--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in
> which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of
> the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on
> FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply."
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head here Marek.
Curtis,
That must hurt the nail. ("Ouch". Mrs Nail -- how was your day, dear.
Mr Nail: some "f*cking bastard ran up to me and hit me on the head
with a hammer. And then his f*cking friend commended him for it.
Humans! what a bunch of violent morons"
> Although I can
> understand the points being made here by all sides, I can't help
> thinking that the actual context is being ignored.
I am a big fan of context. My working hypothesis, until shown to be
substantively incorrect, is that there is no such thing as an
absolutely bad behavior. That there is always "some" context in which
that behavior is appropriate. If only hypothetical.
(Thus my list of heinous acts, in response to edg's fine piece on
social conditioning of values. Can there be a proper context for these
behaviors. I don't know, its a good thought piece though).
What are your thoughts on that hypothesis? You are a person I respect
that would / might get "that" -- at least as an interesting inquiry
"dive".
> Being offended by what people say here by taking it out of the FFL
> bantering context and taking it seriously as if this was a serious
> publication, is a choice designed to allow re-visiting favorite
> emotions IMO.
Agreed. Nice platitude. What is the relationship to this convo? Are
you feeling offended etc? I'm not. So I don't see your point.
Perhaps, I am guessing, you may hypothesize that I am acting in
response to being offended. Alternative and multiple hypotheses are a
good thing, see my adjacent post. The only feedback I can provide, if
its of value to you, is a hypothesize that I am offended by Peter's
posts, then that is not correct. Take that feedback for what its worth.
As I have said in my posts, there is something in Peter's sequence of
posts over several months -- thats perhaps the context you are missing
but is all important to my point --that I find odd, perhaps unethical
and disturbing -- from a social perspective. (Which a quite different
from "my being disturbed by them" -- but word symbols and modern
syntaxes have their limits.}
And that I may not have been able, yet to well articulate that. I am
trying to make it clearer. And that is why I usually post on FFL -- to
clarify things in my own mind that seem ambiguous, odd, illogical, a
cognitive error, etc. (I figured you got that point when you responded
to a series of posts "nice serves" -- but perhaps that was not an idea
in the package you were complimentary of. (And feedback is always
good. And appreciated -- good or bad)
