And when those people do, I in turn, feel varied emotions.
For instance, when I go out, or stay in, whether it be alone or with company from any subset of cultures, I am sometimes encountered or reminded of activities which may or may not be offensive to me, or to you, or to nobody, or to everyone.
People or fictional characters or figments of my imagination may behave or refuse to behave in a civilized or non-civilized manner that really peeves me or elicits a passive response or dismissal.
Now, this does not mean that my feelings, or that of the individual or group which I may or may not be affiliated with or ostracised from, are necessarily the same feelings, emotions, reactions or thoughts that you, your group, your partner, or your pets (if you have them) will have or not have.
I am simply stating, or saying, or writing that non-specific events or non-events cause, or preclude me or my group or acquaintences from, or even allow reactions, thoughts, ideas and opinions to be formed, developed, ignored or dismissed.
While I do see your point, I feel we should also hear the other side of the story vis-a-vis my feelings, your feelings and the feelings of those persons who may or may not be directly or indirectly involved.
I, my representatives, my colleagues, or my associates and/or family and friends agree or disagree fully or partially with your statement or assertation. However, or in addition to, we or I believe or think or consider that the other side of the story or anecdote should or may be false or true or non-existent.
I believe that while the feelings of all parties involved are quite valid, that these experiences and/or events which are causing these feelings and/or reactions are quite valid for you and those whom are associated with you, Mr. Cynical, you and your associates should also consider those reactions and/or feelings which might be experienced by Francesca and those associated with her. Those reactions and feelings you all are experiencing are certainly valid within the frameworks from which you all operate, but please bear in mind that others operate within different frameworks. Therefore, I believe that those responses which have been elicited by all those involved may be valid in various situations, although given different circumstances the validity of various feelings and/or reactions may be more or less valid in certain situations.
I think you or the parties involved need to look at either the whole picture or the detail, depending on or independent of whatever causes or consequences might precede or ensue. That’s my firm guess and I’m tenously sticking to it.
For instance, sometimes people or persons or entities act in such as way or a number of ways as to be perceived, viewed, or even acknowledged as something or somethings other than or in addition to completely ingenuous, honest, dishonest or any number of other adjectives or even pronouns.
Assuming that there existed at some indeterminate point in the past, vis a vis the present, a state of affairs relevant to which the subject of the OP is or is, technically speaking, not, one could further surmise that a specific course of events leading from the former to the current state of affairs which, presumably, informs or is informed by the mindset of the OP, has or has not occurred, in which case it is incumbent upon the OP to suck my balls.
I am agreeing in principal but only in order to facilitate the awareness of those not actuating their emotional content in light of recent trends. That being the case, I can neither confirm or deny acceptance of the parameters fo the experience you seem to be explaining through use of allegory and illustrations. All things considered, I conceed that those posting before or even after me may have a better grasp of the details of the situation than I may have but I still hold that I am possibly in command of facts or at least allegations of which others may not be aware.
I must clarify first of all that the italics in the above quote were indeed supplied by me in order to point out what I’m focusing on in my post.
While I can’t fully understand your position or the position of your detractors I feel, if only to draw attention to myself and make this thread longer and more successful, I must point out to everyone that you did have a typographical error in your last post Mr. Cynical, and because of this it may or may not negate everything you’ve said up until this point. In my personal opinion, which may or may not be beneficial to you and your associates, I think it would behoove you to avoid such mistakes in the future.
While I understand your reaction is an instinctual, visceral and perhaps uncontrollable one, Mr. Reuben: I feel, and so may others reading this thread, that it was a bit of an over reaction to what one man or men or women or people have experienced. I, along with the other people here, would urge you to reconsider your position and not so much change it as consider where the rage is based.
The Chicago Reader does not encessarily endorse any of the viewpoints offered by this ranter, nor those of respondees replying to said rant. Friends and family of the OP are ineligible to rant. Sales tax applicable in California and Washington state. Void where prohibited by law.
Such baseless assertions are damaging to people who may (or may not) have the speech impediment of talking like Mojo Jojo. This may (or may not) be acceptable (or unacceptable) for anyone (everyone, no one, some one) who reads (sees, eats, touches, feels deeply, blows nose without tissue, has demonstrated impoliteness in social situations, goes outside to start their car in order to let it warm up since it seems to be cold [or hot] enough to freeze [boil] cat spit [or other feline {or non feline}] excretions) this post. :rolleyes:
Offer Not Valid in the 48 contiguous states, either. Outtaluck Productions and Getbent enterprises featured sponsors. Smokethisinyerpipe Dollarstores has graciously provided a few prizes, not that you’d win anyway.
Certainly the need for a vociferous response is called for, except when not, as there is a time and place for everything, with certain exceptions. When this is found to be the case (as usually isn’t more often than not) should one not let one’s conscience be one’s guide? By which I mean of course, not necessarily the same one. Sometimes each one conscience must guide the other conscience, in the mutual interest of advancing the various sciences.
As a person who has acted, or not acted in various ways tangentially related to my interpretation of the underlying motives and/or grammar of Mr. Cyclical’s OP, I am compelled or mildly incited to respond with this anecdote.
