Conference quark::human_relations-v1

�	I'm asking this;
�	1. Why do we get so angry so easily over other people's opinions?
�	2. Why do we get so angry so easily at an arrogant jerk?
�	3. Wouldn't attempted understanding and convivial disagreement be
�	a better way for people to communicate?
�	4. Do we WANT to be angry?  Do we LIKE being angry?
�	5. Is there some special joy derived from anger and hostility?


	 Its not necessarily WHAT a person says but HOW they say
	 it....  There are plenty of things that I agree with in this
	 notesfile, but I get angry (I don't like that word) at the
	 way people say it... Lots of times people don't read what
	 they say and realize that the way they said it is going to
	 make some people "blow their stack"

	 I have been "reamed" many times for this....yes, rik, you are
	 NOT the only one that gets picked on....There have been
	 numerous times people have written me nasty notes saying "I
	 agree with you, but you said it the wrong way and offended
	 me."  If someone is offended by the tone of a note, they are
	 going to scream...

	 keg

    I agree with Kathy's reply - that it is what the other noters assume
    are your intensions that they hate, or it is you BECAUSE of these
    perceived intensions.
    
    I know personally that I have responded to notes by stating my personal
    beliefs (and they were clearly labeled as such), and got nasty notes
    because "I was being judgmental," or I was trying to tell someone
    how to live, or I was offending someone because of their own
    sensitivity (when I certainly Didn't intend to offend).
    
    Rik, if people Hate you for what you say, or what your beliefs are,
    then *they* are losing out!  I realize that it hurts when someone
    (anyone) doesn't like you, but their hate hurts THEM more than it
    hurts You.
    
    Jack

    
    Rik,
    	I think everyone has right to his or her opinion. I think most
    people believe that too.  The problem comes when people hear 
    what your ideas are and decide that if everyone had those ideas
    they personally would be worse off.
    
    				- A.J. 
    
    ps  I personally get mad a "liberals" because it seems every solution
        they come up with is going to cost me lots of $$$. When I disagree
    	(I am allowed to have my opinion, right?) I get labled a
    	greed-head. 

    Re: .0
    
    >1. Why do we get so angry so easily over other people's opinions?
    
    It's a variable thing -- depends on the person, depends on how life
    is going for them at the critical moment.  However, one thing to
    consider is that people are emotionally attached to some of their
    opinions.  Disagreement can become a personal affront, regardless
    of your intentions.
    
    >2. Why do we get so angry so easily at an arrogant jerk?
    
    Because their arrogance can be construed as an attack on or
    disparagement of our own sense of self-worth (assuming we bother
    to get angry at an arrogant jerk).
    
    >3. Wouldn't attempted understanding and convivial disagreement be
    >a better way for people to communicate?
    
    Of course.
    
    >4. Do we WANT to be angry?  Do we LIKE being angry?
    
    Some people, sometimes.  Being angry can release tensions, even
    when (perhaps especially when) the target of the anger is not the
    source of the tensions.  Also, being angry often feeds into a feeling
    of self-righteousness, which can be very satisfying.

    >5. Is there some special joy derived from anger and hostility?
    
    See above.

    I've been a reader of H_R for some time now.  The one thing I notice
    is that people don't think they've made their point.  If I put in
    my thoughts at say reply .6, then why do I need to restate them
    in another reply?  Too often, noters argue because they do not assume
    that the readership understands/agrees with them.  Trying to convert
    others to one's own beliefs is not an easy thing.  It usually ends
    up that the arguments alienate the reader.  Everyone needs to remember
    that once stated, their ideas are posted and need not be argued.
     Maybe then there would be less anger between noters.
    
    rng

RE: .0 - Let's deal with example #2 first: 

I suggest the author lighten up. No one has called him a 'jerk' - at
least, not in this note file. As a matter of fact, I remember
people reassuring him that he was not one. 

No one hates him, either. At least, there is no evidence of this on
this notefile. 

