8267Topics and Misunderstandings (was Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike regarding t
- Feb 1, 2007Dear Ken,
Please do not misinterpret this to be either patronizing or
condescending but I think you need to take a breath, re-read what I
wrote and your response. I believe you will find the answers to each
of your questions contained therein.
May all be at peace.
--- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@...> wrote:
> Thanks for your concern and your suggestion. I understand that
> misunderstandings occur, but frankly I was surprised when Michael
> misunderstood my email and then, after he and I made peace on it,
> surprised again to see the same issue come up again. Perhaps you
> haven't read to the end of that thread yet.
> As for suggestions to help avoid misunderstandings, one rather effective
> method is to read what was written, perhaps even a second time, without
> assuming an evil or untoward intent. Thus far, no one has cited actual
> statements I wrote which indicate a personal attack or comment of a
> personal nature. Indeed, in my reply to Michael's reply I stated quite
> explicitly that nothing of a personal nature was intended in my first
> reply, that I was commenting on ideas only and not at all on him
> personally. And, after all, how and why could I-- or anyone-- make a
> comment on Michael as a person-- or on anyone--, not knowing him at all
> and, as far as I can recall, having read only one post from him? You
> must consider me a very immature person to reach such a judgment. Thank
> you for that.
> You make much of the fact that I quoted one paragraph written by
> Michael-- in your words, "Michael obviously and understandably did
> believe the reply was directed to his post since it was subsequent and a
> thread to what he wrote." How is this an indication of anything more
> than a conversation? Yes, I was referring to a thought expressed in his
> post, just as you have referred to mine, just as I am now referring to
> yours. Are you recommending that no one on this list make reference to
> another's post...? or that any reference to another's post is
> inherently personal or otherwise undesirable...? or that one should
> never disagree with a statement made by another...? or that to disagree
> with another's statement equates to a personal attack? What are you
> saying here? Please explain this a bit because I am frankly quite
> baffled as to what you mean. What is so bad about referring to someone
> else's post...? or even disagreeing with an idea contained within it?
> Again (because it continues to be relevant) it merits pointing out that
> no one has pointed to actual statements made which would support the
> contention that any message of a personal nature was expressed. This
> would seem essential to this conversation, yet, significantly, the
> hermeneutics called upon appear to assert the phaenotypical over the
> genotypical. It would be overly idealistic to insist on a world where
> the words one writes and/or speaks are what matter and not unfounded
> interpretations, so I do on occasion, when conditions seem auspicious,
> time permits, and efforts warranted, try to alter such situations by
> unveiling the grounds of misinterpretation. In a world of universal
> responsibility, however, it's sometimes more propitious to take refuge,
> at least in the more essential and nascent, than it is to tilt at the
> windmills of the deficient and concretized.
> "Peace hath her victories no less renown'd than war."
> --John Milton
> On 01/31/2007 03:56 PM somebody named John Pellecchia wrote:
> > Dear Ken and Mike,
> > I've been reading and re-reading the open dialogue between you both
> > posted under the heading "answers good, arcane, and self-serving" with
> > more than a little confusion on my part. I understand neither the
> > impetus which preceded and produced the conversation nor its intent.
> > Pardon the consternation on my part but I guess I'm just easily
> > My suggestions are quite simple for future dialogue in order to avoid
> > any misunderstandings.
> > â¢If a posting is not related as a thread to a current topic then
> > topic should be created. This would avoid any confusion as to intent
> > and misunderstandings for the original poster to the reply comment. I
> > say this since, as Ken stated, "...I'm sorry if you thought I was
> > talking about you. I wasn't. I was talking about the quality of
> > answers and why someone might prefer a simple and straightforward
> > answer rather than one artificially cloaked in complexity and mystery.
> > So please don't take it personally." Michael obviously and
> > understandably did believe the reply was directed to his post since it
> > was subsequent and a thread to what he wrote.
> > â¢If a portion of a response is relevant to the current thread, it
> > takes little effort to post a reply to that thread and then, if a
> > divergent thought is to be expressed, a new post be created.
> > â¢If a new post is directed to what someone said or wrote previously
> > but not within the current thread, it would only seem polite to
> > address the individual(s) to whom it is intended.
> > There is always the possibility for misunderstanding with written
> > responses since we don't see the visual expression of the person
> > making the reply; a smile, wink, etc. when a remark is made in person
> > frequently breaks the tension and eliminates any misunderstanding of
> > intent (not everyone uses emoticons).
> > I do believe the above guidelines would eliminate a lot of future
> > confusion.
> > May all be at peace.
> > John
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>