 |
 |
Camilla wrote: >>Michel wrote: <But the worse part of that, is that it repelled many newcomers >who wanted to discuss strictly PD matters, and some old timers >who could not cope with the inordinate size or number of the E-mail, >and felt forced to abandon us... Janet replied: ...if not, i suggest that your statements are not only false but negative and inflammatory and awfulizing and catastrophizing viz the emotional baggage of your words 'worst' 'repelled' 'inordinate' 'forced' and 'abandon' My "perception" of this paragraph is that it is a personal attack on Michel who was stating what was, I believe, an accurate summary of many past posts to the list. I have to admit I cringed when I read it. I realize you may not have intended it as an attack, but as vigorous discourse, and haven't understood how your words may come across to others. Unfortunately, as you have often pointed out, perceptions can vary---and that is why I AGAIN suggest that when such disagreements arise they may better be clarified one-to-one rather than on the whole list---this has become, after all , a "non-pd" matter . No one is suggesting censorship or throttling your voice, or trying to control you--- but you ASKED to have this pointed out to you, so I am granting your request, in the hope that you may be able to temper your tone when you realize how it can affect others.<< there seems to be embellishment of nouns by adjectives that are emotive in what Michel typed - and response via the same technique. If one reads a paragraph and gets "steamed up", a superb cognitive awareness will notice this - and the reader will sort out the emotive from the factual - a good thing to learn the writing training of the author and the character in "a river ran through it" was to reduce the prior draft to half the number of words. this tends to just state the facts. we need these. tabloid journalism we do not benefit from for the most part. this is getting too long - but, one more thought/comment: distorting the reality is detrimental usually, it is ...but, mirroring how one is treated can be distorted to achieve an objective if a grouchy, unhappy, bothersome, unfriendly person never gives or gets a smile - one can attempt to teach such a codger that being friendly by being a mirrror that reflects joy and pleasure in some part of the person's attire, attention, hair being combed, some little things that can be said with a smile we cannot do this in email but we can find some good words to generously criticize our perceived attackers choices ron Ron Vetter 1936, '84 PD dz mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~rfvetter