RE: It Ain't Possible

RE: It Ain't Possible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Noah -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 1:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Well, you're half correct. Yes, I had a certain reaction, but I can assure you it had nothing to do with my specifications not being automatically understood. Let me clear it up for you. It had to do with you knowing exactly how my specifications were meant, but choosing to be antagonstic to further exacerbate a debate, instead of just conceding to understanding my point. But lets face it, that is what you do best. Which I actually like, but thats a whole other topic. Well you and the OP have more in common than I thought. You both know my thoughts better than I do, and my simple declarations as to what I might actually be thinking seem to have little bearing on your considerations. Do you perform this service for people generally or is it reserved for me? How does it work out in your own relationships, I wonder, this practice telling others what they're thinking? Speaking of things that might get old fast. I think one of the general conditions for continuing a conversation is a mutual reliance upon a degree of honesty. You sure needn't take what I say at face value. You can question it any way you want to. If there seems to be the ground for furthering th discussion I'll try to explain myself. But if I say "I have platonic female friends" (along with scads of others making the same claim,) and someone just keeps yelling: "No you don't!" then the conditions for continuing the conversation aren't met. I'm done. I'm not perturbed. I'm just done with that interlocutor. I have stated sincerely that I didn't take your point. I have noted that before going off utterly half-cocked I took the time to ask a clarifying question and took your response into account. I think I said "Does that apply very generally or just to the OP?" I think you indicated that yes, it did apply very generally without stating any limitations. Now when I say "very generally" what I'm trying to get at is the concept of "very generally." Not in so much of a restricted way but, well, very generally. Now I can appreciate in hindsight that you were focusing on the "or just the OP" while my point was to emphasize the "very generally". Maybe I should have use the bold in the original text. But I'm not sitting here calling you a liar for reading something differently than I had intended it. Your response to it all of this is to say: "No that isn't what you were thinking. I know what you were thinking and it wasn't that." Well yikes. For heavens sake you can't have a conversation about ideas with someone who is just lying to you, right? I don't think so anyway. And you make it perfectly clear that you think I'm lying to you. I'm sure a bright person like you will have no trouble finding credible people to converse with and I wish you all the best in it. quote: quote: I chose lurid examples to make the point stand out. That was obviously a mistake on my part. I seem to have hidden my point instead. Yes, you choose lurid examples which I notice is a pattern for you. You like to pull a single sentence away from its contextual purpose, put your own spin on it and throw it back out there as a completely different animal in order to support your own argument. Its cute at first, but then it sorta gets old too. Of course I half expect you'll chime in to tell me I'm being disingenuous about this too, but I'll take a quick stab. When I encounter a tangled mess, I like to grab hold of one bit, try to get it straight in the picture, and proceed from there. Kind of like buildinga puzzle. Yes there is a degree of decontextualizing involved in that I take something out of what I see as a confused mess but I won't apologize for that. That is only the first moment of the conversation. I try hard to put things back together, eventually, once I fugure out where a few pieces might go. Along the way I try to make my observations plain, I try to own them as such, and I listen to responses from the person I'm talking to. If I can orient myself by getting a clearer understanding of that bit, it might assist my overarching effort to understand the mess as a whole. I'm told that a lot of guys think kind of like this and that a lot of women don't. I'm told that some of the frustration some women feel with their male friends arises from not seeing this for what it is, and attributing malevolent motivations where none obtain. Do you think this could be true? Gender-linked or not, we each have a style when it comes to problem solving, dispute resolution, etc. This technique is an aspect of mine. I find I do very well in relationships with someone whose style is quite opposite, once we understand one another's style. Multiple strengths can be brought to bear. But again just telling the other person what he's thinking--against his own testimony--well maybe that could be a productive element of someone's problem-solving style but that is hard to see from where I stand. I don't do it just to be cute--although it is fair game as way to make someone laugh, sure. I'm pleased to do it just to be cute sometimes. De-contextualizing and/or re-contextualizing are what makes so many funny things funny. Your crazy-quilt (and please, that isn't an insult; I'm referring to a kind of quilt and making an analogy) pastiche of elements of my earlier comments was funny. That whole rooster bit. It effectively ridiculed what you found ridiculous in what I was saying. It was satirical. I liked it and I sure didn't take any offense. The point here is that you decontextualized things very effectively, and that doesn't make you a bad person. As a little poke back I referenced your previously scolding me for sinking to "immature" tactics while criticizing someone's degree of maturity. I saw a parallel between my "sinking to immaturity" and your "rising to ridicule" at an appropriate moment. quote: My "prinicipal" (the statement about our points only having to be valid to us) does not apply to being in relationships, but applies rather to choosing relationships. Again let me help to re-focus your attention back on the context of the OP. It was said in reference to Treswank's belief that male/female platanic