As far as I can see, no one is even angry at him. 

Does that mean he is wrong in his assertions? No, it doesn't. It
simply means that he does not appreciate the full impact he makes on
others (thus eliciting the responses he interprets as insults, hate
and anger). Look at the inflammatory way .0 is worded; count the
derogatory words 'arrogant', 'jerk', 'rude', 'conceited', 'hate',
etc., etc., etc.. 

Not long ago I was present when a friend's son responded to him in a
very high-strung, rude manner and then stormed out of the room. My
friend, a bit embarrassed and not a little sad, remarked: "What can
you expect? Irritable parents breed irritable children". 

How true. And, irritating notes produce irritated replies. Some of 
us tend to communicate in a way that tends to promote negativism. 

We then look at these irritated, negative responses and say that
people hate us, think we are jerks and why can't they be all loving,
benevolent and positive; and, isn't harmony better than cacophony; 
and, shouldn't we all be for peace, motherhood and apple pie.

What's the answer? I don't know; but, how  about if we exercise
control over what we say and --especially-- how we say it. I know
that if it's not in one's nature, it's difficult to do. I also know
this doesn't work all the time (especially when one is confronted by
someone who hasn't read this advice yet :-) ), but it does work most
of the time. Then, fewer people will be irritated when they disagree
with us. 

BTW, give this same advice to all liberals from example #1, who
elicit in people those same negative responses. It could work for
them, too. 

-- Ron 

    
    re .8
    so i question the neccesity of marriage
    and i question the belief that voting is worthwhile
    and i question wether there can't be a better way for people to
    live
    and i question wether we should bother believing in religions
    and wearing suits for success
    i question lots of things that most people just accept....
    i question wether i should use capitals in sentences!
    i question wether most of the work we do is really necessary
    i question patriotism and standing for judges and calling people
    weird names like..."your majesty"? is he really majestic?
      "your highness" is he really high?
    i question strange laws that make no sense
    
    and far too often (if it happens once then it's far too often)
    i recieve anger, hostility and resentment as replies...
    "what's the matter sawyer....having a bad day?"
    
    re: 9
    my friend....you haven't been watching these notes for the past
    1.5 years.  I\ve recieved a lot of angry and hostile replies
    and personal mail from human relations noters (and other notes noters)
	and, the term "jerk" has indeed been applied to me by at least
    2 noters whose notes were not deleted or censored by moderators!
        
    I'm sure you haven't kept track of this and i don't expect you to.
    However, I can certainly pull out the examples (which i won't do)
    
    ok...
    i'm not pleased when i get these angry replies....
    but my question has less to do with me and more to do with....
    
    why are these people so damned angry?
    
    when i read the boston herald or the manchester union leader why
    is it so full of "liberals are jerks" commentary?
    
    why, when i suggest that there are ways  to live that can be very
    fulfilled and happy sans marriage some people, even human relations
    noters, reply in a definite hostile manner?
    
    i can accept disagreement...
    when i say "marriage is an old tradition and is no longer necessary"
    i'll quite happily accept
    "but rik we like it and we want it so we disagree with you"
    I can't happily accept....
    "sawyer is obviously a victim of a failed marriage and thinks he can
    tell the whole world how to live"
    
    lighten up?
    i don't think so...
    i have yet begun to bitch!
   but there it is...."lighten up, sawyer"
    YES SIR!
    AND SHOULD I DO 100 PUSHUPS, SIR?
    (please note that i'm not mad about this but am using this as an
    example!)
    You say "lighten up" like you know what you are talking about...
    so i should listen to you and "lighten up"
    is this not an example of YOU telling ME how to live?
    yup. (and i do agree with you...i should lighten up...i shouldn't
    let ignorant people who get angry and hostile upset me...but i do)
    
    and you think that's ok....
    but when i tell people "lighten up on this marriage stuff"
    or "lighten up on this patriotism crap and these religious myths"
    i'm told....."sawyer thinks he can tell the whole world how to live"
    
    and, in truth, as i watch the world unfold around me in all it's
    anger and hostility, it's blind faith and meek acquiesence, it's
    neurotic and psychotic reactions to myths and traditions....i certainly
    do think i can tell the whole world of a better way to live...
    
    but they get angry about it... 
    

