In Reply to: Re: Hmmm. Well then please help me to see that.(M posted by Ken Key on April 01, 1999 at 18:21:23:
That makes a lot of sense thanks. Yes, I certainly did not intend that in any way as a slam. A lot of things I have been saying lately have totally been taken the wrong way. I felt people were *trying* to take them the wrong way. But perhaps it was unconcious.
Oh, well. It's too bad people judge based on one event, but I guess that's human nature. And then with all my posts that have been misconstrued just made it worse. I guess I'll have to watch my phrasing.
: Hi Anthony,
: I'll try. You don't know me from adam, but my old cisco business cards had the title "Senior Good Guy", given to me by my co-workers. With that context in mind, please bear with me.
: With the net, there are no visual or aural cues to go by, as I'm sure you are well aware of. All one has to establish context is past interactions. You must admit you have had an antagonistic relationship with this board ("FTB") and with Bruce in particular. With that context, please re-read what you wrote. With a clean slate, sure I see what you were saying. Without the clean slate, it sounded like a slam. Without the clean slate it sounds more like you are saying that Bruce's act of posting emphasized the original posters point about needing filtering, Bruce being who should be filtered.
: I know the following is going to sound pompous of me, but I'll say it anyways. You're FTB episode
: put you in the negative points in a whole lot of people's books in a very big way. Apologies do not wipe books clean. Contriteness does not wipe books clean. Only time and positive points (which your asking this question counts in my books as, in realizing that there is still a communications problem) helps against the negative points we have in other peoples books.
: Please keep in mind when you post that ticked off a LOT of people with FTB. It's going to hang around your neck on this board for a long time and the're really nothing you can do about that. However, you can try to compensate for it by being VERY careful in how you phrase things so that they won't be misconstrued.
: I can see know, by implying a different vocal inflection in the phrase from:
: "Actually, you kind of *emphasized* his *point*."
: "*Actually*, you kind of emphasized his point"
: (agreement, which I now believe was your intent.)
: The only thing we have to key on is past history.
: Hope this helps and doesn't anger.
: K^2 4/97 2.8 Atl. Blue/Beige/Beige
: PS. Wow, this is awfully touchy-feely. Maybe I've been in California too long :-)
: : The original poster said that they were going to do a board where you had to register and couldn't make up a name.
: : The respondent pointed out that the original poster had recently posted with a fake name, implying that this, invalidates the original posters' suggestion of a board with no anonomous posters.
: : I pointed out that he had in fact emphasized the orignal point by pointing out the obviously fake post. How is that a flame? Help me to see this through your eyes. I honestly don't understand
: : -Anthony
: : : : jesus christ, Bruce, I wasn't flaming you. Don't be so ready to jump on me. I didn't mean any offense at all.
: : : : -Anthony
: : : : : : Actually, you kind of emphasized his point.
: : : : : : -Anthony
: : : : : You wouldn't know BS if it hit you upside the head.
: : : : : You say you are one of the most progressive thinkers on the board when in actuality you have one of the narrowest minds on the board.
: : : : : Bruce