Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8267Topics and Misunderstandings (was Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike regarding t

Expand Messages
  • John Pellecchia
    Feb 1, 2007
      Dear 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.

      John

      --- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > John,
      >
      > 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.
      >
      >
      > hth,
      > ken
      >
      > --
      > "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
      confused.
      > >
      > > My suggestions are quite simple for future dialogue in order to avoid
      > > any misunderstandings.
      > >
      > > •If a posting is not related as a thread to a current topic then
      a new
      > > 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.
      > >
      > > •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.
      > >
      > > •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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic