Re: Authorities

In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:ddabak$581$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> During the course of this debate I have come to realise how important
> context is. It was only when the Doc started removing it (not from mischie
f,
> but because he honestly considered it irrelevant, or simply didn't want it
> to be considered in the argument) that I had a flash of insight about it. 
We
> do communicate in shades of grey. Context, including body language and
> expression, tone of voice, etc. are all important to the message.
>
> One of the reasons Chuck was offended by my original post is because he
> believed I  was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. That was fa
ir
> enough, but he then went further and decided that there was implicit
> contempt in the posts. None of that was ever intended by me. I am forced t
o
> wonder whether he would have had the same opinion if we had been sitting i
n
> a bar discussing it over a beer. Would my body language and tone of voice
> have made a difference to his interpretation of my meaning?
>
> I'm inclined to believe it would have. (But, obviously, I can't prove it..
.)
>
> Are we so conditioned by the adversarial approach to argument that we alwa
ys
> expect the worst? Is it always a contest? I honestly don't know.
>
> I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.
>
> Context is much more important than I realised previously.

Context is everything.

It is what allows Daniel to see evolution as only a "theory" while
Richand can see it as a Theory.  It is what allows DD to see unions as a
helpful protection for the worker while I see them as nothing more that
legal extortion and a threat to my kneecaps.  It allows Bill Clinton to
consider a blow job "not sexual relations" while my wife has a very
different view.

We are all waaaayyy coloured by our experiences and that alters the
context from which we view things.

My wife, Tracy, likes to say that email always sounds 10 times worse
than the writer intended.  But I was trained in the 15-user BBS 'if your
post doesn't stir some controversy then the thread dies' school of
online chatting.

It is almost impossible to get a clear indication of a posters emotion
or any form of subtly in a media that allows less that 100 displayable
characters.  Efforts to try are invariably going to be badly mistaken.

So don't worry about it.  Have another beer and appreciate that you live
in one of the est places in the world...live is good...you can
ski...then go to the beach...then ski....

Why read so much into a 300-iteration post/repost issue that started
from a misunderstanding?

In article <joe_zitzelberger-873DF1.00110810082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>
,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Why read so much into a 300-iteration post/repost issue that started
>from a misunderstanding?

Besides the fact that one might learn things in the oddest of places...
hey, everyone needs a hobby!

DD