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

10281Emotional intelligence toward those who value rules.

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --dantreble wrote:
      > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > --dantreble wrote:

      > > >D: I didn't say you broke rules. You disected her post, and
      left part of it out. Bad idea. Dan

      > >-M: Leaving part(s) out is usually how it is done, and a point-by-
      point is respectful. I think that my response was very good.
      Don't dodge-monkeys annoy you?

      >D: I'm surprised that you asked my opinion on that.

      -M: I'm not suprised that you DODGED giving the requested opinion,
      but I gave you a chance.

      >D: It isn't a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional
      intelligence.

      -M: Then maybe you and Kate should have emotional intelligence
      toward those who value the rules, such as myself.

      > >M: There is Sun Tzu:
      > > "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape."

      > >M: Maybe the problem is that I gave Kate no easy way to counter
      my points.

      >D: An escape route would help, but not leaving her post first
      intact was inconsiderate.

      -M: Bullshit! Most people leave my posts incomplete, and no one
      complains.

      >D: She could either complain about it, which would get her nowhere,
      or she could just say "See ya."

      -M: Fine. This is a problem?

      shanti
      Mark, Seattle

      > > > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > > > --dantreble wrote:
      > >
      > > > > >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts
      right
      > > out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan
      > >
      > > > > -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to
      be a
      > > > > dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(
      > >
      > > > > > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
      > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
      > > > >
      > > > > -M: Dodge-monkey.
      > > > >
      > > > > > > > --dantreble wrote:
      > > > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > [...]
      > > > > > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with
      > > engineered instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not
      > > with false ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often
      not
      > > aligned with reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and
      > > pathological.
      > > > > > [...]
      > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
      ---
      > -
      > > ---
      > > > -
      > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people
      who
      > > > > exploit myth in a pathological manner.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern
      with
      > > > > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
      > > > > > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
      > >
      >
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic