Rosebud wrote:Lemmie wrote:
Maybe I am not understanding your language, but your response seems overly emotional and based on feelings, rather than on a logical thinking through of the situation.
Lemmie, I have had you on ignore since the post I made in an earlier thread regarding you possibly putting me on ignore to which you responded that I might, instead, put you on ignore. As i stated in that thread, I decided to go ahead and do that. I saw this post while logged out and thought I would address your last statement because it is about me personally..
Whatever any human being perceives about another human being tells us as much or more about the human doing the perceiving as the human about whom the perceptions are being made. You perceive me to be being "overly emotional" and making statements "based on feelings." The fact that you have these perceptions about me tells readers about you, not me. My perception is that it tells readers that you perceive the statements I make to be non-rational. The fact that you perceive my statements to be non-rational does not also make my statements non-rational. Nor does my perception that you mean to state that they are non-rational mean that you are truly stating they are non-rational. My perceptions about you tell readers about me just like your perceptions about me tell readers about you.
You could attempt, if you wanted, to try to read my posts as if they are coming from a very thoughtful, rational place, rather than an emotional pace. If you chose. At times I am emotional, like all humans, but this thread has not been one of those times. Perhaps I'm saying something that is unfamiliar to you and it makes you feel uncomfortable and then you project your emotional discomfort onto me. Again, your perceptions of me tell us about you.
Perhaps you could go back to the link and the questions I provided earlier that Jersey is not responding to and think through what the answers to those questions might be, why they might be rational questions and why the answers might rationally lead me to the conclusions I am drawing. Perhaps if you went through the thought process yourself, it would help you understand me. You are not, of course, obligated to try to understand me, but as you continue to ask me questions about me even when you know I have you on ignore, your interest seems to be piqued. Instead of making false assumptions about me and making it my responsibility to help you understand me, you could take the time to make that happen yourself. I can only lead you to the water I see, I cannot make you drink. And really, why does it matter? You don't need to understand me if you don't want to. As I suggested earlier, ignoring me is a fantastic option.
I would also like to add (as I have a background in psychology) that the notion that emotional and rationality are opposites is false (seeing as how it came up in this post).
This thread is about Sam Young's Excommunication.