    Re: .10
    
    >and, in truth, as i watch the world unfold around me in all it's
    >anger and hostility, it's blind faith and meek acquiesence, it's
    >neurotic and psychotic reactions to myths and traditions....
    
    Ever watch anything good unfold as well?
    
    >i certainly
    >do think i can tell the whole world of a better way to live...
    >
    >but they get angry about it... 
    
    As I've mentioned, people can get pretty emotionally attached to
    their beliefs, opinions and lifestyles.  A challenge can be perceived
    as a threat.  Anger is one common response to a threat.
    
    As for hostility directed toward you over the years, I think it
    could be, in part, due to the points RETORT::RON has made.  Frankly,
    in this note and others, you seem to be saying, "Everybody picks
    on me."  It can come across as whining or martyrdom/persecution
    complex.  Ever hear of self-fulfilling prophecies?  When people
    detect what they interpret as whining, one of the reactions is to
    kick the whiner because they are traditionally very frustrating
    to deal with.  Is it nice?  No.  Is it mature?  No.  Is it human?
    Yes.  Given your rather bleak view of the world as presented above,
    I doubt you will find this surprising.
    
    (For tips on how to deal with frustrating people, see _Coping with
    Difficult People_ by Robert M. Bramson -- excellent book.)

>>    	What I take exception to, Rik, is your assumption that you
>>    know what's best for me.  I'd be surprised to find I'm the only
>>    one who feels this way.



	 now, come on, mike, that was rude.... I, too, have been in
	 the same situation rik is in...its frustrating when everyone
	 condemns you for your opinion....

	 rik has the right to his opinions...i think in his notes that
	 is all he is trying to express...a lot of us write like we
	 think what we say is *law*, but that is not what we mean at
	 all.

	 i think maybe a little change in rik;s writing style and we
	 all may benefit by some of the things he has to say...and
	 surely not condemn him so much....

	 maybe??

	 kathy

	re: last few....
	mike...
	you seem to be justifying your negative and hostile comments....
	do 2 wrongs make a right?
	I think most noters would say...no...
	and you are making an assumption....
	you are assuming "rik assumes he knows what's best for everyone"
	could you be wrong in this assumption?
	Why is it ok for you to make a negative assumption about me but
you don't think it's ok for me to make one about you or other noters?

	you enter your replies and opinions because you believe in them
and they work for you. THis is exactly the same reason i enter my replies.
	I'm extremely liberal. Most people are not nearly as liberal as I.
	Many of my replies and beliefs are extremely non-standard....
	Most of the noters in here enter basically standard beliefs and
opinions. (well, compared to mine, anyway)
	I don't think I tell them (in whatever terminology) that they
are jerks...i just enter my own beliefs and opinions....
	and far too often i recieve, from you, mike, and others, angry,
hostile and negative replies....
	Do I think I'm PICKED ON?
	Not really...i think most people find my beliefs threatening...
and react in a negative manner...
	But when you say hostile and negative things about me and my
beliefs then, yes, i would say that you were/are "picking" on me...
	Especiaclly you, mike...!
    	Many times, in other conferences and other topics, I have entered
    in my opinion and you, Mike, have replied negatively to those opinions!
    	We, you and I, have had a number of run-ins that started with
    my entering an opinion and you stating...."rik thinks he can tell
    the whole world how to live"...or comments like that...
    	Wouldn't it have been better fo ryou to just disagree with
    me...give your reasons...without being nasty?
    	I really would prefer, my friend, that you just disagree with me
and give your reasons without making negative and hostile assumptions
and comments....
	Just like you...when you *assume* negative things about me and
    make negative comments on these assumptions...I *assume* that your
    commentary is negative and uncalled for!
    	and that is what .0 is about....

