JB wrote...



Oh, but I do!

The problem to which you refer lies not within what is written, but how it has been interpreted. Below is a fine example of what regularly happens (in your own mind)when you and I conversate.



This statement begins by recognition of a slight ambiguity which is intentionally contained within my writing. The purpose of which is to get another to think... not about the author nor his intention or purpose, but about the content of what has been written.



So then, because you recognize ambiguity in another's writing, it follows then that you automatically believe that you know why such a thing is there? That is a little presumptious is it not?



Perhaps you should...[[[[insert your choice of emoticon]]]]

Creative , you make me think about things all the time and I thank you for it.

Oh, I didn't realize you were a guru looking for a following. I just wanted honest strait forward communication, not ambiguity. I prefer to get to the point and communicate for the purpose of getting to know each other, not to dance around trying to guess what you might be trying to get a person to 'think about', so please excuse me. I don't want to play that game Creative.

I always think about the author's intention and purpose. He or she is, after all, a real person. (You try to be a psychoanalyst, and I don't need, want or believe in them.)

JB wrote...



Neither did I...



Just because one does not understand another's writing does not mean that it is not straight-forward.



I prefer talking about a subject matter for the benefit of talking about a subject matter. The level of understanding resulting from the communication is greatly heightened by keeping it impersonal.



The dance belongs to you. One should not feel as though they need to guess what it is they are supposed to be thinking about. I want and purposefully choose to think about and redirect conversations towards the subject matter at hand. That is what the focus is on, not the personal character of the author. You are the one who forces that aspect, and this is repeatedly confirmed by your own utterances.

Do you read your own writing?



Seems as if you are the one attempting psychoanalysis.

No it is not greatly heightened by keeping it 'impersonal.' (I may as well have a conversation with a computer program, or be in a group therapy class. )

Everything is personal creative. Are you trying to be the impersonal group therapist in the room?




No. A psychoanalysis tries to keep everything impersonal, at least where he or she is concerned. If everyone did that people would never become friends, they would simply have meaningless conversations.

I like to talk directly to real people with feelings and opinions. You appear to be playing the part of the group therapist directing (or trying to direct) the conversation in an "impersonal" manner.

Maybe that's what you want to be, a psychoanalyst or psychologist and you are just practicing. That's okay for you, but I just don't enjoy that kind of communication.

(It's as if you wish to separate yourself from the rest of the group.)

Back to the real"impersonal" subject

Anyway, in closing, I will say that freedom of speech is freedom of the press and freedom of speech should be unrestricted by the government. No information should be forbidden or restricted by federal law. None. If it were, you would see books being banned.

JB...

It is quite obvious that our knowledge bases disagree with one another often. This is the only reason why I continue to discuss things with you in these threads. You see, for me, I talk about a subject for the sake of understanding. That does not mean for another's exposure to my writing. It means for the sake of exposing another's knowledge base to my own. I love to learn, and we can only learn new things by being exposed to them. A continual superimposition of sorts.

With that in mind I wrote this...



To which you responded like so...



It comes as no surprise then that you would disagree. Based upon this response, the disagreement coincides with individual purpose. The grounds upon which your disagreement lies are personal for you. We know this because you say it. The reason those grounds are in place does not interest me in the least, because I (unlike you) am not attempting to get to know you while writing about freedom of speech. I am attempting to gain unfamiliar perspectives on the subject matter at hand, which (because of your admitted purpose) has the consequence of being personal(for you).

Several times over the course of the year you(quite personally) attempted to equate me to a psychoanalyst. That is the picture that you see for your personal reasons - of which I have played only the role of a reminder, not the original cause.

Do you understand what I am saying?

From your perspective...



While I would agree with the raw content of the first statement, the second presupposes that everyone holds the same purpose as the analyst. A psychologist purposefully tries to be impersonal in order to eliminate their own emotion with regard to what is best for their patient. A regular person(not a therapist) does not necessarily hold the same agenda.

You then wrote...



The key words here are "You appear to be". Do you believe that there can be only one reason for impersonal conversation? Curiously enough, I have repeatedly corrected your misinterpretations without acknowledgement. This claim is further reinforced by what is below.



The source of what troubles you about communicating with me is the inherent differences between agendas, and your misunderstanding which comes as a result of you projecting your agenda(which is personal) onto me(which is not). Again this is displayed below...



What basis do you have to make such a claim, especially considering the fact that you do not know me? Consider the fact that I am deeply involved in conversations here. How is that separating myself?



What is the difference between the inherent restriction on a private level, meaning certain things not being believed (which ultimately amounts to being banned of further consideration), and restriction on a public level?