relationships are unecessary and impossible. It was not said after someone posted about being in a relastionship in which there was a conflict. Had that been the case, of course I wouldnt have stated that his points were the only ones that mattered. In choosing his relationships, his points (beliefs) are the only ones that matter, when in a relationship, that of course would not be the case. Again, the most fundamental of points seems to elude you. Actually it was said :"after someone posted about being in a relastionship in which there was a conflict," marie. It came on the same page as OP saying he: "can't even live with a woman for two days without a "Texas Death Match" screaming session erupting from nowhere. That is to say that the OP was talking about being in a relationship, a series of them apparently. Furthermore, as you know, seevral respondents had posted about ongoing relationships of their own. I would have assumed that your comments in the wake of all that might have considered all that as context as well. I mean if you're going to draw and quarter me for not attending to context you maybe ought to hold yourself to the same standard. I think that kind of thing is fundamental, actually. The things which you are giving the "of course" tag just aren't strinking me as of course items, marie. I suspect we see and think differently. I don't mean our conclusions but rather our methods. I am not concluding as a result that you are lying about your perceptions and motivations. How nice it would be if you offered me the same consideration. quote: quote: His partner may suffer for it, his partner may "lose out" for it. His unmentionables may too. They all may learn hard lessons from it from it but is it really his right to impose that lesson on them that way, just because it made sense in his world? His partner may change for it, and the change might be for the better or the change might be her emotional or physical crippling. Those would be your words, not mine. But you already know that. marie I introduced that paragraph as a paraphrase and I set it apart and put it in italics to draw attentio to it's being something said in aspecial sort of way. I really doubt any careful reader imagined I was attributing that to you. quote: quote: And really, your sarcastic comment (that wasn't a dig; sarcasm properly applied is a legitimate conversational gambit) about "as long as no one is getting murdered" glosses over the sad statistical fact that it is precisely within relationships that so many people do get murdered. It isn't apples and oranges at all. Lurid as murder may be to mention it is very close to the heart of the matter Murder is "close to the heart of the matter" of a 22 year old thinking that he doesnt need or want platonic male/female relationships in his life? Im not sure where the fuck that came from. Im not sure I even want to look underneath that rock. No, marie. Close to the heart of the matter of the value of considering another's opinion of whether one's world-view makes any sense at all. Contrary to the OP's apparent opinion, everything witten here doesn't have to revolve around him. Yes the topic of your stated ethos arose in that context. But conversations move along by steps. I was no longer talking about the OP. I was talking about your stated ethos. I didn't just assume you would figure that out I made it very explicit. quote: quote: I'd draw the line of the value of your stated ethos well before murder, well before any abuse results from it. I think that considering whether one's views would make any sense to anyone else is just a real good thing to do to promote a healthy life and healthy relationships. I agree. But we werent talking about promoting a relationship. we were talking about his not wanting a relationship. If you want to talk about the promotion and healthy life of a relationship, I would happily indulge you. In fact, I would welcome it. Well I was talking about promoting a healthy life and healthy relationships in general at that point. Is that okay? Honestly, conversations really do progress sometimes from one topic to another. quote: quote: In the end you don't have to conform. Society and/or your partner may be in the wrong for going the opposite way. Still I think it is unwise just devalue the question of whether anyone else can make even make sense of our view of the world. I think we would do this kind of devaluing at our peril and at the peril of those whose lives we touch. Or whose lives we choose not to touch, which, one more time, is a person's own prerogative and is what the OP was about. I think it is wonderful that you could read the OP and see that and only that as it's subject matter. It seemed to me that it touched on some other subjects as well. Furthermore--and maybe this is another habit of mine which annoys you, I was considering more than the original post. I was considering other things said in the thread. Specifically I had moved on from pointless efforts to talk to the OP and had taken considerable time to explore an idea you had introduced. It was an idea which I had found astonishing as I first perceieved it. I didn't write you off and block as an idiot, though. I didn't insult or attack you. I took up a conversation with you about your idea. Imagine! quote: quote: I hope I've made my point clearer, and that you'll consider it. I've done more than consider it. Ive taken the time to respond to it and Ive enjoyed it. (if you can believe that) A little secret: I actually find it easy to believe what you tell me. The surprise for me is that it seems so very difficult for you to take me at my word. quote: quote: For all I know we didn't start out very apart but that we're describing similar things differently. I'm listening if you'd care to comment. Im touched. Maybe you other readers are certain whether there is any sincerity in that claim but I admit to being up in the air. quote: quote: Oh, and I'm flattered that you have come around to my view that after a certain point ridicule becomes an appropriate response to the ridiculous. Aww....whatsamatter?? Sense of humor gone to the cleaners??? Far from it, marie. As I said above I liked your little satire.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 2:22:57 PM)
Oh my gosh!! I just read a novel...

