Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 0:52:52
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 12:32:03
[Dinah]
> As best I can understand, you saw my use of the word "everyone" as an "absolute"? While in truth I was using the phrase "not everyone" as the very opposite of absolute.[Rod]
<<<You are doing fine, Dinah. I have always been your cheerleader/flag waiver. I hope, more than you can imagine, that I don't mess-up again and lose contact with you.
<
<<<Our communication got a terrific rebirth when you lifted my posting ban. I will be forever grateful. You have much to say. You have much I want to hear.
<
<<<As I tried to explain in my post, I wasn't saying that you were (immediately) debating me. I was trying to say that at times I've read you posting here and there and noticed what amounts to good debating techniques. I tried to describe them, but must have used examples that only meant something to me. I'm still OK not being right. I can be wrong and survive to tell about it.....
<
<<<Please consider the book, "Getting to Yes". It came out in the early 80's. He doesn't exactly use the same terminology as me, which I learned in the early 60's for High School Debating. What he does encourage us all to consider, is to use his exmaples for getting along with people, ergo "Getting to Yes".
<
<<< If I have irritated you, let me know. I was responding to what I read as implying "everyone" as a place holder in your idea. If I say "not everyone" has to believe as I do, I'm still invoking the absolute, only in the negative. Implicate to the words "all people" and "not all people" is the notion of 100% contained in the word "all". The same applies to "every" in "everyone". Does that make sense?
<
<<<None of this has to matter. I am OK with you if you disagree with me. I agree with you. I agree to disagree, for the sake of communication.
<
<<<We only get to banter back and forth at this WEB site. Communication is severely crunched because we can only post stories and abstract information. Perhaps its backed up with referenced information, but none-the-less, its abstract. Is what I'm saying a clear picture?
<
<<<If I could send you a video lecture complete with client participations to illustrate my points, that communication would no longer only be abstract or testimony. See where I'm going with this? We can only limp along as best we can because of the limitations placed on communication by the rules of this medium.
<
<<<Alot of what is discussed herein by all of us, ain't fun stuff. I'll be true to our tacit agreement to be always civil. Can you see my progress?
<
<<<Rod
poster:64Bowtie
thread:307314
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040131/msgs/307990.html