Hey guys,
In the interest of good, sound conflict resolution, I think this
is a classic case of both sides being 'absolutely correct',
albeit, from their own perspectives.
How is it that Alan and Hippyman, on the surface, seem to have a
difference of opinion and yet [I] can read what Hippyman says
and agree wholeheartedly then turn right around and read Alan's
views on the subject and totally agree with him also?
I don't see a conflict here. What I see is (metaphorically
speaking) "apples and oranges". And I don't think either one of
you portrays the "TOTAL" picture. But when I put BOTH of your
views together - THEN I feel I get the whole picture ;-]
Calmly thinking about it, I don't believe Hippyman could
honestly disagree with what Alan has said. Nor do I believe that
Alan could honestly disagree with what Hippyman has said. The
way I read both of your texts, you're BOTH stating absolute
facts. And I see no anomalies.
I think the "conflict" comes in when we ignore (or even deny)
some facts and stress others. That creates a situation where
"I'm right and YOU'RE wrong." Much war and persecution has and
continues to result from this way of thinking.
Hippyman, I agree with you.
Alan, I agree with you.
No conflict.
By the way, I'm an old 'hippie' myself. And I DID 'inhale'.
Alan Guy
