T.v for babies.

Chookie wrote:

"bizby40" wrote:

I do think the speaker has more of an obligation
to be clear than the listener has to interpret every-
thing as kindly as possible. The higher the listener
to speaker ratio, the more the responsibility falls
on the speaker. In a 1 to 1 conversation, the
responsibility is about equal. But when writing
a post that could be read by dozens of people,
then it is not only the speaker's responsibility to
be clear, it is also in the speaker's best interest.

I think that's ridiculous. It's impossible to know the size of a
(contemporary -- remember, our posts are being archived) Usenet audience, so
it's impossible to know the level of responsibility I have.

I found a quotation of Victor Frankl's the other day: "Everything can be
taken from a man but one thing; the last of the human freedoms - to choose
one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

It is *the reader's* choice how to respond to a post. To give the poster the
benefit of the doubt or to be offended, and to carry on whingeing not just on
the initial thread, but for a week afterwards, under the guise of this thread.
Some of you need to see if the shoe fits.

I really don't care for 'me too' posts all that much, but
rather than waxing poetic on this topic, since Chookie's
post pretty much sums it up for me, I will just say "Ditto!".
--
Ruth B

In article ,
Chookie wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

The problem is when people hold attitudes 1 through 3 about things that
more clearly belong in Categories 5 through 7.

I am surprised at your lack of insight here. The problem is that THEY
hold
attitude 1-3 about a Topic X, and YOU don't: not that some topics "more
clearly belong" in 5-7, but that that is where YOU put them.

Perhaps I should have said that more clearly: I have a problem when
people are outraged or intolerant or smug about things that I believe
more clearly belong in lower categories.

It would help if you omitted "more clearly"!

Well, OK -- "I have a problem when people are outraged or intolerant or
smug about things that *I* believe belong in lower categoris."


In those cases, I will challenge them to defend their placement of that
topic.

3 - Smugness: I've done the research, and Categories 5 through 7 are
clearly
the best categories for Topic X. I put it in Category 7, even though
it
wasn't always easy, and all of us ought to put Topic X in Categories 5
through
7. I realize some parents choose Categories 1 through 3,
and I'm sure they are decent people in other respects, even though they
are choosing the clearly inferior Categories 1 through 3. It's no skin
off my
nose if they are so lazy/incompetent/whatever that they think that
their
categorisation is best for their kids -- I just know better.

Well, if you're *challenging* them, maybe you are be in category 1 or 2 about
your categorisation beliefs, rather than 3.

Perhaps -- I tend to not be particularly tolerant about attitudes that I
think may cause pain to other parents.

I've never said that those categories of attitudes are never called for,
nor have I ever claimed to be always tolerant of everything everyone
else does or says.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
"bizby40" wrote:

It is *the reader's* choice how to respond to a post. To give the poster
the
benefit of the doubt or to be offended, and to carry on whingeing not just
on
the initial thread, but for a week afterwards, under the guise of this
thread.
Some of you need to see if the shoe fits.

There are certainly times when a reader misunderstands,
or when a reader goes way overboard in reaction. I never
said the reader has *no* responsibility. But the writer is
creating out of nothingness and has endless possibility. The
reader can only work with what they are given.

But they still choose their reactions, which is what the Frankl quotation was
about.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

In article KJ0mf.604603$x96.367674@attbi_s72,
"P. Tierney" wrote:

That doesn't mean that norms are never
transgressed, or even that norms never should be
transgressed, but it's naive to think they don't
exist or that transgressing them won't provoke a
reaction. Savvy individuals pick up on what those
norms are so that they can make informed choices
about when and if to transgress them.

That's surely an accurate judgment, I mean, opinion,
about those individuals.

Have fun, savvy people.

Oooooh! Ericka offended someone! Unwittingly! (At least, *I* would assume
unwittingly.)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Chookie wrote:
In article KJ0mf.604603$x96.367674@attbi_s72,
"P. Tierney" wrote:


That doesn't mean that norms are never
transgressed, or even that norms never should be
transgressed, but it's naive to think they don't
exist or that transgressing them won't provoke a
reaction. Savvy individuals pick up on what those
norms are so that they can make informed choices
about when and if to transgress them.

That's surely an accurate judgment, I mean, opinion,
about those individuals.