Federal law does forbid certain things, that is why one whose personal rights are being infringed upon is able to sue, because the law is in place. So, your if - then claim does not hold water.

The laws are there to protect your rights, not to remove them.

What federal law forbids free speech and how can that protect my rights to free speech? Please give an example of a specific law.

(I know about the crime of lying under oath, and also about direct threats to a persons life especially the president.)

Is there any other that I don't know about?

I said: (It's as if you wish to separate yourself from the rest of the group.)



On the basis that you freely admit that you desire to keep the conversation 'impersonal.' (Keeping a conversation 'impersonal' is not what I consider to be 'deeply involved.' Impersonal is not 'deeply involved' it is 'impersonal.' )

As for the 'fact' that I "don't know you," I think you apparently don't want to be 'known' or to 'know' anyone.

What do you think it takes to get to 'know' a person? To see them in the flesh? To speak to them in person? Even that does not guarantee you will get to 'know' them.

You get to know a person by being honest and personal in communication. PERSONAL. (Not 'impersonal.')

If you wanted to engage this kind of impersonal conversation just to "learn something" about "freedom of speech' then you don't need to talk to people on a dating club. I am sure you can buy a history book or take a class is social studies to learn about the reason for 'freedom of speech' in a society.

You said:



You are simply attempting to gain 'unfamiliar' perspectives on the subject matter at hand....

YOU ARE TAKING A POLL THEN?

"....which (which because of your admitted purpose) has the consequence of being personal (for you)"

Okay here you admit that you are not trying to get to know anyone (or me) you are just looking for non-personal and 'unfamiliar' perspectives of unknown faceless people who don't know you.

That seems rather cold and robot-like to me.

Now that I know your 'agenda' here is mine, and I will end with this post. Unlike you, I am not afraid of letting people know who I am and what I am about or what my 'agenda' is.

AND YES IT IS PERSONAL.

What troubles me is that I don't much like you. Now if I don't 'know' you, then why do I feel that I don't like you? That is the puzzle.

All my life I have always made it a practice to learn the reason and the 'WHY' involved when I find myself not liking a person. It's like Will Rogers used to say, "I never met a person I didn't like." That is the way I am. I have discovered that whenever I get to 'know' a person, I always like them. There is always something about them that I find likable.

I have come to know and like many people on this club and we have never met in person. I would not know them on the street if I saw them. Yet I feel that I know them and like them.

But you don't allow people to know you, and you seem to take pride in saying, "You don't know me...so how can you say that?"

You are right, I don't know you, because if I did I would like you. But you just said that you don't want to know me and you demonstrate constantly (by being impersonal) that you don't want me to know you.

There you have it. I will have to resign myself to the fact that I don't know you therefore I can't like you.

And I have no desire to participate in an impersonal poll or be a contestant in your experiment to get other unfamilliar perspectives on any subject.

I just wanted to try to get to know you and what you think or feel. That was all. And yes, it was personal.

Have a nice evening.

I want to say "How far down this rabbit hole would I like to go?"

The consistency of one's misunderstanding is shewn by their words. Is it reducible? Is there a common thread? If that thread be identified, recognized, and displayed would that gaurantee understanding? Obviously not!

Having read you enough, I know that you believe that one creates their own reality. I know that because I have no reason to think that what you assert is different from what you believe.

Why would you believe otherwise regarding me?



Why must I continually correct your claims regarding my personal character, intent, or motivation.

Why do you assume that what you think about me is more accurate than what I know about me?

Is that concise enough?

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes I do. But people can say all kinds of things about them selves, their character, their intent etc. that may or may not be true, and they can have opinions or perceptions of them selves that are slanted or bias. In any case, it is just their personal opinion. (Most people do think well of themselves, even serial killers.)

I would rather get to know a person than to simply believe everything they (a total stranger) tells me about them self.

I speak about what I believe and let people judge me however they wish. I voice my opinion and I am as honest as I can be with them and people can agree or disagree with it as they choose. I don't insist they believe me nor do I expect it.

I don't tell people that I am a "nice person" or try to describe to them what my character is or is not, not even in my profile. I do tell people that I strive to be honest in thought word and deed, and that is the challenge we face in life. To be honest with ourselves and then others.

I would not expect people to believe me when I voice an opinion about myself or what kind of person I think I am. That is only my perception of myself. I may perceive myself completely inaccurately or completely differently than the way others perceive me. It is not for me to insist they see me the way I see myself. I simply do my best to be true to myself and let them decide how to perceive me or whether to believe me or like me. That is their choice.

