--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turq,
> 
> Is it my projection or did I go too far and smack you instead of
> tickle you?.....did I trigger a bit of a harrumph kinda mood?

Not at all. I'm really busy right now, and 1) didn't
have time to read everything you wrote and respond to
it, and 2) found it difficult to actually *follow*
everything you wrote enough to finish reading it. I
*get* that you were having fun with it, and that's 
cool. It's just that your idea of fun isn't mine
right now, with a big software deadline hanging over
my head.

<snip>
> I've read your posts here while I was lurking, and I gotta 
> tell ya, I have no handle on your emotional tone -- wondering 
> if I'm not hearing your voice at all. When you challenge me 
> for how I use the word "God" for instance, I feel like you 
> feel like I'm trying to jam the concept into every reader's 
> brain, and yeah, I do do that sort of thingy, do try to bully, 
> take a short cut, but in my most recent posts, I think I'm 
> mostly just having myself a thrill with seeing how words can be
> tossed at other words.  

I'm not the *least* offended by Godtalk, yours or 
anyone else's. It's just that every so often, possibly
out of the same sense of fun that you called upon, I
like to remind people that *assuming* that everyone
believes in God is just that, an assumption. I'm a 
forty-plus-year spiritual seeker with more than a few
fleeting enlightenment experiences under my belt who
does *not* believe in God, and I suspect that there 
are a few other Buddhists on this forum who are in the 
same boat as me. It's not an aversion thang, really...
just a remind-people-of-the-language-they're-using thang.

> You seem to be, well, very hair-triggered about certain 
> concepts. Is that true?  You may say no, but then why 
> that tone?  

What tone, dude? I was dashing off a reply to you that
I *really* didn't have time to write, because I should
have been working. I took the time to write what I did
because *you* took the time to write what you did. I
felt *nothing* in reaction to *what* you wrote; I was
just being polite enough to respond to a long reply 
with as much of one as I could manage given my tight
work schedule. If you read anything else into it, you
were reading something into it.

Same with this one. It's nearly 11:00 PM my time, and
I'm just taking a short break from work. This is as
far as I have either time or inclination to read into
your post, and thus reply to. So if I stop here, it
has nothing to do with you, only with the realities
of software development. Get it?



Reply via email to