	Now, if you, in the future, can refrain from hostile and negative
comments...
	and if i can keep my opinions free from "assumptions"...
	you and i can get along...
	and we will have made the world a better place!
	
	sounds good to me...
	amiably votre'
	rik

    re: .10

    I agree with much of what Chelsea (.11) and Kathy (.13) have
    already said, especially if I put those ideas together (Chelsea 
    addressed the emotionality aspect, Kathy the presentation
    aspect) and add the dynamics of "listening".
    
    I believe that it's not so much *what* is said as 1) how it's
    said,  2) how it's "heard", and 3) the emotional charge that
    people feel in regard to many issues.  
    
    If I state my "opinion" as global "fact", someone's very likely 
    to take it as a confrontation to their "facts".
    
    f'rinstance:
    
    � when i say "marriage is an old tradition and is no longer necessary"
    
    It might be a little more open-ended to say "I think. . .",  
    "I find. . ." or "I believe. . ."  As it's written, it's a statement
    that some will likely "hear" as applying to them, by definition - 
    effectively saying to that reader "Your marriage is. . ."
    
    It occurs to me that the only control the writer has over what the 
    reader "hears" (i.e. interprets) is the clarity of the presentation 
    of the writer's ideas.  To the extent that one can eliminate incorrect
    reader interpretations, the ideas will be "heard" correctly.
    
    �      (and i do agree with you...i should lighten up...i shouldn't
    � let ignorant people who get angry and hostile upset me...but i do)
    
    Again, I think the effects of language play in - the implication
    is that, if I get angry at you, I'm ignorant.  I realize that 
    denotatively, "ignorant" is not a pejorative term; however, I
    believe most folks attach a negative connotation.  The emotional
    loading of the sentence changes remarkably if the word "ignorant"
    is dropped.
    
    � and, in truth, as i watch the world unfold around me in all it's
    � anger and hostility, it's blind faith and meek acquiesence, it's
    � neurotic and psychotic reactions to myths and traditions....i certainly
    � do think i can tell the whole world of a better way to live...
    
    If it read ". . .i certainly do think i can suggest some better
    ways. . ." it strikes me as much easier to accept.  I suspect most 
    people get a bit riled when they feel someone is *telling* them 
    how to live.  On the other hand, I would have to consider myself
    as acting like a jerk not to listen to a suggestion. . .
        
    To respond to the depth of anger/passion that sometimes comes
    out, I'm reprinting (with the author's permission) an extract
    of a reply in another conference on another topic.  I've edited
    out references to the conference, note topic, and author because
    I think it works as a generic statement.  
    
    � . . .is simply a statement of my beliefs, and it is worded strongly
    � because I believe that the "xxxxxxx" mindset is a direct threat
    � to my own life, the lives of any potential children I may have,
    � and to the basic harmony of nature on this planet.
    
    Thus when such a person sees a *statement* like "The best way to
    live is. . ." and that statement reflects the "xxxxx" mindset,
    said person is gonna have a whole lot of emotion ready to play
    out.  And I suspect strongly that nearly all of us are such
    people.
    
    Steve
    

    
    re: 17
    explain...
    ok...
    though woody allan has done an excellent job of making us all
    laugh at our basic neurosis'
    
    when we take a child and drill a particular thought into that child...
    	"you WILL get married! it IS important! divorce IS bad!"
    and this child grows up assuming these statements to be true...
    a neurosis is created!
    
    	"i gotta get married and i can't get divorced or it WILL be
    a failure and how can i live if i fail at marriage!"
    
