An Open Letter to Bruce Gregory

From Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.07.0811 )

Purpose: Clarity

Bruce, I think :-), I "understand" now what you mean by being "offended"
when you feel someone is trying to "win" an argument.

I don't know who said this, but I'm relatively sure it wasn't me. It is very
difficult to offend me and trying to win an argument is unlikely to have that
effect.

When you speak of
"winning" you speak of trying to state a point of view rather then an
"understanding" as the main motivation behind a post. I will endeavor
to inquire rather then react in the future.

That is a good strategy (ex cathedra pronouncement).

I have made a commitment to

that for myself. Some rather amazing things can happen with that simple
rule in mind. Witness the exchanges I have been able to have on the net
over the last few days. Have I got this right? :slight_smile:

Largely.

( it's amazing the

difference when a simple word is used in a question instead of a
statement. LOL )

Second, a bit of advice to you from the same insight I received the
above, which I believe to be true. Please correct me if I am mistaken in
these beliefs. You are a person who seems to use both analogy
and understatement ( i.e. indirect hints and "subtlety") to "emphasize"
a point.

I've been accused of being sarcastic at times. I prefer to think of it as irony.

When in "win" mode, (see above for definition :-)), your

attempts go right by me. I can "solve" that problem by asking for
clarification when I don't understand how a point you are attempting to
make relates to something I have said. I use your "Bush post" and my
response to that, as an example of this. When I "understand" your
analogies and understatements they are very effective in getting the
"thinking" process going, So I am not asking you to abandon the method.

I tend to be elliptical. My Boss's favorite expression seems to be (with
regard to me), "I have no idea what you are talking about." So don't feel like
the lone ranger :wink:

Simply to be patient with my attempts at "understanding" them. You could
possibly head a post or passage with a code like, "This is not what it
seems.... ". I don't think that would take anything away from either the
analogy or understatement. It would simply help me put up my antenna
into "think" and Inquire mode. What do you think?

I'll try, but I haven't made much progress in the past. Nevertheless, if Rick
can give up being grating, I must surely be able to give up being indirect.

in and out...hieverybody...very nice exchange...

Would I offend anybody if I would say that this is some very good examples
of "hassidic" thinking --questioning, exploring, doubting, etc...
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success

Learning Disabiities
ADD and ADHD
Mental Impairment and the Family

2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gregory" <bruce@JOINCANADANOW.ORG>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bruce Gregory

  From Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.07.0811 )

Purpose: Clarity
>
> Bruce, I think :-), I "understand" now what you mean by being "offended"
> when you feel someone is trying to "win" an argument.

I don't know who said this, but I'm relatively sure it wasn't me. It is

very

difficult to offend me and trying to win an argument is unlikely to have

that

effect.

> When you speak of
> "winning" you speak of trying to state a point of view rather then an
> "understanding" as the main motivation behind a post. I will endeavor
> to inquire rather then react in the future.

That is a good strategy (ex cathedra pronouncement).

I have made a commitment to
> that for myself. Some rather amazing things can happen with that simple
> rule in mind. Witness the exchanges I have been able to have on the net
> over the last few days. Have I got this right? :slight_smile:

Largely.

( it's amazing the
> difference when a simple word is used in a question instead of a
> statement. LOL )
>
> Second, a bit of advice to you from the same insight I received the
> above, which I believe to be true. Please correct me if I am mistaken in
> these beliefs. You are a person who seems to use both analogy
> and understatement ( i.e. indirect hints and "subtlety") to "emphasize"
> a point.

I've been accused of being sarcastic at times. I prefer to think of it as

irony.

When in "win" mode, (see above for definition :-)), your
> attempts go right by me. I can "solve" that problem by asking for
> clarification when I don't understand how a point you are attempting to
> make relates to something I have said. I use your "Bush post" and my
> response to that, as an example of this. When I "understand" your
> analogies and understatements they are very effective in getting the
> "thinking" process going, So I am not asking you to abandon the method.

I tend to be elliptical. My Boss's favorite expression seems to be (with
regard to me), "I have no idea what you are talking about." So don't feel

like

the lone ranger :wink:

> Simply to be patient with my attempts at "understanding" them. You could
> possibly head a post or passage with a code like, "This is not what it
> seems.... ". I don't think that would take anything away from either the
> analogy or understatement. It would simply help me put up my antenna
> into "think" and Inquire mode. What do you think?

I'll try, but I haven't made much progress in the past. Nevertheless, if

Rick

can give up being grating, I must surely be able to give up being

indirect.

