Re: Attitudes about other people's choices


bizby40 wrote:
> "MsLiz" <judgedl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133973711.978369.142590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > I'm sure there are plenty more questions but there seems to be an
> > emphasis in here on particular posters failures and a lack of
> > addressing the issue of communication being a two way street. Okay, I
> > put it out there and am willing to accept the consequences :-)
>
> Liz,
>
> Some communication is more a two-way street than others.
> When you are having a one to one conversation with a friend,
> and you are both there to talk and to listen and to clarify
> immediately anything that is misunderstood, then it's a two
> way street.

Or when you are having a conversation in usenet and a listener chooses
to particiapate in a speaker...you are "supposedly" both interested in
conversing. I believe it is very much a two way conversation or raise
the number to as many folks who choose to participate.
>
> When the President is giving a speech to the nation, it's
> pretty much a one-way street. He is saying things that
> will be heard and dissected by millions of people, many
> of them openly hostile to him. His speech writers must
> take great care not to offend, unless that is what they
> want to do. And if, after he offended a group of
> people, he went back on the air and said, "I don't know
> why they are so sensitive -- that's their problem, not
> mine!" It would not go over well.

Oh god....:-) A one way conversation between intimates and then
jumping to the complete opposite side of reality with the President
giving his monthly (crappola) speech to the nation. I think it's safe
to say that usenet falls somewhere in the middle where we (well,
speaking for myself) do share intimate sides of ourselves...somewhat
vulnerable sides of ourselves. And to speak for myself....when I am
either accused of saying something, meaning something, assuming
something or implying somethings, I do NOT immediately get defensive
and say "hey, you're all wrong." What I usually politely say is that I
did not intend for it to come across that way. I have aplogized in the
past and I will continue to do so, knowing that what I say is not
always said in the most perfect way that it could have been said. With
that said...that does not take everyone else off the hook, who for
reasons of their own have quite possibly misinterpreted, projected or
gotten overly sensitive.
>
> Usenet has elements of both. Like the President, your
> words are going out to many people who will look at
> what you write in many different ways. Because you
> are speaking publicly, you must take more care with
> your words than you would if you were speaking one
> to one with a friend. But like a conversation, those
> people do have the ability to write back to you, and
> let you know immediately of any possible areas of
> contention.

In usenet, people have choices. I can certainly grow and use my words
(at times) more eloquently and cautiously. Again, that does not excuse
anyone in here from introspectively looking at their individual
reactions and responses. I view usenet as somewhere between personal
friend to friend basis and the President's state of the union address.

Presidents, friends and usenet participants have a responsibility to be
careful how they present statements to each other...that does not
absolve listeners from being responsible for their interpretations,
responses and reactions. I don't think that many of us couldn't use
some refinement in the area of communication both as in being a speaker
or a listener. I don't know too many peple in real life who don't
aspire to respond more than react, to listen more than to attack or to
be accountable for their role in any time of negative interaction.

I'm not trying, nor have I in any thread, to avoid being accountable
for how I might have come across. I have not ever implied that what I
say is gospel and is what is right for everyone. I know that at times,
depending on the subject, I could use some refinement as a messenger of
my thoughts. AGAIN, that does not mean that someone will not react to
my comment and fly with it. I can only be responsible for what I say
and listen to feedback (especially when it's respectful). I can't
responsible for someone misinterpreting and flying with it. I have a
very hard time when someone tells me what I reallyl meant...that is a
pet peeve of mine! It's probably when I get most defensive; being
accused of something that I did not do...or doing something that I was
not aware of doing.
>
> So you can choose to say that it's their problem for
> being too sensitive or misinterpreting you, OR you
> can say something like, "I'm sorry I came across
> that way, what I really meant was..." Which is
> completely different than, "I'm sorry you took it
> that way, all I said was...."

Maybe what you missed is that I have been saying all along that
communication IS a two way street. I am typically accountable for my
faults/errors/bad choice in judgement or mistakes (when I actually feel
it is appropriate). I cannot be accountable for issues that are simply
not mine. I'm not into blaming (as some seem to be)...I simply keep
trying to point out that it's not as simply as MSLIZ is wrong, needs to
apologize and the rest of us have our houses in order.


>
> It's completely up to you.

I respectfully disagree that it's completely up to me. I can listen, I
can be accountable, I can grow and I can learn. And at the risk of
repeating myself for too many times...communication is a two way
street. There are some pretty heavy emotional responses to some
posts/posters at times and I find it hard to believe that it's always
about the post/poster. I also find it hard to believe that it's never
about buttons being pushed, someone's , sensitivites in some areas, a
plain old bad day, an insecurity in an area or even the poster
reminding you of someone that you just don't like....I just don't buy
it. This is not absolving me of my role of working on improving my
usenet communication...anymore than it absolves the listener.


>
> Bizby

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Collecting experience
    ... Usenet ... My post generated, immediately, four responses that have zero content ... apparently enjoyed playing in "snowy RCC" and other OT threads. ... nature, about how, too often, things don't go optimally when people are ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: The Maxson Family
    ... responses I would certainly be a better listener and I imagine others would ... You tend to insult people which triggers their anger. ... consider your responses to the issue of Apollo Service ... unanswered issue that you need to address for your accident scenario to go ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Howard usenet subscribership higher than O&A
    ... Google groups subscribers represents a tiny, minute fraction of Usenet ... newsgroups is absolutely no indication of the listener base. ... show but might be counted as a stern group subscriber. ...
    (alt.fan.howard-stern)
  • Re: Congruence based factoring algorithm, revised
    ... in the art of generating responses on USENET. ... If you could find a way to monetize getting responses to a post on ... USENET, that could conceivably be a more profitable discovery than ... JSH, do you have an algorithm for generating posts that get replies to ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: welcomehere.org are protecting ppl who rip off family
    ... responses since I know the thief in question - many of us at the ... That's the problem trying to deal with "thieves" and such on Usenet, ... see the ShantiSena Alert posted here anywhere on agr Usenet, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)