Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE:communication and argument
Message-ID: <720@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jul-84 12:06:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.720
Posted: Thu Jul  5 12:06:01 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jul-84 00:42:59 EDT
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 60

these comments were drawn from an article by <allegra!alan>

>I can't accept responsibility for your inability to communicate.
>Or Trish's, if that's really all it was.  Sorry.

You're entitled to your opinion, and if it is true, then I
apologize for my failure to meet your standards and hope you'll
bear with me in the future.

> I'm beginning to understand your style of argument, and I think
> it's been responsible for much of the heat between us.  

I think it is more that I was a victim of circumstance. I tried to
make a statement. Then I slowly found myself trying to defend this
that and the other attack. It resulted in digresssion. I lost sight
of my original objective. I ended up jumping around with comments here
there and everywhere. I let my anger overcome my logic. I wouldn't doubt
that I appeared to be jumping randomly all over the place. Hopefully
awareness will let us all communicate better.

>Many of the things you say are for effect, and you show little concern
>for their consistency with actual fact

Well, I know I stretch things now and then for emphasis, but that was
going a little far I would say.

> or your own past remarks.

Now this is something I definitely don't do. Please provide examples.
If I am indeed guilty of this I want to be to understand why, so as not to
do it again.

> Also, you tend to confuse fact and feeling.  ("More people were
> attacking gays than defending them," rather than, "The attacks
> on gays were so blatant that I was much more aware of them than
> the defenses."  Or again, "Trish was the only one to speak out",
> rather than, "Trish spoke out the most strongly, so her remarks
> stick out in my mind.")

Your examples are accurate. And if this is what you mean by my style
of argument, then I understand where you're coming from. However
I would say I confuse literal truth with feeling. I am always
aware of the facts.

> Since I value technical accuracy and logical consistency highly,
> I've tended to view your arguments as dishonest.  I see now that
> in your own eyes, there was no dishonesty.

Now I see where are problems stem from. I value intent and purpose.
Method is secondary. Hopefully this awareness will let us be more 
understanding of each other in future discussions.

>I ask you to reconsider this style of argument.  I think it will
>get in your way more than it will help you.

This is asking a bit much. I don't ask you to change your style
of argument since I think it gets in your way. However let us
try to be more tolerant before jumping at each other next time.

Robert