Blank
From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.07.0811 ) ]

Purpose: I am sharing this post with the net because I would like to share an insight I had that I think others might benefit from on the net. This is posted with the intent of trying to help communication on the net.

Bruce, I think :-), I “understand” now what you mean by being “offended” when you feel someone is trying to “win” an argument. When you speak of “winning” you speak of trying to state a point of view rather then an “understanding” as the main motivation behind a post. I will endeavor to inquire rather then react in the future. I have made a commitment to that for myself. Some rather amazing things can happen with that simple rule in mind. Witness the exchanges I have been able to have on the net over the last few days. Have I got this right? :slight_smile: ( it’s amazing the difference when a simple word is used in a question instead of a statement. LOL )

Second, a bit of advice to you from the same insight I received the above, which I believe to be true. Please correct me if I am mistaken in these beliefs. You are a person who seems to use both analogy and understatement ( i.e. indirect hints and “subtlety”) to “emphasize” a point. When in “win” mode, (see above for definition :-)), your attempts go right by me. I can “solve” that problem by asking for clarification when I don’t understand how a point you are attempting to make relates to something I have said. I use your “Bush post” and my response to that, as an example of this. When I “understand” your analogies and understatements they are very effective in getting the “thinking” process going, So I am not asking you to abandon the method. Simply to be patient with my attempts at “understanding” them. You could possibly head a post or passage with a code like, "This is not what it seems… ". I don’t think that would take anything away from either the analogy or understatement. It would simply help me put up my antenna into “think” and Inquire mode. What do you think?

Much thanks for the help.

Marc

Blank Bkgrd6.gif

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1030)]

Purpose: Clarity

Purpose: Ditto.

> Bruce, I think :-), I "understand" now what you mean by being "offended"
> when you feel someone is trying to "win" an argument.

I don't know who said this, but I'm relatively sure it wasn't me. It is

very

difficult to offend me and trying to win an argument is unlikely to have

that

effect.

In discussions you and I have had, you are sometimes "annoyed" at the fact
that I seem to be more interested in "winning" the argument, that is, in
being "right", rather then at getting to the "truth"( as you see it, of
course :-)). I simply acknowledged that upon some reflection I can see where
trying to be "right" can interfere with one's attempt at getting at the
"truth". If I attributed this to you and this was not your intent, then you
should still take a bit of a bow for having me think about the subject. :slight_smile:

I have made a commitment to
> that for myself. Some rather amazing things can happen with that simple
> rule in mind. Witness the exchanges I have been able to have on the net
> over the last few days. Have I got this right? :slight_smile:

Largely.

What pieces am I missing? What would you do differently?

I've been accused of being sarcastic at times. I prefer to think of it as

irony.

Yes, In part, this is what I was talking about in you trying to be "subtle".
But I must admit, your sarcasism was not part of my equation. Sarcasism, as
far as I know, is usually a _disaster_ on the net and if you somehow draw
attention to the fact that you are being sarcastic, you lose the effect. I
personaaly don't think the payoff is worth it. You might want to look at the
way you try to be "ironic". I usually don't find it helpful. I do love your
analogy's ( when I understand them ) and your understatements.

I tend to be elliptical. My Boss's favorite expression seems to be (with
regard to me), "I have no idea what you are talking about." So don't feel

like

the lone ranger :wink:

I think you have important insights. Things people should think about. I
don't always agree with _what_ you think, but I cherish the _way_ you think.
Anything that can help me understand _why_ you think a certain way, I have
_always_, without exception, found both helpful and useful.

I'll try, but I haven't made much progress in the past. Nevertheless, if

Rick

can give up being grating, I must surely be able to give up being

indirect.

and a little less criptic in your reply's. :-). Hey, that's all anyone can
do.

Marc

···

From: "Bruce Gregory"

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.07.1100) ]

Hi Paule. I am not trying to be a member of the CSGnet police force, but
could you please use the header you see on all other posts oin this net. It
is both etiquette and protocol on this list. It helps us both refer to your
post in responding and will help us in the archives. it only takes a minute.
Please consider. Thanks.

in and out...hieverybody...very nice exchange...

Glad your enjoying. Jump on in, the water is fine. I am having a ball. :slight_smile:

Would I offend anybody if I would say that this is some very good examples
of "hassidic" thinking --questioning, exploring, doubting, etc...

Not me. I know exactly what you mean. The study of the Torah requires such
skills.

Marc

···

From: "Paule Steichen"