    	THAT...is nuerotic...
    	We all have them...
    	I have them!....
    	I had more of them but through the process of new age thinking
    have managed to discard many of them....still...more remain to be
    worked on.
    	I don't consider it a BAD thing to be neurotic....it's just
    something that happens due to the social pressures to conform to
    rules, standards and regulations that ARE NOT NECCESSARILY the best
    way for all people to travel....
    	Yet, most people continue to hold on to these traditions...
    and to me they are nothing more then enforced myths...
    	and because we hold onto them and act upon maintaining them...
    we become neurotic about it!
    	most people are neurotic about maintaining a marriage...
    	i think it's unneccesary for them to feel this way and i feel
    that most people would be happier if they were driven less by this
    *neurotic* urge to remain within the boundaries of social/peer pressure
    regarding marriage...
    	One of my biggest neurosis is to make the world a better place...
    	I tend to be driven by this....
    	i can see many ways that i believe will make people and the
    world happier with themselves and each other...
    	and i, neurotically, strive for this!
    	i also tend to be neurotic over my music....driven to reach
    some successful plateau within the music industry....
    	i don't think all neurosis are bad....
    	some may even be good!
    	but many are induced by society and, from my perspective,
    mostly traditional and not as important as we are led to believe...
    
    	perhaps we would all be happier is we could pick our own neurosis?
    
    	but, to the main point....
    	if i say something offensive...
    	it really would be better for you to just point it out...
    nicely and politely...!
    	there really is no reason for us to attack each other...
    
    steve mallet, you, and others, have pointed out that my notes
    tend to be aggressive and offensive...
    	i think that is true sometimes but it's not because i'm
    a rude, offensive person...
	I freely admit that, through negligiance, fast typing, lack
    of proof-reading and thoughtlessness i have definitely entered
    replies that could be construed (i know...the word doesn't exist)
    as *offensive*.
    	I apologize for this.
    	And, further, i work hard to correct this!
    	I do NOT justify it!
    	And, I contend, like this reply, in the future, you will that
    my replies, though still non-standard, will be more considerate
    of other peoples feelings and beliefs....
    	I promise.....
    	So....i grow a little more...
    	I admit a weakness...
    	I work to correct that weakness...
    
    	How about you?
    	votre'
    	rik
    
    

    We tend to want people to believe what we believe....be marriage
    is forever or what ever other social processes that we subscribe
    to.  That is not a neurosis it is normal.
    
    And it is quite evident that our resident liberal wants very much
    for his children, his SO's and us (his peers) to believe that his
    liberal attitudes are the ones we should all view as gospel.
    
    Isn't he doing to us what he says we are doing to him?

    re: .18
    
    � steve mallet, you, and others, have pointed out that my notes
    � tend to be aggressive and offensive...
    
    Uh. . .would you care to point to anything that even remotely
    "point[s] out that [your] notes tend to be aggressive and offensive..."
    				               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Now please - stop all that right hand finger tapping and I'll
    take another pass at this.  
    
    What I said was that *sometimes* the way you phrase things makes it 
    easier for others to misinterpret your words.  What I suggest is 
    that opinion, couched in the language of "fact", tends to invite 
    misinterpretation; the strong emotions associated with the topics 
    involved tend to bring those misinterpretations back in language 
    which is even more confrontative.
    
    �	i think that is true sometimes but it's not because i'm
    � a rude, offensive person...
    
    I have yet to see you be rude or offensive. . .BUT, that's in
    part because I've had the good fortune to meet and work with you
    a couple of times and, therefore, can more accurately interpret
    your words.  F'rinstance when I read your remarks about neurosis,
    I mentally added in a lot of "the way I see things" type phrases
    because I (hope) I know you well enough to understand that's
    how you view the world.  The rik I think I know has, as one of
    his operational assumptions, the belief that *none* of us knows 
    what's "right" or "best" for all of us.
    
    But, someone who has yet to have the pleasure of your company might 
    read the following with very different perspective:
    
    � when we take a child and drill a particular thought into that child...
    � 	"you WILL get married! it IS important! divorce IS bad!"
    � and this child grows up assuming these statements to be true...
    � a neurosis is created!
    