Have fun, savvy people.


Oooooh! Ericka offended someone! Unwittingly! (At least, *I* would assume
unwittingly.)

This is surprising somehow? Have I ever claimed
to be perfect? I don't believe I have ever claimed anything
other than that I try.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
"bizby40" wrote:


It is *the reader's* choice how to respond to a post. To give the poster
the
benefit of the doubt or to be offended, and to carry on whingeing not just
on
the initial thread, but for a week afterwards, under the guise of this
thread.
Some of you need to see if the shoe fits.

There are certainly times when a reader misunderstands,
or when a reader goes way overboard in reaction. I never
said the reader has *no* responsibility. But the writer is
creating out of nothingness and has endless possibility. The
reader can only work with what they are given.

But they still choose their reactions, which is what the Frankl quotation was
about.

But it doesn't absolve the sender of anything.
If you're talking about the sender's responsibilities,
then the sender has 100 percent responsibility for that.
If you're talking about the recipient's responsibilities,
then the recipient has 100 percent responsibility for that.
It's not a 50/50 thing; it's a 100/100 thing. Of *course*
the recipients choose their response and live with the
consequences. And, the senders choose their words and
live with the consequences of those as well. Breakdowns
can happen in either the sending or the receiving--more
often in both at the same time. Nevertheless, I do think
that while the recipient has to make a genuine effort to
understand, it is *ONLY* the sender who has complete
information about intentions. Sure, if the communication
upsets the recipient, he or she can choose to walk away
whether it's an accurate interpretation or not and whether
it was intended or not. But that's after the fact. It's
only the sender who has the ability to craft a statement
that is likely to be successful in the first place.
Otherwise, it's like saying the art critic is responsible
for the quality of the artwork. Sure, the critic can
misunderstand or might simply not like the piece for no
good reason (and other viewers will presumably disagree
if the critic is off base), but it's only the artist who can
put the communication out there in the first place.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

That doesn't mean that norms are never
transgressed, or even that norms never should be
transgressed, but it's naive to think they don't
exist or that transgressing them won't provoke a
reaction. Savvy individuals pick up on what those
norms are so that they can make informed choices
about when and if to transgress them.

That's surely an accurate judgment, I mean, opinion,
about those individuals.

Have fun, savvy people.


Oooooh! Ericka offended someone! Unwittingly! (At least, *I* would assume
unwittingly.)

This is surprising somehow?

Yes -- I don't see you offending other people very often, in fact I can't
recall it ever happening before!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


That doesn't mean that norms are never
transgressed, or even that norms never should be
transgressed, but it's naive to think they don't
exist or that transgressing them won't provoke a
reaction. Savvy individuals pick up on what those
norms are so that they can make informed choices
about when and if to transgress them.

That's surely an accurate judgment, I mean, opinion,
about those individuals.

Have fun, savvy people.

Oooooh! Ericka offended someone! Unwittingly! (At least, *I* would assume
unwittingly.)

This is surprising somehow?

Yes -- I don't see you offending other people very often, in fact I can't
recall it ever happening before!

Well, I'm glad that *someone's* perception is that
I don't do it very often ;-) I think P. gets annoyed with
me not infrequently, though ;-) (Well, annoyed in the
context of a Usenet discussion--I don't presume that he's
stomping around in real life being annoyed with me!)

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

But it doesn't absolve the sender of anything.
If you're talking about the sender's responsibilities,
then the sender has 100 percent responsibility for that.
If you're talking about the recipient's responsibilities,
then the recipient has 100 percent responsibility for that.
It's not a 50/50 thing; it's a 100/100 thing.

Exactly, but I agree with Ms Liz that in some cases the recipients have not
been holding their end up.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


But it doesn't absolve the sender of anything.
If you're talking about the sender's responsibilities,
then the sender has 100 percent responsibility for that.
If you're talking about the recipient's responsibilities,
then the recipient has 100 percent responsibility for that.
It's not a 50/50 thing; it's a 100/100 thing.

Exactly, but I agree with Ms Liz that in some cases the recipients have not
been holding their end up.

May well be. In the "highly publicized" cases
that I'm thinking of, I didn't really see that; however,
I've certainly seen it happen and I might well be
forgetting some posts where that did happen.

Best wishes,
Ericka