--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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?
Why don't you ask him directly? :-) 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/
