--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Words do mean different things to different people. > It's just when one person claims their understanding > of a word is the best/actual/real common sense/ etc. > that the problems start. "Tacky" means one thing to me > and something slightly different to Akasha
> problem > with Akasha is that he keeps on claiming that his > definition is the actual, common sense, self-evident, > obvious definition and is therefore "the" definition > and any problems I have with it are deficits in my > character or something of that ilk and have nothing to > do with him or what he writes because HE DOES NOT > INTEND THAT EFFECT. That is the exact point I'm trying > to make! Peter, What you are saying is all in your mind, not in the written word. Why don't you finally read the primary posts in question. In the time taken to write your posts about things that do not exist, you could have read the posts and put eveything in context by now. Start with the following, it has links to the other relevant posts. It will save everyone a lot of time and save you a lot of anguish. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64705 Some excerpts: *********************************************************** > For example, I > find many of your responses to me to be dripping in > passive-aggressive sarcasm. To me you seem to be angry > at me and waiting for any opportunity to discount me > (thus the "fuck face" comment). Ah ah. I think we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. You appear to have an image of me, my motives, means and character, set in your mind prior to reading my posts,You perhaps look for interpretations of my words that fit your preconceived profile. When you find several such interpreations that fit, perhaps the anger grows in you because it becomes clearer in your mind how right your profile is. But all the snakes ar just rope. Perhaps read my post on this thread about this. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64676 some excerpts: --------------------------------- I think at least part of the dynamic, ... [is] having a formation in ones head prior to or during an exchange, of where the other person is coming from, what their assumptions, moods, understanding, knowledge, biases, SoC, are, etc. Instead of just listening/reading the words as they ARE, without preconceptions as to what the person means to say. It means dropping past "ques" and clues one has built up about the person and their behavior, motives, desires, etc. Who knows, maybe they had a transformation last night and are a new person. It means no "profiling" - which is another form of pre-judgement. That is, no quickly sizing a person up as a certain type, and then reading them from the standard characteristics of that type. It means dropping all these things and simply listening/ reading what IS. And drawing NEW conclusions, AFTER the exchange. Or simple drawing no conclusions. That is, not making judgements when such do not pertain to personal decisions one must make. ---------------------------- You know Peter, 2-3 years ago, I went through a period where my posts had more of an edge, I used sarcasm to make points. I have lived in various environments where sarcasm is the spirit of the day and in the right context found it can be funny and instructive. And conducive to lively banter. But one day, two years ago, you said directly to me in a post that my sarcasm really peeved you and pissed you off. I stopped that day. In two years, my posts to you, as far as I have intended have not had any sarcasm. I am guessing here and may be wrong, but it appears perhaps you are still stuck in your mindset about me and my posts as you were 2-3 years ago. That you continue with old outdated "profiles" about me and these have clouded your vision and you are not seeing the actual words on the page -- that their style and content have changed. Thats why I think its improtant to drop all preconceptions about a person when reading their words. Who knows, they might have been radically transformed last night. Read the words, not past ghosts in your mind. ------------------------------------------------------------- In not reading the primary posts, to you the main point of the posts was the "tacky" comment. To me, that was just a small aside, the major points in the posts revolved around the theme of expectations, judgement, judgemental views and an exploration of such. Here are some excerpts from the posts that I thought had put things in perspective -- that is, the "tacky" discussion was a small springboard into the larger, more generalized theme of expectations, etc. ---------------------- And I know Unc was making a joke [about "tacky"]. So we could just laugh it off as not relevant. .... But hey, I know both Uncs and your comments were jokes. I can just laugh. But they are helpful to me in tracing throught this odd little thread in all of our lives called "expectations". ... I was using the "tacky" statement just a springboard for discussion. It in itself was not any great sin. But I do hold there is a useful and instructive distinction between saying you don't care for something (a judgement pertainng to your own decisions and actions -- which is fine),.... .... Well, again "tacky" was a starting example for discussion. .... Again, I don't find your jokes as great sins against humanity. They were springboards to explore a theme. You can make all the MMY jokes you want, and I may laugh and get pulled into the monkey mind chatter. Who knows. (who cares) ----------------------------- > What sticks in > my craw is your privprivilegingr meaning over my > intent and then ,it seems, insisting that this is the > actual/real/true meaning of my communication. Well, you have got a phantom reptile stuck in your crawl. Its a shame that you get so worked up by a snake that in reality is a harmless rope. I never insisted that "this" is the actual/real/true meaning of your communication. In this small side discussion of "tacky", a tributary off the main point of the discussion, I was periodically trying if I could get you to see that the word "tacky" is a quite loaded, value-laden word. > You then > go on to question why I'm saying "these things"-these > things being the logical implication that now has been > marked by you as the intent of my communication. Again, Peter, you are seeing phantom snakes here. You appear to have let a molehill grow into a moutntain inside of you. > I try > to say that I didn't mean that and you say that I did. I tried to point out to you that your words have other powerful connotations other than the one you have for it. > Obviously this is going to irritate me. A mountain inside of me crawling with snakes would irritate me too. But Peter, you created the mountain and you created the snakes. They are not there on the written page. 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/
