Tommy Joe wrote:
>
> People hear what they want to hear.
>
> Do you hear me?

Sure do but I won't going forward. You posted one too many rants about
one of my sensative topics, miltary service. Once I've gone through the
articles my reader already downloaded I'll only be seeing replies that
quote parts of your posts. We'll see how that goes for a while.

On Jun 12, 10:13*am, gtr > wrote:


> * The reality with you -



> …is that when I become the topic, I stop participating.



That's a good code to live by. I should have done the same when you
started turning me into the topic many many posts ago. You beat me to
it. You're good. You're real good. But the truth is, you should not
be insulted that the topic is turned toward you, because there never
was a topic. There might have been one at the start, but it went from
one misunderstanding to another, some of which might never have
occurred had the words been exchanged in person or even over the phone
as opposed to text. Words are great, they're almost all we've got,
but they're not perfect.

TJ

On Jun 12, 12:03*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
Tommy Joe wrote:



> > Do you hear me?



> Sure do but I won't going forward. *You posted one too many rants about
> one of my sensative topics, miltary service. *Once I've gone through the
> articles my reader already downloaded I'll only be seeing replies that
> quote parts of your posts. *We'll see how that goes for a while.


I guess that means you won't be reading this. But I'll write it
anyway. I am not much different from you. I ignore posts that rub me
the wrong way with things I feel sensitive about. But sometimes I
don't ignore them enough. No way would I expect you or anyone to
agree with me on what might be considered an unpopular stance - but it
is my stance, and it's an honest one, at least as far as I know. So
we'll leave it at that. I appreciate your reasonable way of making
yourself clear in your post above.

TJ

On 2012-06-13 08:58:47 +0000, Tommy Joe said:

> On Jun 12, 10:13Â*am, gtr > wrote:
>
>>>> Â* The reality with you -
>>
>>> €¦is that when I become the topic, I stop participating.
>
> That's a good code to live by. I should have done the same when you
> started turning me into the topic many many posts ago.

It's not easy. It took me years of practice to get quick at identifying
topic shift to participants. And still I get sucked in sometimes. Both
as target and shooter.

There is a differences though. One is exposing others for vilifying
vast swaths of humanity for their opinions (such as the ubiquitous
snobs, liars, hypocrites, thieves, and cheats; an apparent 92% of the
gpop). That is, at least in theory, "attacking the argument", not the
person.

Note the difference between that and misrepresenting their views, where
"I like wine" becomes "You're an ascot-wearing snob", or "I drive a
cab" morphs into "You're an ear-bending self-absorbed cabbie".

But you may not see a difference. There are many who consider the
phrase, "Your logic and your argument are flawed/failed/hobbled" to be
the same thing as "You, yourself, are a flawed/failed/hobbled human
being". I consider them very different.

I tend to attack vast sweeping generalizations or mischaracterizations
when I encounter them. They bug me. That's not the same as the approach
whereby we begin sentences with phrases like "People like you€¦" or
"You're the type who€¦", going on to attack their profession, and
inevitably move on to their sexuality, which seems to be the final
resting ground for most of the specialists in this field.

> But the truth is, you should not be insulted that the topic is turned
> toward you, because there never was a topic.

I don't recall saying I was insulted, only that I would not
participate. See how quickly the boat leaves the harbor? And I should
add that it's not for you to decide what others should consider
insulting.

> There might have been one at the start, but it went from
> one misunderstanding to another, some of which might never have
> occurred had the words been exchanged in person or even over the phone
> as opposed to text. Words are great, they're almost all we've got,
> but they're not perfect.

That's the world of usenet, for better and worse. The better part is we
get to hone our writing skills to better accomplish the goals of
representing our real viewpoints without losing or insulting our
audience. If we give a shit--and many do not. Another better part is
that we don't have to spend time on the phone or in person with many
people that we don't really want to hang with, don't have much to say
to, or find too argumenative, too low-brow, etc.

Not that this includes you--you're one of a relatively few in the group
which I wouldn't mind spending an afternoon having a beer with in the
real world. Likely a cheap, somewhat tasteless American beer of your
choice.