Judy's point is actually a very interesting discussion that I have done some thought about, but will think about some more and respond to.
Xeno, you are by no means a dimwit, but I said "duh" in the same place Judy did. And I laughed, because I remembered you responded so respectfully to my post that "men and women are different for hormonal reasons"..."<duh> on that as well :) ________________________________ From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ANOTHER DEATH THREAT (was Re: Fat, old drama queens...) --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Emily, (and Ann) seem to have the capacity to actually > > converse with Barry and Curtis on some points, and it > > would be a shame if they lost that capability by becoming > > more reactionary or antagonistic, regardless of how > > antagonistic Curtis or Barry might seem. That requires > > they transcend their psychological 'buttons'. You cannot > > soften these guys up emotionally, you need to find > > another approach. > > There is no way to "soften up" Barry or Curtis except > by acquiescing in their dishonesty and thus losing one's > own integrity. The key here is what integrity is construed to be. I am going to assume, without proof that we would disagree on this. Let me make a guess, which if wrong, I will admit: I would pick the second of these two definitions for myself, but I sense you would pick the first for yourself, or pick both; in my estimation, your actions seem to speak for the first definition as being dominant. 1. Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. 2. The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:
