Replies

Been there, done that. I've had my hands in some of the rarest of conveniences from an early age. Replacing toilets and sewer pipe were a few of the tricks my grandfather taught me.

Once you had posted to other people including myself, without responding on point to me, I naturally thought you didn't care to response. I don't think that is all that irrational. I accept your explanation.

If you would have addressed comments to me about invalidation literature, I wouldn't have balked at the concept, if you hadn't done it to my extensive comments. What bothered me was that you linked them to my extensive comments in #402, which I actually perceived as a possible invalidation in and of itself. Further I thought you were possibly inferring I was guilty of certain things. That's why I asked you to explain some things to me, so I could take them in the proper context. A simple response there would have sufficed.

Your unwillingness to investigate a premise I asked you to look into invalidated me. (It says my information is not of value to you and you do not value my thoughts).

I didn't say I wasn't willing. I didn't state your thoughts had no value, and I didn't dismiss them. I responded on point to every issue you raised. I stated I didn't believe it was appropriate to throw those terms out there the way you did, and expect me to leave them hanging while I purchased reference materials, waited for them to come, read them, and then came back to the forum to respond on point. Quite the opposite, I was paying close attention to what you said. I wouldn't have objected if I had dismissed your thoughts. I think that speaks for itself. And what is that comment between brackets there, if not an invalidation of my comments to you? Shouldn't you value my thoughts?

Although we've both been here for a long time, I don't know you well either. All I can do is try to divine what you meant, and ask you to explain something if I have a question about it.

I went to great pains to make sure my reasons were clear for making the comments I did to you in that post. That means that the post was far longer than it needed to be, but I didn't want you to misunderstand anything I said. And yet, you still did.

You reduced the post to this, "You certainly intentionally minimized anything I said or suggested in your last post that any suggestion I made had no value to you." I went out of my way to state that I did not totally dismiss the value of reading your materials. I believe that was the core of your post. So I'm somewhat baffled by your comment that I minimized any suggestion you had made. Look, you use words like bigotry, abuse, and misogyny to me, and then expect me not to react. Again, aren't you doing the very thing you are taking me to task for? You dismissed the validity of the responses I made to your action, didn't you? What you do is you make comments, and if I respond to those comments, I'm invalidating your thoughts. I'm not if I disagree and explain why. Here you're invalidating mine though. That's what it seems like to me.

What I actually did, was call you on every aspect of what I thought you had done, that was inappropriate. Mixed in there, I was also gracious enough to state that yes, the books you referred probably did have value. I just suggested that folks should be careful about how they apply the information in them. I gave examples why. I don't think it's wrong to recognize things for what they are as parts of sentence structure or potentially abusive tools (if you will). I just don't think it's appropriate to characterize every instance of some of those things to be very destructive or manipulative. Of course they can be at times, but people need to realize that at other times they may not be. I all depends on the situation.

No, actually I am interested in this subject matter. I just don't want to have something posted to a post I spent hours developing, that may infer that I'm a bigot, an abuser, a misogynist or all three. Yes, I did take that personally. Who wouldn't?

You state that only I can determine what my intent was. Frankly, I would hope that people could read that post of mine and know damn certain that it wasn't evidence of bigotry, an abusive nature, or misogyny, and for that simply reason NEVER EVER post something to it using terms like those, especially if the fail to flesh out whether I was guilty of them or not.

Your response helped to clarify some things, but it is extremely frustrating for someone to suggest that I need to go read a book so I can stop doing what they are doing.

Look, this post makes it seem like I don't like you. I didn't appreciate your note, but this stops here as are as I am concerned. I'd be glad to talk to you on other threads. I believe you think I am over-reacting here. I don't believe I am, but what the heck.

I realize you're working, so I'll clam up until you return. If you don't want to say more, I do appreciate your response.

Hope you task was completed to your satisfaction.
.

We’ve been connected to each other since the freeper cruises.....
I just don’t have time during the day to go into long threads...and when I do stop by a thread and see long detail discussion on who said what, it IS annoying to me.....things we used to send to the back room.....Usually I just go on, but there were enough other comments on the thread that I was interested in, kept coming back.

I understand why you went to beck’s...defense as I explained to you earlier...I often do that myself. Sometimes even for new freepers who are just learning the ropes...I remember one, who you could probably name, that would sometimes have a little too much to drink when thay posted and we all made allowances.

But I really don’t have the time to discuss and discuss.

I have had contact with you since mentioning the book including jokes on the freepathon thread....So I was taken back with your long post above that I felt invalidated by....

Particularly since I refuse to say anymore than each person must look at their own actions as to why we do it....and we all do, although most are unintentional...I certainly didn’t criticise your actions.

Beck’s comments were invalidations. The book mentions how to deal with such comments. I’ve learned from the book: 1. they don’t need to be discussed or excused, just acknowledged for what they are. 2. where/why they come from is not yours or mine or anyone elses problem...they belong to the source....and should be left with the source.

I certainly have never had any ill will to you for all these years we’ve posted to each other, would hate to see it now.

Now I really must get to the garden.