Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:11:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> 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?
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 burning yet controlled fire. I do think there needs to be a
step back for a fresh perspective, and that can only come from placing trust in
the words presented. If for a moment, both parties can comprehend that the other
party is presenting the truth to the best of their ability and knowledge
regardless of what they feel is the *real* truth, then this can be solved with
discussion. Frankly, that is all we have here, is our words. So if one party
says, there was never a malicious intend then the other party needs to take that
into consideration, as well as if the other party says I felt violated by your
actions, (than regardless of intent or your assessment) it is valid to that
person. Being "reasonable" is relative. As well, malicious and violated are also
relative. Everyone has their own line. Your own values and moral don't control
where that other persons line is drawn.
So with that, some food for thought,
There are many useful models for mediation but they all boil down to basic
rules,
1. Clarify the facts - You have identified the players, the positions and their
issues, in fact they have been more then covered and fully detailed.
2. Explore Options: You have validated the positions, the emotions and
infractions involved and cover both sides of the facts, and in this case it
appears both parties involved can not fully see eye to eye.
3. Move to the Positive: Now is the time that everyone needs to decide ...."What
would it take to solve this problem? Or "What would make you willing to move on
from this."
Every mediation is influenced by perspectives of its participants. When issues
based on individual rights or emotions or feeling of injustices then it is often
difficult to reach a true and meaningful understanding between both parties. If
both or one party is unwilling to take step 3 in agreement, then as I see it,
there is only one choice, and that is to choose to disagree.
I believe both parties are certainly mature enough to choose to disagree and
move on from this, and they are both intelligent enough to realise that neither
of them have nothing to gain from continuing this stalemate.
I would even be so bold to suggest that if all of us continue in phase 2 with
out moving to phase 3 it is really violating the "Deliberately prolonging a
discussion without adding any new information or points of view, when there have
been repeated calls that the discussion cease unless new information is brought
forth." Although there have been no offical repeated calls to cease, I would
think it we are pushing the limits of the first part of that statement, to which
a "reasonable" result could be a "timeout" for all four of us.
Janey "Red Brick"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) Refresh my memory on what a mundane is? (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
