Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > From the summary of your posting above, do you not see
> > how some have come to see you as "self-aggrandizing"?
> >
> > If not, allow me to suggest one simple technique for you
> > to experiment with. The next time you post, read over
> > the draft and try to remove all occurrences of the word
> > "I", not in a trivial fashion of course, but rather with
> > introspection.

dawn wrote:
> [I see that everything I wrote here does not take into
> account your suggestion ... I do not know how to express
> an opinion as if were the truth, as others do, and, in
> fact, have made it a policy to try to ensure the reader
> can tell the difference, but I will research that STYLE
> of writing before I post again.
> ...
> Stating opinions as absolutes is arrogant and misleading.
> Does that sentence work? I trust you can see the humor in
> using that statement to give this a spin. With my own
> STYLE, I would have said "It seems to me that stating
> opinions as absolutes is arrogant and misleading." BB
> even makes his statements about me, never having met me,
> as if they were the truth, rather than simply his opinion,
> flawed as it may be. I recognize there are some who
> prefer that STYLE of writing and will give it a spin when
> I engage the subject matter again. If I find the technique
> too hard to master or am too OFFENDED by it myself, I will
> simply chat with those who are willing to engage in the
> dialogue while letting me be me.

[emphasis added - KHD]

Dear Dawn,

Noting your repeated use of STYLE and the general content of your message I believe you have missed my point. The suggestion was not to follow a particular grammatical style. Transforming sentences from one parse tree to another falls under "trivial" editing "fashion" warned against. It is not a prohibition of "I" or any other syntax. Repeated use of "I" is simply sometimes a _signal_.

The _key_ to the suggestion was _introspection_. In other words I'm suggesting one (as in one of many) simple mechanic that helps to encourage a style of _thinking_ (not writing). Differences in thinking of course will translate into differences in communication. Thus since the suggestion was for a method of introspection when communicating (and not a grammatical style) you cannot be OFFENDED by the method except to the extent that your thoughts offend yourself.

For example, you might ask yourself "What is the purpose of these statements? What is my motivation? What is my goal?"

1. I took several years of stones ... I recognize I'm a heretic ...
2. I also know what happens to heretics ...
3. I might even retract ... I have no disagreement with the mathematics ... I disagree with some [standard] choices ... I have not ... prove[n] my hunches ...
4. I have enough experience with budgets ...
5. I have formed opinions ... I write about that which interests me ... I continue my search, in spite of [you]
6. I sit in my oldest daughter and her husband's comfortable, happy, recently-built home
7. I'm online to look up Phi Beta Kappa ... I understand the honor my youngest is receiving ... her graduation this weekend ...
8. I have at least done some things right ... and
9. given his approach ... [FP] seems a sad sort I wonder if [you] have happy lives ... I worry about [Fabian Pascal] I worry about Bob Badour too]
10. -- a mom

1. appeal to pity, appeal to authority (in this case the common knowledge that many heretics were right, Galileo for example)
2. faulty generalization, guilt by association, poisoning the well

   In other words you want readers to feel sorry for you, to    believe that you are somehow special and revolutionary    and anyone who opposes you is a dogmatist, an inquisitor.

3) proof by assertion, it remains to be seen whether you can

   accept reasoned arguments and change your beliefs.

4) appeal to authority, non-sequitur

5) meaningless or obvious statements, self-centered (why

   should we care what interests you?)

Here's where self-aggrandizement, arrogance, and especially price became blatant in my view.

6) PRIDE. Recently-built? I couldn't help but wonder how

   much of nature they consumed to build this new home. Are    they greedy and gluttonous? How many of them drive FUVs    (yes the F is intentional)? Moreover, who bloody well    cares how fortunate you are? And how is this relevant.

7) PRIDE, non-sequitur. Her wonderful special family is

   entirely irrelevant.

8) PRIDE, arrogance, non-sequitur. Perhaps her daughters

   turned out well in spite of, rather than because of her.    And either way it is irrelevant. And did I mention "Who    cares?"

9) arrogance, ad hominem.

0) unmitigated price and arrogance.

At least those were my immediate impressions which of course depended on many factors. Furthermore, what any particular reader infers (in this case me) is not the important point. You cannot control how _every_ reader perceives your communication. What is important is that you _consider_ with introspection what, how, and why you are communicating.

> Thanks for your suggestion, as that is much more
> enlightening and helpful than simply slamming me.

Hopefully this continues to be the case. Please understand that I am not trying to slam _you_. As a mother enjoying the graduation of her child, some amount of pride is certainly expected. Thus I have no trouble understanding the very human emotions reflected in your writing. So it truly is not my goal to attack you. Rather it is to point out what I perceived as deficiencies in the thinking behind a particular communication you wrote.

• Keith --

PS. Congratulations to your family. And to anyone out there who happens to drive an FUV, please consider a more fuel efficient lifestyle. Our culture of consumption is a very bad thing. Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 01:14:05 CEST