Noah -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 2:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 Oh my gosh!! I just read a novel... You gotta be a masochist!

cuddleheart50 -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 2:43:16 PM)
Somewhat after reading that!!!

marieToo -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 5:52:15 PM)
You're funny Noah. You cut people up with your sarcasm, chew up the pieces, spit their bones out onto the floor, then wipe the drool from your chin, all before you've even had breakfast. Then when it comes back to you in one fraction of the degree that you pass it around, you act like your widdle feelings are hurt. Priceless! Let me clarify what started out as a very direct and very simple statement, then I will address your sorrows. For once and for all...My now infamous statement was said in direct reference to Treswanks original post. Not to anyone else, not to something that came up later, but to his OP. When I responded to your question about whether or not I meant it in general, I thought you meant whether or not it applied to all peoples opinions, not whether or not I meant it as a general statement for every situation across the board in all circumstances, in all of life. Do I really come off that ignorant? Did the possibility that I meant this theory to apply to someone considering murder, really and truly cross your mind????? I find that hard to believe and think its more likely that Im being manipulated. No, Im not calling you a liar, but Im telling you honestly that I have doubts about your sincerity. Let me re-word the whole shabang in the way I know (oops..wait...i meant to say in the way I think) you want to read it, cuz I know ( I mean....I think) you're big on this clarification bullshit. And well, on the off chance that youre not jerking my chain, I sincerely would like you to understand how I meant it. Heres how I think my post shouldve looked so as not to cause you confusion: (and im really not being a smart ass...well, maybe I am just alittle bit) but like you said, sometimes ridicule is acceptable when dealing with the ridiculous. *REPLY TO OP. (for those of you who arent sure that the words "Reply to OP" means, Im replying to the OP, please understand that I am actually replying to the OP and not to the comments others made, or comments from the "same page" as the OP.) When deciding personally, for ourselves, who we enter into relationships with and why* we enter into those relationships, our own beliefs are the only ones that ultimately navigate us, regardless of what others on a MB say. You can listen to opinions, but if you dont agree, its ok to still hold your own beliefs as more valid, for yourself. Now, Treswank, I want to make it clear that if youre in a relationship, your feelings and points are of course not the only ones to consider. I only mean that your points are the only ones that matter when you are deciding what gender you wish to form friendships with.** I think thats much better. Dont you, Noah? This should clear it up for any people who thought that I was suggesting that if he felt like commiting murder or rape, his potential victims' feelings and the laws of society need not come into his consideration before he sharpens the knife, or whips his cock out to take that poor girl up the ass in a dark alley. And yes, I agree it sucks when someone assumes how you meant something, if in fact their assumption is erroneous. However, when they know exactly how we meant something, we feel good, dont we? Its like they could finish our sentences for us. ( I have a girlfriend like that. She always knows what I mean) When people relate to one another, its impossible to not form interpretations on how they mean things...I mean...come on...its natural...we read, we sense, we listen and we come up with an idea of how we think its meant. Granted, depending on our differing mental roadmaps, we are sometimes wrong in our intrepretations of others, in which case we need to communicate and help the other party understand that they've mistaken us. I find this especially true on the internet. Surely you're not going to now try to tell me that people dont form, as theyre talking to one another, an opinion on what the other party is saying and how they mean it? Or are you?Im not one to do a tit for tat thing, but I can site examples of you doing this to me about 3 times in your last post. (If you need that, let me know and I'll put that in the next chapter.) The only difference is I didnt thrown down like a pissy little girl over it. You even had the chutzpah to say that you were "Paraphrasing" me when you took the