Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (16378)	3/6/2002 8:56:50 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi CB, Yes and No, or No or Yes. In any case, help me out, what did you just say, and does it insult me? If not, no need to reply. If so, make it slightly stronger:0) Chugs, Jay

To: Ilaine who wrote (16378)	3/6/2002 10:48:51 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 74559

Re: Everyone does..... The problem comes in trying to reflect back to them a part of the message that wasn't intended. Some in a more spectacularly embarrassing way than others: news.ft.com <Snip> A slip of the tongue by Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, gave an unwitting glimpse of what has been uppermost in the minds of military planners. Speaking to reporters on Monday, he said: "First let me say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and the friends of the service members who have lost their lives in our ongoing operations in Vietnam."

To: Ilaine who wrote (16378)	3/7/2002 1:14:22 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<It just means that people say much more than they intended to say. Everyone does.> As does everyone not taking things literally [reading between] put their own experience or 'spin' if you will into that reading. EVERYONE DOES. < But being unfair doesn't make it untrue, except in the broadest sense. > It can be unfair AND untrue if you don't go back and question... otherwise you're reading your own experience into the situation. From a psychological standpoint you must absolutely have things said in a straightforward understandable manner or you must "mirror" to make sure you understood: "I hear you saying that" "Did you just say that" "It seems you're trying to say this" Anything less is not only unfair, it may be untrue. DAK

To: Ilaine who wrote (16378)	3/7/2002 3:07:51 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

CB, I've seen you 'read between the lines' on some of my stuff, so I know what the facts are on the transmitting side of the equation. It was quite funny [even annoying] with quite a few of your interpretations - saying I'd said something, then showing it was wrong, when I hadn't said it at all [and didn't think it etc and it wasn't a subtext or anything - it was purely an invention in your mind]. I had started to think it was a lawyer's habit to verbally damage a person in court, irrespective of truth, for pecuniary gain for them and their client. Engineers are boringly pedantic creative seekers after the truth because they inherently believe in an objective universe, causal relationships. The pie is infinitely large in the engineer's mind. Lawyers seek gain over others in a share-bargaining world where there is a certain cake to be carved up and any means to get a bigger piece is an obligation. Lawyers can't make a bigger cake - they just set the property rules to manage who gets what. I'd concluded that was why you constantly got it wrong. Maybe it was simply an innocent 'reading between the lines' but there seemed to be an assumption in that reading between the lines that there is malevolence, dishonesty, sneakiness and other untoward things hidden in there, unspoken and unwritten. Which again, is understandable from a lawyer's point of view where the opposition is undoubtedly hiding stuff of a despicable nature or simply for gain. We are creatures of habit, and just as the slip of the tongue about Vietnam slipped into Afghanistan, we use our modus operandi in most situations. So a [usually justifiably] suspicious and cynical lawyer finds evil behind and between every comment [even when not there]. A general fighting the last war, slipping on his tongue: <US war commander General Tommy Franks opened a briefing yesterday by speaking of the US soldiers killed over the past three days in an assault on Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters. But he mixed up the conflicts. "First, let me say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and the friends of the service members who have lost their lives in our ongoing operations in Vietnam," he said. "Certainly, that sacrifice is appreciated by this nation." When his mistake was pointed out to him at the end of his briefing, Franks shook off any suggestion that the bloody fighting had made him think of Vietnam. "Absolutely not," he said. "I guess, it just comes with being an old guy." "Afghanistan, not Vietnam. I appreciate the correction. Vietnam was a long, long time ago, and not at all like what we're seeing now." General Franks, 56, experienced his first combat in 1967 in Vietnam as an artillery officer. He briefed reporters yesterday from Central Command headquarters in Florida. > Even when people say things and intend to say them, what they mean isn't necessarily what they say, even though they said it and they are trying to get that meaning across. Words are a poor representation of reality - a truly pathetic one. They can propagate an idea, but the receiver has to model those words into their own mental framework and maintain a coherent concept. It's another great troppo day in paradise. No subtext, Mq