--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected], Peter
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sorry, but I'm not going to continue this
> > discussion.
> > > I've got to go have sex with a goat.
> > Thats a nice pattern. Drive by, skim a post, miss
> > major points, argue
> > loudly against points not made, then claim being to
> > busy to even read
> > a fairly careful crafted response clarifying the
> > issues and pointing
> > out where your quick skim has lead your assessments
> > astray.
> >
> > Well, yes I have made a judegement about you
> > (pertaining to decisions
> > future action) -- not to be confused with
> > judgemental views.
> >
> > All hail the monkey mind!
> Thank you Akasha...too sweet of you. I'm so glad you
> have no expectations and hence no judgements. I just
> can't get worked-up about "tacky" decor and how it
> proves I am inadequate for you in some way. Talk
> about expectations, Jeez! You responded to me, I
> responded to you and you find my response to be
> inadequate. Who has the expectations here? Next time
> just call me fuck-face and things will be clearer for
> all of us.
This exchange is actually prettty funny. There is a lot that appears
to bubble up in Peter's mind reagerding my positions, assumptions,
and mood, for which no hint exists on paper. Where does these things
come from inside Peter?
As a quick aside, I posted the "Thats a nice pattern. Drive by, ..."
response and then deleted it several minutes later, thinking the
wording was a bit wobbly and the tone a bit impolite. I had been
trying to say in a non-inflamatory way that I found his refusal to
even read my response to his erred post a bit rude. But I deleted the
"Thats a nice pattern" post, thinking it was unproductive. Peter
apparently gets his FF by e-mail, so the deletion from the archives
had no effect on him.
In Peters mirage, he responds, with what appears to be heavy sarcsm,
"I'm so glad you have no expectations and hence no judgements."
No where in my half a dozen posts on this topic did I state or imply I
had no expectations. I countered UNC and Irmeli on their suggestion
that expectations are not good, with major exceptions to such a
"rule". In fact, my interest in the topic is do to the fact that I
have expectations of the "inappropriate" kind (IMO), though some of
them I find are of a subtle camaflouged nature. I find this thread
useful in routing out inappropriate ones. So its quite startling and
then funny to have Peter claim that I claim no expectations. Where
does this come from inside Peter?
Then, Peter claims that I hold that I have no judgements. Again, I
have stated no such thing. I have said I am interested in the link
between expectations and judgements because the former appears to
dispell the latter. A tool I am intersted in precisely because I find
an internaldialog of "judgemental views" do clutter my mind at times.
Again its funny to find Peter claiming otherwise. Where does this come
from inside Peter?
Then Peter claims "I just can't get worked-up about "tacky" decor and
how it proves I am inadequate for you in some way. Talk
about expectations, Jeez!"
Again, no such thing did I say or imply. Neither anything about him
being inadequate or about my having or not having expectations about
him. In the posts peter did not have time to read ("too busy fucking
goats"), I downplayed the whole "tacky" thing -- as just a springboard
to an exploration of expectations and judgemental views. But, again,
where do these distortions of the written page come from inside Peter?
Peter goes on to say, "You responded to me, I responded to you and you
find my response to be inadequate. Who has the expectations here?"
Well, since Peter missed major points in my "first" post, I assumed he
only skimmed it. That can happen. So I wrote a polite response
pointing out where he had missed the points of this and prior posts in
the thread, and tried to weave the points into a more succinct form.
Thus, regarding this "first" post, I didn't have much expectation,
though i guess I do "wish" people would read with a bit more care
before they respond in what appears to be in a purely reactive, and
not a thoughtful or considered way.
Upon posting my response, I was a bit surprise that Peter declined to
read it. After taking an hour to try to bring him up to speed on the
some points he had missed in the thread, he says he can't bother. Ok.
But I was more surprised by his crassness. "Sorry, but I'm not going
to continue this discussion. I've got to go have sex with a goat." In
most professional situations, if a colleague sent one a note saying, I
am not going to read your response to my quick memo on your paper
because I've rather go have sex with a goat." it would not be taken
well. But after the inital shock of his words, I just laughed. no
great expectation here.
Peter then asks that I "Next time just call[him] fuck-face and things
will be clearer for all of us. My two main posts were not hostile to
Peter. I thought they were collegial. He then finds hostility and
phantom attackers somewhere in the written words, a hostility
sufficient that one would call him a fuck face. Huh???!! Where does
this come from inside Peter?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
