Re: large pool always filling up

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:41ae98de$0$22705$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
>
> >> So you can imply, but I must be precise?
> >
>
> Solely on the grounds that an email sent to Alan regarding this specific
> point has bounced, I post it here.
>
> ====================================
>
> >So you can imply, but I must be precise?
>
> No, that's not it Alan.
>
> My implying does no-one harm. My questions implied that I don't think
> he's got a problem with his large pool. That doesn't also imply that
> he's an idiot, slapdash, or quick to leap to conclusions. It merely
> implies something about my beliefs about his large pool.
>
> So implying is not a bad thing, provided it doesn't imply harm, hurt or
> injury to someone.
>
> And your trouble in the current matter is not that you were imprecise.
> Quite the contrary. The words you used have a very precise, specific
> meaning, and I found that meaning insulting.
>
> Where the imprecision issue arises is that you say that you meant
> nothing insulting by your words. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that
> you have used precise words imprecisely, since the insult was
> nonetheless felt. You have not, in short, made your actual meaning
> clear. And that is the precision I think you should have tried for.
>
> It is a mistake, in other words, to juxtapose 'implying' and 'precision'
> as if one is right and the other wrong. Both are fine in the right
> context. But the words you used in your original post were not in the
> right context.
>
> Now, you may not have *meant* them to be insulting. Indeed, it seems
> pretty evident from your latest post in the newsgroup that you didn't
> even mean some of them to be directed to me at all. But what you meant
> to achieve, and what you actually ended up achieving, are two rather
> different things.
>
> I do actually have a fairly thick skin, and my reply to your original
> post was tart, but restrained, precisely because I didn't want to make
> an almighty issue of it. I note that you have chosen to apologise in
> public for 'the way I took it', rather than actually for the words you
> used. I suspect that is as good as I'm actually going to get, even
> though it's an apology that actually puts me in the wrong again.
>
> So leave it there, eh.
>
> HJR
It's kind of difficult to "leave it there", as you "suspect" incorrectly. And, actually, _I_ am insulted by your suspicion. So, in the interest of future communications, let me be precise:

I apparently insulted you. It was unintentional. I am sorry.

I am not a machine, I am a human being, so it is very possible that I may use words imprecisely. I strive to use words precisely, but, unfortunately, I am not perfect. I hope that you will strive to recognize that people are not perfect and may therefore use words imprecisely. Received on Thu Dec 02 2004 - 08:20:46 CST