Do as thou wilt gruff… and yes, I do question, study and analyze words which, here in cyberspace, are all we have to communicate with. And as far as I can tell they do represent to some extent how each of us think. I’ve been quite open and direct about this for the 5 3/4 years I’ve been here on ME and equally open about it for decades online and off.
So, my perceived skepticism about what and how we know things surely comes as no surprise to you or anyone else. I’ve found that more than a handful of members here have expressed both appreciation and respect if not simple tolerance for this particular area of interest and study of mine. I don’t do it for that reason of course; however, it is mainly for the interacting with these and perhaps some new members that I continue my inquiry. Yes, I’m also aware that there are those who do not share this epistemological area of intrigue and/or inquiry and wish that they didn't have to be exposed to it. Long ago I ceased any naïve hope of being able to chat with just anyone on all levels. Clearly, you too, having spent so long in such areas of communicating share this bit of knowledge too. So be it. Thanks for sharing what your process has been gruff…it is similar to what I’d guessed it was and I truly appreciate your effort there. This was part of why I was curious as to why you had chosen to reengage with me again after such a long period of silence . . . especially because although we all do change to some degree over time, my way of seeing reality had not changed that much over the years and I’m sure this was obvious to even the casual observer. Yet, while I can guess about other people’s true motivation(s), I doubt I’ll ever know for sure ... having enough difficulty gaining clarity about my own… this even though such things are at the very center of my attention most if not all of the time. Oh, and you are not the only one who has observed and studied the “art and science...of writing”, something else you must already know. Many here are so trained and in differing levels, styles and with differing goals too…so clever use of the language, whether intended or not, is transparent to many of us. Case in point, your hyperbolic start and associated rhetorical question about what I gain from being here. When it is said that you have “never seen” me “enter into serious discussion with anyone” here at ME, I suggest that it is not me who is ‘playing games’. If this isn’t obvious to you…then it as I’ve guessed all along that the perceived ‘antagonizing’ is a projected emotion and one of the main reasons I ceased interaction with you. Yes, I like many here, appreciate the rainbow of opinions, views and understandings along with the wide range of ability to present them… something not found in every online group. Clearly, if my approach is unattractive to you, by all means ignore it as well as me. And, rather than use the ‘rational’ method of pointing out the fallacies found within the argumentation … knowing that to do so, even though it is codified as a principle in our standards, would result in even more gruffness, I’ll feign the civil niceties while actually expressing hostility…”without meaning to sound antagonistic.” Not as a game so much as “seriously and rationally” being a simple mirror. On Sep 2, 7:18 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Sep 2, 7:30 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: ..." > > > Gruff, you may remember…or not…that I did that very thing on my own > > for well over a year. Perhaps you just didn’t notice. > > Without meaning to be antagonistic, I simply didn't notice because I > had taken to ignoring you because of the games you play incessantly. > At times, when I run into you, I seriously wonder what you gain by > being here? What is your purpose in attending? I've never seen you > enter into serious discussion with anyone and like a number here on ME > simply like to play games and antagonize people. That was why I > initially began ignoring you. > > > I agree that we do not appear to agree on much…although I doubt in the > > way that that may sound to you. > > We might if you ever got serious or entered into a serious and > rational discussion. > > > I agree that words are used by people (all people) in their own > > personal and subjective ways and that this makes communication > > difficult and oft frustrating for many. > > I've never been accused of being obscure or obfuscating issues. I've > always endeavored to speak straight ahead as was the primary goal of > my mentor. > > > I have answered you honestly and been accused of being disingenuous. > > By implication (or directly, difficult to say for sure) I have been > > accused of not being rational by you when my answers are not couched > > in the language and or structures you expect. > > You're talking to someone who has been trained for and practiced for a > quarter century the art and science of speaking and writing clearly. > I think I also possess the ability to see through the smoke screen > others put up and piercing their veil of obfuscation. That said, I'll > not buy into your games any longer. > > > Personally, I too like intelligent and rational interaction…as rare of > > a thing that it is. > > I've not seen any evidence of that. What I have seen evidence of is > your attempts to shake people's confidence in their own words. It's > why so many others have ceased attempting to communicate with you. > > > Ignore or not, I’ll leave it up to you this time. > > I'll respond if you post intelligently and rationally. Otherwise > expect my silence as a few others who also like to play games have > learned. > > /e