You asked:



Also, by the very fact that I "don't know you," why am I expected to believe you when you attempt to 'correct' my perceptions of you?

Since I don't know you there has never been any bond of trust developed that would cause me to trust and believe you. You are a stranger, after all. Am I expected to believe and trust every stranger?

If you were to tell me your opinion of some other person, or some other subject I would have no reason to doubt that what you say is true. But when a person speaks of himself, there is a bit of a bias that you have to consider. As I said, even serial killers can think very highly of themselves.

Jb wrote...



So, because we are all biased somehow it then follows that noone can be trusted when it comes to how well they know themselves or how honestly they present themselves to others? That makes no sense to me.



How do you do such a thing with any certainty without trusting in something? Furthermore, what is it then that you trust in if it is not what another says about themself?



If you believe that it is possible for one to be honest with oneself, then why would you not believe that one could also be honest with you regarding themselves?



If one canot trust nor believe you regarding yourself, how or why would one place any value in anything you say?


I asked you...



To which you responded...



So then, why do you so often make remarks regarding my integrity? The interaction between us regarding my character is always initiated by your statements about me. For a very long time when you first joined this site I overlooked your personal slights about me. As a matter of fact, you made several claims about who you thought I was without your having any grounds to do such a thing, even going so far as to compare me to your ex. Through your words you have proven to be an extremely presumptious person. I have come to believe this about you as a result of the unsubstantiated claims that you continually make.

The very fact that you make it personal tells me that you have nothing substantive to add to the subject at hand.

Personally, I feel like your continued attempts to justify your wrongful assumptions about me border upon your infringing upon my inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Your expressions are beginning to get on my nerves. That alone constitutes nothing. The fact that what is contained within your expressions constitutes character assasination is grounds for slander... which is against the law.

Something tells me this is not your first time.

1. Character assassination is not "against the law." It is called a "tort" and has to be handled in civil court. You cannot be arrested for it, nor can you go to jail for it. It is not a crime it is a "tort."

2. Everything is either business or personal. Relationships are personal. Conversations that are not business, are personal. People are people. Business is business.

You said:



I did not say that noone could be trusted. You can trust anyone you chose to trust. That is a personal decision. I don't know you therefore it follows that I can't know how well you know yourself or how honestly you might present yourself to others.

But that is not the point. Just be yourself and let others decide how to perceive you. It is not for you to dictate to others how they should perceive you. That is their choice. That's the point.

Do you trust every stranger you meet who tells you that they are honest and trustworthy? I don't. That is my choice.



Again, that is not the point. Of course you could be very honest with me about your own perceptions regarding yourself... or not. Either way, it is not for you to tell me how to regard you or how to perceive you or that I must believe and trust you when you yourself admit that I don't even know you.

People form opinions about you by how you speak, act and behave, not on what you tell people about yourself.



The issue of trust is a personal one. I cannot make a person trust me. I can only be honest. I also cannot dictate to them how they should feel about me. I don't know them or how they think. I can only be true to myself and honest with them. What they do with that is their choice.



Your integrity is in question because you remain 'impersonal' and hidden and ambiguous. You are not direct or open and I seen no honesty in that. I see something hidden. About 85% of what you project on this club is hidden.

I make no claims about who you are Creative. I DO NOT KNOW YOU! I am only being honest about my perceptions and impressions of you by how you communicate with me. That is all I have to go on aside from your declarations of your own opinions of yourself.

I don't know you, you don't want me to know you, and you don't want to know me. (You even said so.)

I have been trying to know and understand you, but you don't seem to be interested in that process. You prefer to hide behind your curtain. I can't see you.

I know and like a lot of people on this club even many that I disagree with.

I like Spider, Morningsong, Feralcatlady, Abra, Smiles, Miles, and even Funches even though were strongly disagree on most things. I feel I know them and I like them for who they are.

I don't know you. I'm sure you find that a comfort for some reason. You are probably a very lonely person, but that is just another 'guess' or assumption on my part because I really don't know you at all.

So that's the way it is.

Do you have a valid point in any of this?



Here, once again you apply your misguided meaning to my words. I never said that character assassination was against the law.
Slander is.



What is a tree then?




Your games are empty, as is your argument.



This has no meaning unless one presupposes that I am not being myself, and unless you believed that you would not have said it. Who are you and what grounds do you have for claiming that another is not being themself?



When did I?

Secondly, what grounds do you have to tell me what is or is not for me to express, especially when the situation involves another such as yourself who says things about me which are false... repeatedly!

I do not have the right to defend myself against such slander?

I asked you...



To which you responded...