framework of my paragraph and replaced certian words with new words like "murder". Paraphrasing??? Or putting words in my mouth to convey what you think I meant? Then you actually go on and take the liberty of making a statement that speaks to the fact that you doubt that anyone will take it to mean anything other than what you meant by it. How is it that its ok for these other hypthetical people to assume how you meant something, but its not ok for me? I mean isnt this the very thing youre bitching about? Holy Shit is all I can say to that. Now, as far as the ridicule thing...youre missing the point. I know what my point was, because I wrote the post. Of course you can try to tell me again how I really meant it, but you'll be wrong. It wasnt so much about ridicule as it was about the hypocrasy of professing some shiny shit about maturity WHILE you were name-calling like a child in a school yard. If you read my post to Treswank, you will see that message there and I dont think you have to read too far between the lines to understand that it was about hypocrasy, not ridicule. If you still dont see it, by all means let me know, and I can not only reword it for you, but I can say it in 4 other languages if it helps you grasp it. Im kidding, I can only say it in one language, but I can reword it to help you understand. No, my sense of humor wasnt at the cleaners, Noah. I just dont get in the ring with kids. Furthermore, it didnt sound like humor to me. So, I didnt take it as funny. Ya see heres where the confusion comes in.... You imply that it was meant in jest, by razzing me about not having a sense of humor about it, then in your next post, you call it "ridicule" and you even go on to justify it by saying that sometimes ridicule is an acceptable way to deal with the ridiculous. I mean, was it ridicule?? or was it humor? I dont care which one you pick, I just wish you'd pick one and fucking stick with it already. Now, Im not saying anything negative about Treswanks. Hes extremely intelligent, morseo than myself. But he lacks experience and wisdom, therefore, I would never come down on him as if he were a peer, especially about something that you need to acquire wisdom for in order to know how wrong you are. He's young enough to be my son for christs sake. And I stumbled onto a thread where I saw a bunch of 50 yr olds high-fiving each other for ripping down on a kid for a statement that someday hes going to feel foolish for making. I made my interpretation of what I saw and I addressed him. I Didnt come down on you, I didnt address you, I didnt criticise you, I didnt name names, I offered support to the kid and I left. Imagine the horror of it all! The thought crossed my mind that maybe what he's really saying is "this bothers me, someone help me understand why I cant have a platonic relationship with the opposite sex". Im not saying thats his message, but what if it were? I just offered him an example of someone with a vagina offering care without having an "ulterior" motive. Are we catching on yet? Ya see, there was nothing complicated here, and no misunderstandings until you called me out on the whole thing...Oh and I dont care what any other reader thinks, this correspondence has been to you. Frankly I dont care who else sees it or gets it. And I didnt write you off as an "idiot". I dont talk to idiots. I usually call them idiots then walk away. Now, seriously Im not sugar coating your ego, because I just dont do that shit, but I read your words to this kid and I thought to myself holy fucking shit, this man has so much to offer, he's so smart and so filled with wisdom, and he has the gift of being able to articulate everything in such a way that it makes such total sense and you'd have to be blind (or young as it were) to not see it, but fuck if I can figure out why he has to poison something that fucking wonderful by rolling in insults before he gives it away. I wondered why you feel the need to send everything home with the force of a sledgehammer, rendering (or appearing to render) it's value ineffective. That, to me, is a tragic fucking waste. Let me clarify because I know ( I mean, I think) you like that... I dont know you in your real life, I only know what I see here and that is what Im referencing when I say this. I could be wrong. It wouldnt be the first time and it sure as shit wont be the last. Now, Im sorry if you see me as lacking a sense of humor or lacking intellect (as you eluded to on the other thread), or lacking whatever the fuck else you think I lack. Hell, you may be right, but fuck if Im gonna run when you drag my ass out onto the carpet for such a stupid fucking thing.

