Posted on 05/18/2002 10:31:35 AM PDT by GeneD
Yes, I would suppose that's right. Would you be willing to agree with me that if people put more thought into what they wrote, that the dialouge would be more productive?
You see, going back to the post that started this, I believe you should have worded it differently, making your meaning clearer, so that I could have written an affirming comment about the idea itself, without the necessity of having to ferret out what you really meant by the post. That is what I meant by more "productive" dialouge.
So, since we agree that I should have either asked you what you meant, or just ignored the post altogether, would you agree with me that your first post to this thread did not clearly represent what you were thinking about at the time?
I believe that there is a 50-50 blame relationship between improper assumptions made, and the incomplete conveyence of meaning. Call it contributory negligence. I accpet my 50%, and I wonder if you will accept yours, or do you reject this thesis?
If these people are US citizens, It would help their cause if their "leadership" publicly supported the USA in the war against the barbaric element of their "religion", including a loud denouncement of terrorism. If they are not US citizens, they should be deported. Otherwise, they could be in serious jeopardy given another major attack against the USA.
'The 'balloon is going up' is an old phrase meaning that the signal for the attack is being given. My guess is that it refers to a way of instantly communicating to troops on a broad front that an attack was to be made, before radio communication was available.
I am not aware of this happening anywhere in the US, or in the World.
I just got home from work myself.
"If the government policed the aliens and sealed up the borders, then I'd find it easier to trust that it's motivations are sincere. "
Never going to happen.
"My neighbors are drug dealers and thieves, so I can't rely upon them. That leaves only me. Aren't you glad you're not part of my family?"
I think I would be looking for a new hangout.
It sounds like a good target. Sorry it took a little time to respond. Work gets in the way a lot. I just got home.
This was a nice area, when I bought the place 20-years ago. Now, only a lunatic or someone looking for rental property would buy it, and I wouldn't sell it to someone who would rent it out. That's what messed the area up in the first place. Had I only known then ...
We don't agree as such. My position is that if a post is unclear to you, then you would be wise to ask a question about it instead of making an assumption. Why, in a dialogue, would you not make use of communication to resolve questions?
I said nothing about ignoring.
... would you agree with me that your first post to this thread did not clearly represent what you were thinking about at the time?
No, it represented exactly what I was thinking. The problem is that it wasn't exactly what YOU were thinking and you chose to assume/invent a concept to assist you in assimilating the post. This is behavior consistent with an individual who is not aware of the option of ASKING for clarification. In a dialogue, there is no reason to assume when you can ask.
The reason FR (and similar forums) are so much more productive than one-way communication is that there is the opportunity for two-way communication. Why would you forego this opportunity?
Until a post generates a response, no dialoge is taking place. It's just the poster making a statement. I added ignoring sometime back, as a possible course of action, and was not challenged on it (granted, an argument from silence), so it remains in my list of options.
"No, it represented exactly what I was thinking.:
Well, okay. Only you know what you were thinking. I just don't understand why you, or anyone, for that matter, would think clearly and specifically about something, then write about it in vague generalities, leaving out important details like who, when, where, how and why (although 'why' is pretty obvious in this instance and shouldn't require defining). It's like yelling "fire" in a theater and then blaming the resulting panic on the failure of the theater patrons to ask you where the fire was.
I suppose you could say that you were thinking in vague generalities, but I would find that a little hard to believe, considering that the act of reading the article would tend to focus the thoughts of even the most artistic amoung us.
"Why would you forego this opportunity?"
I'm not advocating forgoing dialogue, only that more clarity, more specifics should be included in the statements we make. I want to discuss the whole house design, not the particular brand of nails used in it's construction. It's difficult to say anything of significance with a single sentence, let alone, give clear meaning to our thoughts, especially in the English language, where context oftentimes determines the meaning. If you were a sailor aboard a ship who noticed a fire had started in the galley, would you run through the ship yelling "fire", expecting your shipmates to ask you "where's the fire?" That's ridiculous. No, you'd say "fire in the galley", a clear, concise statement which leaves no obvious questions unanswered. I see I already used a "fire" example, but I like them both, so I'll leave this one in too.
Take this thread, for example. How much of it has been generated by you and I, at first clashing, then trying to figure out what the other means through an analysis of different writing styles (at least, it's not as long as the latest drugged America thread)? Instead of bantering back and forth questions about 'why did you write it this way' and 'why did you read it that way', we could have been discussing 'why do you think that will help' and 'it will help because...'. Give me something significant to ask questions about. Answer the obvious questions in the beginning. Don't write in such a way which demands the reader constantly ask: "what do you mean by that?"
At this point, all I know is that you don't want government doing the profiling (and that when you post something, more than likely, there's much more to it than meets the eye). With what I've learned so far, to get to the meat of what you wrote, I would have to ask you to define what you mean by the expression: "protect my family" (who does this, when do they do it, what do they do it with, where should it be done, and how should it be done), as well as what you mean by "profile" (who, when is this necessary, what criteria should be used, where should it be done, how would it be implemented).Obvious questions, that could have been satisfactoraily addressed in the initial post, which after all this dialogue between us, remain unknown quanities. You know, this is basic high school english or at least, it was when I was in high school (granted, that was a long time ago).
Don't you think that after awhile, answering obvious questions, would get pretty tedious for you, especially if dozens of people asked those same questions. You'd have to keep track of the first post numbers where those questions were answered, and then refer subsequent posters back to the answers, or repeat yourself over and over again. People seem to comment on the first posts first, without reading through the whole thing. A bad habit, yes, but that would appear to be the reality of the situation.
This discussion reminds me of the communication protocols used on computer networks. Some use the available bandwidth more efficiently than others. Those less efficient are sometimes referred to as being "overhead-heavy". Selecting the protocol that will get the job done, with the least amount of overhead is an important consideration when designing a network. Applying that to this discussion, we're still battling with the overhead. Somewhere is the data, the meat of the discussion, but it hasn't arrived because we're still trying to negoiate a common protocol to pass the data with (the 'what do you mean by that' questions).
Anyhow, I have to go build some bicycle frames now, so I'll check in this evening.
Take care.
blue mud? what the hell is that? what's going on.
also yes I am worried about a lot of stuff, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Rochester...
the sh!t seems to go down around here, doesn't it?
Kind of like that Iraqi guy caught on US 5 & 20 in BLOOMFIELD (a town 20 miles outside of Rochester). where they found that guy and his stolen truck (it was something like that) was 2 miles from where I went to high school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.