--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > It's your projection of abuse of power.
Thats a possibility. I well reflect on that. Can you accept that, that perhaps is not the case? > You are the > one that feels threatened. Ok, that one I can address directly. You are incorrect Peter. I know my own feelings better than you do. And your repeated attempts to "know" a persons inner state and dynamics from text is naive -- an inaccurate. > There is no intent to > threaten from my side at all. That was not my point. But then again you are not saying it was. You are clarifying your position. Good. > You and Judy appear to > have a vested interest in keeping this "abuse" issue > going The operative word is "appears". What "seems" to be is not always what is. Clearly, in your education you must have had sufficient training in recognizing cognitive errors to understand my point. "Appears" really means "appears to you". Which his fine as a working hypothesis if you believe it has merit for you. Do you have any alternative hypotheses? Can you conceive, accept the possibility, that your hypothesis above is incorrect? > because when I attempt to place my comments to > Richard in the context of my intent both of you ignore > it and go back to your silly "outrage." Again Peter, some feedback: you continue to make hypotheses that are incorrect. I know my own feelings. You don't. This exchange, and a number of others are ample evidence of that (that you can't read peoples minds). Evidence to me that you know little about my inner state, mind, feelings, and intents. You may take that as useful feedback on your remote diagnostic skills, or not. Your choice. > I do > understand how my comments to Richard could be > misconstrued, but when the poster explains the intent > of the post you'd think the misunderstanding would > simmer down. Clearly you have not carefully read my posts, or tried to reflect on my points, or grasp the issues I raise. It has little to do with your intent. Before you go ballistic (again), simmer down, breath deep, and re-read what I actually wrote in my series of posts on this matter. Taken as a whole. Read the words that are actually on the page, don't solely "read" and react to your emotions to the words. > The fact that it doesn't means, to me, > that both of you want to demonize me and this is a > justification to continue this position. Do you have any other hypotheses? If not, you best would be able to explore a persecution complex or something related. > To me the > most important reponse to my post was Richard who > reponded with the humourous, "Quack". I think later he elaborated, with something like "dumb fuck quack". It seemed to me, anf I may be wrong (something hard for you to say about yourself, it appears), that RW was not taking it as a joke. Can you conceive of the possibility that he didn't? Or the possibility that people can comment on some social-level oddity, perplexing cognitive dissonance, without having an agenda to demonize anyone? > A great pun and > appopriate reponse in the informal, non-professional > atmosphere of FFL. So if Richard doesn't feel "abused" > by my "power" what does it matter to you? Why don't you actually read my posts to find out. Read the actual words. Not the emotions that flare inside you, apparently, when you read them. You appear to be reacting to internal structures in your head, and heart, that have no corresponding reality in the outside world -- the world with some intersubjective commonaltiy. But I may be wrong.