    What parent believes they ever "drill" anything into their children?
    And some feel that to grow up believing (what parent teaches their
    child to "assume"?) these statements to be true is the essence of 
    mental health.  And so it may be!  Beliefs by themselves are simply 
    beliefs; it's only when they begin to create discomfort in an 
    individual, usually by running headlong into a "reality" that
    contradicts said belief, that we start to label them neurotic or
    psychotic.
    
    And lots of people feel that "neurotic" is a very "bad" thing
    to be - it is their (valid-for-them) interpretation of the word.
    To a degree, the language used has made it easier for them to
    read your words as a kind of personal confrontation to their
    belief system.
    
    I'm simply suggesting, rik, is that, to the extent that the language
    (phrasing, word choice, syntax, etc.) makes it impossible for
    the reader to "read in" meaning and misinterpret your thoughts,
    you will find yourself flamed at less.
    
    btw - this is no defense of such flaming; seems to me that if
    one reads words which they feel are inflammatory, one might at
    least ask the author "I think I just heard you say xxxxxx - do
    I understand you correctly?" *before* unleashing the heavy artillery.
    
    Steve

    
    
    Rik
    
    It's really hard to wade through your stuff without frustration.
    It tends to lack organization, and the usual sorts of constructs
    we need to parse such stream-of-consciousness coredumps..
    
    Some of us have nice(1) set lower than yourself... The marketplace
    is a battlefield, as they say in China. You can also say that about
    life. 
    
    Don't sound like such a victim. It's like running from wolves;
    they're sure to pursue you.
    
      

    One thing I find hard to deal with in writing is the necessity
    to specify that what I write is my opinion.  It is.  All of it.
    None of it is ironclad TRUTH - there are very few things I will
    point at and call TRUTH with all the trumpets blaring and the
    big chords - you know - the kind of thing that requires fanfares.
    I've found that many noters don't realize that.  So I have changed
    my notes banner to indicate that the contents of my notes is my
    opinion, no more, and not usually less.
    
    I sometimes state my opinions with assurance.  I may fail to water them
    down with prefaces like "This is what I think but you don't have
    to think anything like this and I know most of you don't and
    that's ok and you really don't have to listen to me, but...."
    It's a waste of time and I don't like to type it.  I don't like
    to wade through it in other notes, attempting to excise the REAL
    meaning of the note.
    
    I think, you know, my OPINION is, that lots of folks are not seeing
    the implied "it's my opinion that" in Rik's notes.  Heck, if it
    were not his opinion, I kind-of doubt he'd be expressing it.  And
    I don't think (correct me Rik if I'm wrong), but it's my feeling
    that Rik does not see most of his notes as containing the TRUTH
    For Everyone.
    
    --Louise

    re: .23
    
    � I sometimes state my opinions with assurance.  I may fail to water them
    � down with prefaces like "This is what I think. . .
    � . . .It's a waste of time and I don't like to type it.
    
    I think, in many cases, a *short* qualifier can be a real time
    saver because it helps prevent others from misinterpretations
    and the side-tracked discussions such readings can foster.
    
    You're indicating that, for you, everything you write is
    opinion, ". . .All of it.  None of it is ironclad TRUTH. . ."
    and I, personally feel the same about nearly everything I
    write.

    But, as you say, "I've found that many noters don't realize that."
    The problem is that other people see the world differently and
    *do* believe in trumpet-fanfare TRUTHs.  They don't have the
    "everything-I-(or you)-write-is-opinion" viewpoint and will
    thus read what is written differently than you or I.
    
    And, of course, they're as "right" as you or I.  It seems to
    me that if the objective in these NOTES discussions is the
    *clear* exchange of thoughts and if we're all reading from
    our own different perspectives, it makes sense to take the
    time to be as clear we can for readers as many readers as
    possible.  For the only control the writer has over the 
    reader's interpretations is the clear concise usage of the
    language and the medium that delivers that language.
    