Noah -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 7:28:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo .... Now, Im sorry if you see me as lacking a sense of humor or lacking intellect (as you eluded to on the other thread), or lacking whatever the fuck else you think I lack. Hell, you may be right, but fuck if Im gonna run when you drag my ass out onto the carpet for such a stupid fucking thing. Actually I called you "bright" in my last post, because that's what I think of you. My feelings weren't affected in any way by this thread, beyond the pleasure of some amusement here and there. As I took some trouble to point out I was busy trying to have a conversation with you and I just don't know how to converse with someone about ideas when their response is: "You're lying." I tried in my way to help move us over that hump and I failed. You still doubt my sincereity. So be it. For the record I have not doubted yours. Anyway it seems to turn out that from your point of view we weren't talking about ideas primarily but rather about something or other to do with a list of your deficiencies. That isn't what I was concerned with--aside from suspecting that your sense of humor had blinked at one point recently, which is a very different thing from suggesting that you don't have one. .. in my world. I think it is pretty safe to say that you and I see and approach things differently and have difficulty understanding one another. We live in different worlds, to use your term. You envision that ridicule and humor are mutually exclusive, for instance, and that a person can't be engaged in both at once. I for my part have seldom heard a standup comedian do an act which didn't ridicule something or other. Nor read any work of satire which didn't invoke humor as part of its ridicule. That doesn't suggest that one of us is smarter than the other or wiser than the other, in case you are once again feeling attacked. It suggests that we are using some key words word differently from one another. That happens. If we were two people who could communicate openly we could probably quickly discover a lot of agreement under the apparent discord. We aren't, though, and I doubt either of us will loose sleep over it. How my asking you what you meant by a statement and having a conversation about it counts as dragging your ass somewhere, for instance, well in my world that's another thing I can't make head or tail of. And I'm a guy who has experience dragging people's asses somewhere in more than one sense of the expression. So this post from my point of view, let me make it plain, is primarily on the subject of discourse continuation. Plenty of evidence is in now. I think it is safe to conclude that discontinuation is just the ticket for this conversation. I'll go wipe the drool and rest on my bone pile now but first let me wish you well.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 7:32:05 PM)
You two need to get together and write a book....lol

marieToo -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/5/2006 8:27:06 PM)
Noah: Im not down with your dismissal of our conversation, turbulent as it may have been, but I do however, accept it.

TreSwank -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 8:37:23 AM)
This has GOT to be required reading in some Ivy League humanities course.

SavageFaerie -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 9:30:37 AM)
TreSwank Sometimes I hate your threads...but at the same time even in you rcontroversal big words way ( I so need a dictionary) you bring up good points for me to "chew on my cud". Southern term. Simply said..it takes time to process, much like a cow and cuds. I more enjoy reading responses that writing them with you. But I have no problem Bitch Slapping you when I think you are full of chit. See Stripper thread. For some crazy reason..I acutally like you....although at times I would like to just rip your head off. I think you are great because of this. You love controversy...plain and simple it fills your need and others objective input on your thoughts. I just plain think it is your way of seeing many sides for a young pup. I cant help but admire you for this....coming from an older woman.

