From [Marc Abrams (2003.11.25.1536)]
See what I mean Jim B?
'Hostile, 'sarcastic', 'hecklers', that are dragging things into the
gutter.
Is that what you got from Bruce's post?
Since I'm (willingly, if temporarily) caught in the middle, the best I can say is I actually can (somehow, as little as I'm really able) quite understand everyone's side, and everyone's allegations and provocations to date. Perhaps that alone (in my imaginings) could be perceived by some to 'discredit' or invalidate anything I might reply.. nonetheless I'll continue, at least briefly..
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.11.25.1455) ]
> [From Jim Beardsley (2003.11.25.1414 EST -0500)]
> With all -due- respect, Mr. Abrahms,
It's 'Abrams', not 'Abrahms', but please call me Marc. 
Ah, thank you Marc, beg your pardon. ..less likely to typo now, except for that alternative 'marK' behavior I may yet have, but it shall help to prepare and practice. :]
>despite the ease with which every reader here (esp you)
Why especially me?
why would I dismiss your opinion.
..just my imagination & 'on-going reduction' of too many possible futures, way too many to control for, or against, of course. Therefore, it's just my own style, or 'preference', as you already understand..
Did anyone else on this list respond to your post?
Nope (not yet, if ever), and I likewise imagine way too many possible reasons no one else will, too many at least for me discern any one that might be useful (to me)... [unnecessary segue otherwise? :]
Yep. Because I was angry.
understandable.
Lets lay out the sequence shall we?
[...]
Do you see anything odd in this sequence?
Nothing odd really, except that I'm unqualified to analyze any of it. Beyond that? ..only that it's 'too predictable', actually, at least in my unwitting experience.
But you were not privy to..
Indeed, I'm privy to so little else that I can merely experiment with, and interpret nothing more than, my own behavior here. ..and weigh when it 'might be best' to politely bow out (at least per my own references, if not per those I try imagining from the otherwise silent majority).
...a private post between Bill and myself last night.
It's easy to imagine it would have gotten under my skin too.
..huh. why -does- conflict (almost?) always spiral out of control.. and I'm just speaking about my own.. I still wonder if there's anything I can do (and will reliably be able to do) to prevent myself from ever again spiraling into conflict, here or especially elsewhere. guess not. innevitable. why am I even spending this time 'journaling' such thoughts.. will I risk sending this and compounding such 'wasted' time upon other readers? ..eegad.
His anger stemmed from that post, not anything you have seen on CSGnet.
It's funny (and not so funny) how -any- movement whatsoever during amplified conflict, except in the -opposite- direction I want to control for, stretches that fragile rubber band ever so much more. Do I 'care' if it breaks? Shall I 'help' break it? Could it actually 'help' at all TO break it? What if I 'just -don't- move'? and wait? for what? Can I live with myself if I anguish (more than I already have) to 'give in a little more'? Will that somehow impede or subvert my objectives, or even my own self-perceptions? Could 'me relaxing' any tension ever fulfill my objectives in some way that I can't foresee? Gad, for all I know, -forcefully- breaking it might even 'help' us all more than by any one (or all) of us relaxing it.. what's the risk? what's the pay-off? is it worth it? damn, even these amplified moments fall prey to personal (conscious or unconscious) preference.. -especially- these moments??.. shall I experiment? d'oh! we're already experimenting! I guess, then, the!
real question is 'what do -I- want to learn from this experiement?' what is -worth- learning to me? -whether-or-not- I think I might fulfill any hopes of helping others also learn anything from this or anything else I might do.. crimony, what a complex of 'random choices'..
[Please pardon my thought-train.. It is & was intended -mostly- for -me- while I considered a reply, but also for when I suddenly find myself in another conflict of my own. I refrained from deleting it because I (can somehow) hope to -learn- something (even if uncomfortable) from sending it.. (perhaps I'll even get more citations for related research and applicable data..!
When he pointed out those two mistakes to me he today he was already
_looking_ to demonize me and I gave him an opportunity to do so.
