net...
> stuart wrote:
>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>> news:d2cmpu$qa1$0@pita.alt.net...
>>> stuart wrote:
>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2ce3u$9uv$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d2c4h3$p3m$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:d2c0b9$hn0$0@pita.alt.net...
>>>>>>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Darren" <Darren@fake.e-mail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When people are very down they don't need critical remarks.
>>>>>>>>>>> They need helping up before they can look at themselves. It
>>>>>>>>>>> took me long enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's because you are coming from a position of knowing.
>>>>>>>>>> Hizzoner often doesn't care about these things. He's usually
>>>>>>>>>> choked when he has someone in front of him who drank and
>>>>>>>>>> drove. That was my point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have never seen him post here before so to me it looked like
>>>>>>>>> you were being unnecessarily hostile.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that your perception?
>>>>>>> Yes. Why do you think I responded the way I did?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't being hostile at all, just a little tongue in cheek. My
>>>>>>>> obtuseness was intentional, to try and maybe demonstrate how we
>>>>>>>> interpret things through our own lenses....The missing modifier
>>>>>>>> in this type of discourse is our ability to actually see the
>>>>>>>> other poster's expressions, and their tone of voice. That's
>>>>>>>> missing, so we unconsciously mentally insert it into the text,
>>>>>>>> according to our own interpretations, which are sometimes
>>>>>>>> flavoured by our own intrinsic psychology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Make sense to you?
>>>>>>> I was with you right up to, " I wasn't being hostile at all"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps if I had admitted to "feigned hostility".., would that
>>>>>> make sense then?
>>>>> The term? yes. The reason? No.
>>>>
>>>> I proposed the idea conceptually..
>>>
>>> Far to complicated for me.
>>
>> I don't think so. Let me give you the example found in a W.C Fields
>> skit. He is meeting his "friends", Edgar and Charlie early one
>> morning..
>> It goes something like;
>>
>> Charlie: "Good morning Mr. Fields."
>> Fields: "Eh? Whadidhesay?"
>> Charlie: "I said, good morning, that's all."
>> Fields" Harrumphh, yes well, er let's not jump to any conclusions."
>>
>> Fields correctly detected hostility in Charlie's voice, even tho' he
>> just said "good morning". Fields also, no doubt, saw a sneer on
>> Charlies's face. These are two very important clues regarding exactly
>> what Charlie was feeling at the time.
>> But here, you see, both of these clues are unavailable. So how we
>> interpret the text depends on us, the intent of the author of the
>> text, his honest, his skill in wordsmithing, and whether or not he is
>> mischievious.
>> You may have issues with all of the above and have no hostility, you
>> see?
>>
> You mean in the same way that you had no way of knowing I was having fun
> with you?

I think I gotcha right where you want me...:-)

>>
>>
>>> --
>>> -
>>> Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.
>
> --
> -
> Buddhists seek enlightenment. Sobriety and serenity will do for me.
>
>