marieToo -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 10:04:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavageFaerie TreSwank Sometimes I hate your threads...but at the same time even in you rcontroversal big words way ( I so need a dictionary) you bring up good points for me to "chew on my cud". Southern term. Simply said..it takes time to process, much like a cow and cuds. I more enjoy reading responses that writing them with you. But I have no problem Bitch Slapping you when I think you are full of chit. See Stripper thread. For some crazy reason..I acutally like you....although at times I would like to just rip your head off. I think you are great because of this. You love controversy...plain and simple it fills your need and others objective input on your thoughts. I just plain think it is your way of seeing many sides for a young pup. I cant help but admire you for this....coming from an older woman. Direct translation: She wants your body, Tres. <Kidding!!!>

TreSwank -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 10:08:14 AM)
I don't think, for one iota of a millisecond, that I necessarily thrive on controversy, or negative feedback from the general public. The only possible personality defect that I would concede to possessing, as pertains to your statement, is a PROFOUND inability to "just let go." When I'm tuned into my own frequency, (23 & 1/2 hours out of the day), not even the emotional paroxysms of folks in my immediate surroundings can deter me. Granted, I've had alot of relationship friction because of those things, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, I value and trust my own crystallized will and intuitions more than the rationalizations (no matter how cogent they might appear) of others. A fellow that I admired A WHOLE LOT during my teenage years, once told me that he only followed the dictates of God, and let the word of other men fall away like useless chaff in the harvest. While I may not be a necessarily "spiritual person" (probably moreso in the opposite direction), I'd rather follow my own line of deduction than to hear it from anyone who uses an ass-ton of words to discredit something that I feel is worth saying.

amayos -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 10:18:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreSwank ...but I believe that most of my male peers who claim to speak to attractive women solely out of non-prurient interest are bullshitters, or, even worse, unscrupulous woman-flatterers. In so many cases this is true. And you know what has been said of flatterers: they feed with empty spoons.

TreSwank -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 10:21:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Direct translation: She wants your body, Tres. <Kidding!!!> LOL! I highly doubt that, but, if she lived in a closer area, she knows that she could get it anytime she wanted it. *TreSwank pouts like a goddamn schoolgirl while he retrieves the belt from it's "special place".

SusanofO -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 10:22:13 AM)
Please don't pick on my buddy Noah! [:o] It makes me want to cry. Really. Just stop it. I am sure Noah can take care of himself, but - I find his opinions to be spot on in many threads - and would hate to see him go away because of any misunderstandings. I, for one, would really, really miss his words of wisdom and point(s) of view. So - kiss and make up, you guys. Or at least hug - okay? Really.[:)] I like Tres and marie and Noah. I just hate fighting (sorry, I am an argument wimp). - Susan

Inhibitor -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 4:53:41 PM)
To the OP: step back from the literalisms for a few minutes, and consider: Sex is just a type of communion. I'll qualify it as serving two purposes (excluding out-and-out procreation for now, since I doubt you mean that a woman's male "friends" all consciously want to have children with her): pleasure and self-advancement. There are many types of communion which serve these purposes. For instance, a lot of my male friends are artists. We collaborate on works or scrutinize each others pieces; this process rewards me with pleasure and a great deal of self-advancement. I don't mean to say that this is a straight trade for sex, but in my experience, it is certainly intimate and can be very sensual. In this vein, I'd say it's not an issue of intergender platonic friendships being "impossible," rather, I'd say platonic friendships in their pure, textbook form, don't really exist at all. Most of my friends are male (though I am bisexual), and they are all "close" - if we do not feed on each other in some way, we're merely accquaintances. Certainly, I've had sexual thoughts or inclinations towards many of my friends. But I see that simply as a natural extension of the attractions that founded the friendship in the first place. And those attributes are often far more valuable to me than a session or two of fluid exchange.

cheshireboy -> RE: It Ain't Possible (8/6/2006 5:02:06 PM)
within most male psyche, the drive for sex has very few limitations. so it is understandable to see where having friendships without sexual urges is impossible...but i tend to look at it this way.... now while i at one time did agree with everything stated by the original post <gotta love the When Harry met Sally movie> i have found that as maturity comes, and life experiences, the teenage urges still may be there, but the male may decide that the friendship is valued more than the fuck. It is denying man's nature? No. It is choosing the closeness of a friendship and realizing that is more sought after than anything else. cheshire.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125