I am unconvinced by your reasons. If I am tired of responding to a particular argument which I have responded to a "thousand times", and I am convinced that there is no opportunity for a deeper discourse, then there is no emotional impact on me. I have no motivation to respond. Your shortness suggests that there was an emotional impact on you. In my opinion, the two don't jive.
I didn´t say there was no emotional response. I said that responding that way was unreasonable, and that means emotions were involved. I said there was no motivation to hurt. It was the well-known spontaneous "oh, no! not that routine again." As I have also said earlier, it was not a good idea to respond that way, and that it would have been a better idea to ignore the post altogether. So, what do you think is left to say for me in this issue?
I wonder why you insist on this so much.
You did a lot of mind reading. I called you upon it. You agreed in that it was not a good idea. Case closed. I don´t ask you for your actual motives and emotions or something.
I made a post that didn´t give you anything to work from but a blanket refutation. You called me upon it. I agreed that it was not a good idea. What the heck is it with this inquisition?
My orriginal post did strike a cord with you to the point that it overcame the "incredible amount of time" you have spend dealing with people like me and the lack of a promise of s deeper discourse even though you have already responded "thousand times" before. That's a perrty big hill to overcome. So, what was that emotional response too? What was your reasons for your first post?
As stated above, boredom and frustration with facing the same old time and again.
You right on the surface. So far, there has not been enough good quality discusion to get deep. Buy that is not what I said. I said:
"...but no reponses yet have touched the depth to which this model reaches."
Well, what can I say? As far as I can see the model as presented has no particular depth and, naturally, my response cannot touch a depth that is beyond me. Communicate it in a way that makes me see depth in it and I will be able to touch it.
The depth has not yet been demonstrated. And at any rate, models in and of themselves don't have depth, they only provide a tool to go deep.
Agreed. I, however, don´t see anything in this model that promises to reach unknown depth.
I will lay out my model again in an additonal post. I have currently run out of time.
Good, maybe it helps me detect its potential. If it does I will be happy to respond, if it doesn´t I will ignore it. Ok?
PS - If I have not resonded to something in your previous post, that does not mean I'm in agreement with your view.
