--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > Just out of curiosity Judy, what is wrong with changing ones > > > position on an issue? > > > > Nothing in principle, it just appears to be your modus > > operandi. And there doesn't seem to be any more reason > > for your having taken one viewpoint than there does for > > your switching to another. It looks as though whatever's > > under your nose at the moment is what you go with. I > > can't sense any underlying orientation or philosophy or > > approach to making choices that determines or influences > > either your initial positions or the ones you change to. > > Thanks for your reply. Let's take the subject of Vaj. I happen to > believe he is credible. > > But today, you have Raunchy coming in with a blistering attack > on Vaj's credibility. You have Curtis strongly suggesting an > apology to Vaj from Robin. Two intelliegent people with > divergent opinions. Both quite articulate IMO.
Which you don't seem able to find any way to weigh against each other. Such as, for instance, motivation. And it may be that many of the participants here find > themselves somewhere in the middle on this and many other issues. This > is where I often find myself. > > So, no, I can't really apologize if this is appears to be my modus > operandi. I am just trying to sort through things like probably > everyone else. > > I don't think I would generally be characterized as an indecisive > person, although it is my preference to make business decisions by > concensus, and family decisions in conjunction with my wife. >
