Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:00:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4653 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Do you think that the person who wrote the announcement was a mundane?
> Certainly. It's written all over it, in the word choices used.
Refresh my memory on what a mundane is?
> > You said you couldn't imagine Ken messing up "this spectacularly."
> > Did you mean to imply that you could imagine Ken messing up less
> > spectacularly?
> No.
Well, I *think* that Ken read that meaning in what you wrote. The reason
I think this is because he quoted that passage back to you on another node
in this thread, and it's also what first came to *my* mind when I first
read it. But then, without knowing more about the relationship between
you and Ken, I thought you were simply poking fun in the same manner of J2.
> > If not, do you think it's possible for someone to imagine such a
> > subtext?
> Perhaps. It's possible. I don't think a reasonable person would so
> imagine but people come in all shapes and sizes.
LOL, well... I guess either you're wrong about that, or I'm not a
reasonable person. Care to rephrase?
> > Well, but feelings aren't beliefs or theorems. Feelings are neither
> > valid nor invalid. Feelings just are...or aren't.
> That's one view. Another view is that feelings that are based on
> counterfactuality, are not useful, or are "invalid".
I'm possibly making a leap here, but do you mean that you don't respect
someone's feelings about something if you disagree with the rationale
behind those feelings?
> > I'm not trying to pick nits on wording here, I'm getting at something
> > deeper. What you posted in reply to Ken's NILTC announcement caused him
> > to feel wronged. I'm asking you what you think about his feeling wronged
> > by what you said.
> I think he's drawing invalid conclusions.
OK. Thanks for answering.
> No one has the right to not be offended by anything said by others, and
> this is one of those times where what was said would be viewed as quite
> innocuous by any reasonable person.
Do you really mean that there isn't a single reasonable person who would
view what was said as something less than innocuous?
> If, on the other hand it had been something that was very offensive,
> that would be different.
What I'm hearing from you is that you are writing off Ken's feelings
because you believe that what you said couldn't possibly offend a
reasonable person. Am I grokking that correctly?
> His assertion that his LEGO employment was some big secret that shouldn't
> be revealed is also not reasonable.
But maybe he had reasons that he felt were valid. If he did have reasons,
then by definition it was reasonable. If we debate the definition of
reasonable, we'll end up in a value judgment which ultimately undermines
respect for individual convictions.
I'm actually not disagreeing with you, but asking you to think about how it
may appear to Ken to hear you judging whether or not his feelings, beliefs,
and wishes are reasonable, because he feels that is something not for you
to be the judge of. If you leave Ken with the impression that you care not
a whit what he thinks about your judgment of him, then I fear an impasse.
(Same goes for Ken.)
> As I said before, it's common knowledge.
Do you think Ken thought it was common knowledge?
> > I think I tend to agree, but regardless, Ken did still feel wronged; any
> > amount of debating the validity of whether or not he ought to have felt
> > wronged won't change the simple fact that he did. And I'm asking, where
> > can we go from there? My sense is that Ken would appreciate your
> > acknowledging that he felt wronged by what you said.
>
> OK, sure!
>
> I acknowledge that he feels wronged.
>
> I don't think that a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, would
> feel wronged, but I acknowledge that he does.
Janey, help me out here?
> > > Further I'm not sure it's appropriate that he should *want* to keep his
> > > affiliation a secret.
> > Well, that is a personal decision, right?
> I'm not sure it necessarily is. Interesting research question.
I think you're referring to whether or not LEGO requires people to disclose
their affiliation, but I was referring to the concept "should want."
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) Well since you "called" I came, and by no means do I claim to be a conflict resolutions manager nor a therapist (I just play one on Lugnet). I want to resist commenting directly on particulars because I truly do not want to add fuel to a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) No, he was talking about past postings to off-topic.debate, near as I can tell, so I don't think so. (...) I think so, yes. Not at all justified, but yes. (...) Certainly. It's written all over it, in the word choices used. (...) No. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
71 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
