--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > >> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > >>> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > >>> <anartaxius@> wrote: > >> > >>> As I believe I said above, "You can imagine to a certain > >>> extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to > >>> be your identical twin brother..." > >>> > >>> Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what "a > >>> certain extent" was. So why are you asking that question > >>> as though I hadn't already covered it? > >> > >> I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not > >> clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would > >> you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? > > > > That also varies. > > > > But you aren't really describing your question accurately, > > are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, > > wasn't it? > > To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own > estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either > directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for > which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a > person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would > vary with the person.
If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. > > Now your last comment above is not relevant to my question in the previous > post, but since you brought it up, this last comment of yours seems to me a > diversion, and to me sounds confrontational and accusatory. Now I said > sounds, since I might be mistaken, but to me it is in line with your posting > 'style'. Why do you feel you are being accused? Further, in *my opinion* I do > sometimes think you go over the top in describing other people's motives, and > my subjective interpretation is you are projecting your internal state, your > opinion of the situation, onto that person. Now that is *my* projection. Now > take Barry. He grossly exaggerates often in his posts, is often rather > unkind, exceptionally unkind occasionally. But overall, my subjective > interpretation of what he writes is he is not usually intense about it, but > when you do it, it feels very intense. That is, what he says in like vein is > not important to him nearly to the degree what you say is important to you. > > Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely > different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of > the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. > It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of > responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, > or it could a family characteristic. Some people seem inclined to > confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last > comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you > are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. > But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this > way or not? > > Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are > confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on > this issue. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be > more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would > not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational > and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an > outlook on life they were more comfortable with. >