That IS the point! Your grounds for what you say constantly shift. You stated that you have no reason to trust one when it comes to their opinion of themself, but you have no reason not to trust the same person when it comes to their opinion about another.

What kind of sense does that make?



I have no idea where this came from... are you freakin' dreaming **** up? When did I tell you how you should perceive me? Quote me and substantiate this nonsensical utterance.

You wrote...



So impersonal equals dishonesty?

I am quite direct at times... you just do not "get it"!

You state the above... and then this?



You constantly make claims about who I am!

Do you even understand the words which you write? Here are some more of your statements which contradict one another on the most fundamental levels.





You take great liberty in being presumptious.

You are in your own way.

This way of conversing is very 2 dimensional and is fraught with misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

When communicating online without the benefit of tone, inflection, the ability to detect and correct misunderstanding on the spot, it is incumbent upon me to make my points in a way that they are easily understood.

I do this out of respect for the shared dialogue. I express and own my opinion ... I am upfront when I am just interested in the dialogue without having formulated an opinion of my own. And I take responsibility for trying to share my input in a way that it may be easily digested. And then I let the words lay where they may....meaning that my sharing is very personal but I am not attached to it in a way that anyone need agree with them.

Sometimes, despite my best efforts, there is still misunderstanding.

I don't think there can be meaningful dialogue without some form of relationship. Human interaction IS relationship (otherwise I am just talking to myself)... and we can only form perspective on what we are willing to see and what another is willing to show us... so our perspectives are, of course, incomplete.

The first thing you learn in creative writing is 'show more and tell less' ... I have always felt that advise worked nicely for all communication ... We are natural communicators ... if I take the 'me' out of my contribution then they are just words...

Artgurl,

I hear and feel and understand you on a personal human level. It is the same with Abra and even Feralcatlady and Morningsong. I feel where they are and what they are feeling. Funches is playful yet deep. Spider, intelligent and emotional. I can feel who they are.

Creative is intellectual and introverted (dwelling within himself a lot.) (He will probably be offended that I made any judgment of him at all as he does not like to be seen.) I can only guess the rest about him because he remains hidden, at least to my vision.

We all judge JB, it is an inherent part of language, so there is no offense taken because of that. All I have ever asked of you was to consider my own opinion of myself when I felt the need to redirect what you wrote(about me). More often than not you continued to wrongfully tell me who I was.

All I am saying is who are you to tell me who I am?

Do you understand what I am saying?

I can see that I am not getting through to you creative. Or perhaps you are just angry.

1.Slander is not a crime either. It is a tort that must be taken up in civil court.

2. I have not slandered you.

3. It is you that play games. I am being 100% honest and open with you and you play mind games.

NOW HERE IS THE POINT.

4. When I make an assessment of YOU by the way you have treated and talked to ME that is my perception and you cannot "correct" it by telling me that you are actually a very nice person, or whatever you decide to say about yourself. I'm not buying it.

5. My opinion of you is not "slander." It is my opinion. It is my honest impression. It is my perception which was formed by the way you treated and talked to me. That is a PERSONAL OPINION. You cannot "correct" my opinion by telling me what you think about yourself.

Your opinion about yourself is your opinion, not mine.

You are very a confused person I think.

Are you far enough down the rabbit hole now?

I did my level best to explain to you who I am and where I am coming from and you have just gotten defensive and angry.

We all judge JB, it is an inherent part of language, so there is no offense taken because of that. All I have ever asked of you was to consider my own opinion of myself when I felt the need to redirect what you wrote(about me). More often than not you continued to wrongfully describe my person.

Who are you to tell me who I am without enough grounds to draw such a conclusion?

Creative, I am not telling you who you are. I am telling you what impression I have drawn from how you present yourself and how you talk to me.

You can tell people what kind of person you think you are but it is how you act and talk to and treat others that they will use to judge for themselves. And when there is no personal relationship or bond of trust between me and you, you can't expect me to favor your opinion of yourself over your actions and words.

I am wrong for trying to get to know you on a personal level since it is obvious you are not comfortable with that. Some people just have boundaries. You are well fortified.

Well, if that is the best that you can do...

[[[[[insert your choice of emoticon]]]]]

Why do you avoid answering the questions I ask?

Do you always "make friends" like this?

I would not mind answering any of your questions but you are not interested in real answers, you just want to be sarcastic and critical. You can't handle the truth.



If you are being yourself then you are a cold and impersonal person, who is emotionally crippled or injured.

But since you are guarded and hidden and evasive and ambiguous, then I must conclude that you are not being or your true self.

Don't expect me NOT to form an opinion just because you want to be a non personal person.