This can get messy replying to replies to replies, but here goes....
Try reading your responses again and see if you can pick out the petulance and the complaining in a passive aggressive manner:
Quote from: rob
Unfortunately i am apparently pontificating & demanding according to anart so either i must read everything suggested to me or leave this forum.
As much as i genuinely want to read the suggested material higher priority demands on my time such as my dying father, ageing mum, renovating their place, work, & the list really goes on... means i will obey anart & leave until i read the works...
See it? Instead of answering my question, you spoke in passive voice about what you are 'apparently doing' - see the passive aggressive petulance? See the resentment and hostility?
1. of course i was miffed at being accused by you of pontificating (show me evidence of my pomposity) & of demanding (ditto), who wouldnt be? But read the full reply since the next sentence states that i agreed with you to leave till i find the time to read the works. You cant gloss over that.
2. remember that you accused me
first of
pontification
. Isnt that passive aggressive unfounded statement? My 'petulance' came
in response to your claim. I know in my mind that i was not pontificating (unless u have a different definition of it) nor demanding (ditto - people can respond or not to my theories, there is no need or desire to 'demand'). Remember that as a newby i think & communicate like a civilian (so to speak) not as one of you. You may not have meant it to sound nasty, but it certainly come across that way to which i had a right to respond in my defence:
Hi Rob,
If during the year and one month that you were away from this forum you couldn't be bothered to actually read the material that was suggested to you in order to sincerely participate on this forum, why did you return? You wrote:
Quote from: rob
Many forum members recommended various readings which i have scanned briefly, but which r too long to devote [my reason=][in]sufficient time to do them justice. ie i dont have time so i will leave till i do.
I think it's important that you understand that this forum is not a venue for you to pontificate your subjective theories and demand explanations from others that satisfy your subjective view. In other words, it would be appreciated if you could either clearly explain why you returned to a forum that (from all indications) is not a good fit for you, or you could move along to another forum that suits your needs much better than this one will.
Your claims & suggestions sound passive aggressive to me.
As i saw it you started 'the accusations' to which i responded with a backhander back to you "eye 4 an eye" with:
Unfortunately i am apparently pontificating & demanding according to anart so either i must read everything suggested to me or leave this forum.
.
3. show me why starting a thread is pontificating, (i just wanted a discussion), & why that is
demanding to do so.
4.
Again, the passive mentioning of what "has been suggested" instead of just answering the question and addressing me - do you see it?
'Passive mentioning' as you call it is in order to provide the reader the 'context' or reason behind my decision.
5.
Quote from: G
A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. (Only for a while, not for ever, few people will put up with being attacked for long) But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. (True, why should anyone be anything other than nice if not provoked?) And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. (Why? Who gives one person the right to provoke another?) So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little? (Scratch me & i will stay nice & try to determine whether u meant to scratch me & why, maybe i did something wrong without knowing, but if you continue to scratch i will retaliate to whatever level is necessary to stop further attacks upon my person.)
So, we see that you are hostile, quick to anger, defamatory, rude and generally quite nasty when scratched an infinitesimal amount.
hmm, nasty accusation after nasty unproven accusation, & with not an ounce of admittance of your own guilt toward initiating this whole saga, of any mistake on your part. You attacked me first & not for the 1st time so i had every single right to finally defend myself & retaliate to PA attack after PA attack. Funny how you guys fail to look at yourselves in the mirror, is that because you think yourselves superior to one that has not learnt your philosophies? Actually i'll word it like you would: "So, we see that you refuse to acknowledge, & hide behind, your passive aggressive comments, and attempt to unbalance those that attempt to show you the true path to raise you out of your ignorance of your reality. We make no mistakes & we see all, we know all, therefore we must be gods!, so therefore ipso facto you mere mortal are wrong, so do not question us in our self delusional collect wisdom" Or some such drivel.
Point: do not PA accuse me & i will not retaliate in kind. Quite simple really.
Infinitesimal? That is your baseless OPINION only. It is not a FACT. I am the only person qualified to judge how slightly
I have been scratched since i am the only one the can read MY mind. Further proof of your unfounded accusation.
i believe you you are passively aggressively hostile, defamatory & rude and generally quite nasty when scratched an infinitesimal amount. Now i dare you to say i am being passive aggressive etc when i have just repeated YOUR words. If u do u r being hypocritical.
Anyway, we can go around in circles ad infinitum accusing each other. We simply havent been successful in putting our cases fwd in a manner that can be understood by the other.
As a business analyst & project mgr this site has reinforced my belief that (effective) communication is not simply phrasing our thoughts in a succinct manner but also understanding how our audience receives & interprets our forms of communication & thereby we need to tailor our format
to suit the audience, not the other way round.
i have seen meetings as a third/neutral party where it is obvious to me at least that both parties had the same objective in mind but due to miscommunication could not see that. I wonder how many wars could have been avoided if people really listened to each other?...
In event case i still want to respect your rules or preferences, so while I'll look in from time to time I'll try not comment on thread subjects.
All the best.
PS it would be appreciated if you do not trivialise or somehow denigrate my sincere wish to leave on good terms despite our differences of opinion. thx