I too would have suffered the same perceptions of inappropriateness, so I certainly can see why you did &or still do.
I made two rather minor errors
Those errors were indeed minor. I won't even pretend I can sort out any other alleged perceptual errors on -anyones'- parts.. ..but I can't help wondering if none of -these- errors even ultimately matter to how anyone feels.
and any reasonable person would simply have asked me to clarify my
statements.
True. In fact, I seem to recall both of you 'trying' (rather well earlier) to control for 'receiving clarifications'. Indeed, it 'kills me' somewhat that even such 'truce opportunities' (ambitious term I know) easily fail to alter conflict for any 'assumed betterment'..
Bill knows me better than that. Instead he chose to castigate me on CSGnet.
I do know that I virtually know nothing useful about any of your mutual concerns. Perhaps he does (perceive to) have a few (?) relationships that somewhat 'reinforce' some 'alleged intentions' of his for castigating you, but -if- -I- know better than to let his 'acting' sway my own judgment of you, and likewise to let yours sway mine of him, then perhaps such perceptions of intentions don't (shouldn't? wouldn't?) matter after all.. ..still, I realize that's a very subjective, 'over-generalized' viewpoint of my own..
> You can trust I've modelled what I'm intruding upon you.
Really? What kind of model is it? Something you care to share?
As you know, I'm unqualified to 'scientifically' model (much less test) anything useful that I do or suggest others to do, let alone to model anything others might do. But I did 'make sure' before embarking on this (tenuous?) thread (as best I think I'm able, to uphold my own personal preferences) that I only proceeded with no (foreseeable) risks of 'my own falling into' inward or outward conflict. That's the most and only control I could hope to muster.
> Or can you.
Trust you? Why do I need to?
Of course, only you can answer whether or why there's any need, for trust or otherwise, and no one else (imho, least of all me) should expect to accomplish anything productive by 'pursuing' otherwise.
Again, my occasional language, including my use of 'model' and 'trust' above, suggests no more than my own imaginings of too many more possible futures than I can hope to 'control' for, and thus they are defaults to some personal (if not temporal) preference of intended meaning. It is 'safe' (for me at least) to now assume that whatever meanings they might have held (to me, to you, or to anyone) don't (or no longer) apply to you. However, as you've surely pondered yourself, I'm quite subject to (and aware of) my own emerging 'mis'/perceptions. That's what happens (to me at least) without 'sufficient data'.
> I return to 'where I yet belong', -with- due respect,
Where _are_ you from?
Ohio. ..but presuming your question intended otherwise, I'm aware that I've yet contributed little (of anything practical) to CSGnet or to PCT or to anything related (such as interests you and I might share) for that matter, therefore I knowingly imagine 'some readers' might perceive that I 'don't belong' or that I haven't 'earned enough yet' and (in my own perceived conflict) I prefer to express 'random considerations' of such potential viewpoints. If your question intends yet otherwise, then clearly its answer (about me) is much too 'fully loaded'. ...with whatever 'perceptions' any reader prefers to imagine. :]
Just considering the time it consumes, if this reply to you (& to list) evokes anything more than muffled settling, or gratifies nothing more than whatever personal intentions I'm 'selfishly exploring', then at this point I will spare list readers from (most any) further traffic (as such, from me).
I quiet appreciate our dialog Marc! Of course, it 'should' go without saying that this reply (per my intentions at least) 'does no good' to be directed to you or anyone in particular. It is simply 'from me', and it is 'rather all about me'. Whether -anyone- (involved in a conflict or not) may be compelled (let alone interested for the sake of PCT or otherwise) to reply or comment is far beyond my imagination -- I'm still just trying to figure out how 'best' to contribute here (-if only- as I pursue my own intentions -- at least until I'm able to catch up on all my serious homework, let alone everything else I 'should really' do).
Back on the bench,
:-jim
···
_______________________________________________________
The FREE service that prevents junk email http://www.mailshell.com