    Admittedly, qualifiers can be something of a stylistic
    hassle, though short ones are, perhaps, not too cumbersome.
    But is our primary objective a clear exchange of ideas or
    writing with "style" (whatever that may be)?

    � I think. . .that lots of folks are not seeing the implied "it's 
    � my opinion that" in Rik's notes.
    
    Are you not *assuming* that such is implied and why *should* anyone
    else "see" what is implied?  What I know of rik tells me that
    he agrees with the "my writing = always opinion" school, but 
    why should anyone else, particularly with a differing viewpoint,
    make that assumption and "hear" that implication?  
    
    In fact, the, uh, dialectic that has followed some of rik's 
    remarks has proven that others neither assume nor see that
    implication.  In fairness, they do have the dynamics of the
    language to justify their viewpoint - we do have linguistic
    means to separate statements of fact from statements of 
    opinion�.
    
    � So I have changed my notes banner to indicate that the contents 
    � of my notes is my opinion, no more, and not usually less.
    
    In so doing, I think you've used the medium of delivery in a
    stylistically "neat" way; good solution!
    
    Steve
    
    � Whether there *are* (in "reality") such things as "facts" 
      (differing from "opinions) is a different question and one 
      which I don't think bears on this issue.  In terms of
      communicating clearly with one another, it's enough to 
      know that some people believe that there are such differences
      and that the language provides ways to make distinctions.
    
      

    Steve,
    	Regarding your footnote - yes, there are millions and millions
    of facts.  Facts like "I'm wearing black jeans today." Facts like
    "the earth is the third planet from the sun".  But there are not
    many truths, which I'm using to mean things that are always
    true, right, proper.  Facts may be time oriented - tomorrow and
    the next day and the next day I will probably not wear these
    jeans, at least my co-workers can hope I don't.  Many years
    ago the earth may not have been the third planet from the sun.
    I see truths as things that are universal, static.  And there
    are not many of those.
    
    Not meaning to pick on your wording, just trying to make my
    wording clearer.
    
    Maybe we should have something in note #1 in each conference
    that says that all the notes that follow are the opinions of
    the noters that wrote them and should not be construed to be
    either the word of a Higher Authority or construed to be
    intended as the Final Word on the subject.  Unless otherwise
    noted (in which case we can all pound on the writer with abandon).
    
    And another bit in note 1 to say that a) all generalizations have
    exceptions and b) all exceptions are included in the generalization
    from which they are excepted.  That would get rid of a lot of 
    arguements where someone says "A is generally valid" and another
    noter comes along and says "But z doesn't fall into that rule, so
    A is all muck!"  Now, let's see what the notes philosophers have
    to say about THAT one....;-)
    
    --Louise

    re: .25
    
    � 	Regarding your footnote - yes, there are millions and millions
    � of facts.  Facts like "I'm wearing black jeans today."
    
    Depending on one's philosphical viewpoint, there may not even
    be "facts".  I (dimly) recall a couple of classes of Philo. 101 
    in which the philosphy in question (extreme Logical Positivism?)
    asserts that nothing and nobody "exist". . .  :-}
    
    � Maybe we should have something in note #1 in each conference
    � that says that all the notes that follow are the opinions of
    � the noters that wrote them and. . .
    
    Or a NOTES "personal name" like yours. . .  I kind of agree,
    but I suspect some folks would not agree that "all is opinion".
    My only point is that 'til that time, the way we express things
    here is our only means of letting others know clearly what
    we're thinking.
    
    Steve
    

    Coming from Soapbox (and net.singles before that), I have learned
    to take the defensive precaution of using "I think" or "It seems
    to me" in my notes.  This is especially important when I'm interpreting
    someone else's notes or behavior.  In part, it's a face-saving measure.
    If I'm wrong, it's not such an embarassment; I admitted the possibility
    right up front.  In part, it reduces the confrontational mood, makes
    me sound less forceful and know-it-all.  People might disagree with
    me, but they're less likely to be doing it for the satisfaction
    of taking me down a peg or two.  Without the confrontational aspect
    (the 'showdown' to which any public forum can fall prey), we're
    more likely to have a rational and unhurtful discussion.
    
    Part of the problem is that some opinions are convictions.  While
    my convictions are clearly my own opinions, they come close to being
    facts for me.  Fortunately I don't have a whole lot of them yet
    (these things take time), so I don't have a whole lot of intellectual
    or emotional 'turf' to protect.
                                                            

    Re .0:
    
	>>Liberals contend that "they want to make life better for
	>>more people"
	>>and many people are very angry about this!!!!
	>>What a horrible thing to want!

    	>>Many people HATE liberals...

    
    What I infer from this is that Rik feels that anybody who is not
    a 'liberal' is opposed to "making life better for more people".
    In fact, these non-liberals hate the idea that we should make things
    better for more people. 
    
    So anyway, rik, can you define what you mean by
    
    1. liberal
    
    2. make life better for more people
    
    and then give us some specific examples of what you do to 'make
    things better for more people' in YOUR daily life?
    
    thanks - Dave

    
    > and then give us some specific examples of what you do to 'make
    > things better for more people' in YOUR daily life?
      
    Why, its obvious!  Rik notes!  He manipulates emotions, he causes
    adrenaline rushes and high blood pressure!  Just helping us all
    exercise our emotional plumbing.  He thinks it helps improve the
    quality of our lives...
    
    Have I got some suggestions for him on fun with leaky pipes...
    
    DougO

    There's a string in this conference, started by the basenote
    author in Note # 385.
    
    Some of the assertions and counter-assertions seem vaguely
    familiar.
    
      Alan
    

    Re: the last few
    
    This might not have occurred to you (or perhaps it did, but
    fleetingly), but:  your responses only encourage the very behavior
    you find frustrating.  Rik appears to be locked into some form of
    "me vs them" mentality.  If you continue being negative, he'll only
    get more hung up on the "everyone is hostile to me" attitude.  If
    you *must* be negative (and I'm fully aware of how tempting it is),
    please try to be constructive about it.  I ask for purely selfish
    reasons.  I don't want to drop out of an interesting notes file
    because I find a situation too frustrating to continue watching.
    Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.

    Re .30, *Alan!!!!!*  Of course, Rik and I do not still love each
    other!  We broke up over a year ago!
    
    So, the question is, will Lorna still *like* you?  Not, will Lorna
    still *love* you? :-)
    
    And, yes, I still *like* him.  He's better in person.  :-) In person
    he can be very funny and witty and warm and outgoing and make people
    feel comfortable.  But, you can't tell that from notes.
    
    Lorna
    

"Many people HATE liberals... I can understand NOT agreeing with them... I can
understand having different points of view... I DO NOT understand why it is
necessary to get so &$%(@# mad!"

Because the liberals want to use the nonliberal's money to help other people. If
the liberals used their own money, I'd find it very easy to peacefully disagree.
:-) 

"You cannot make the world a better place for everyone.  In order to improve it
for some, you have to make it worse for some."

Not true, there are win-win situations.

Some people's notes I read and disagree with, and think to myself, "They're a
real jerk".  Other people's notes I read and disagree with, and think to myself,
"I can understand their point, but I disagree".  Dispite Rik's style, he falls
into the latter category.  Most of the people who fall in to first category have
pretty closed minds to the point where they think I'm a jerk.  I think it's
their lack of understanding for me that makes them jerks in my eyes, not their
disagreement or my lack of understanding of them. (I'm always understanding :-))

Jim.

    
    Hey hey People.....
    
    SIMPLE.....Don't Worry, BE HAPPY, we all only live ONCE.....