Young, Ill and Uninsured

farfromglorified wrote:

I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.

I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.

I'm fully willing to own that it is my impression that it is illigitimate to either make a mistake and not own up to it, or to think it's funny to deliberately undermine someone's argument not on the even playing field.

I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.

To me, it's the spirit of what has gone down here that has saddened and disappointed me. I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates. And I'm not sure that you realize that I do not debate with very many people on this board. It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.) If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.

angelica wrote:

I'm fully willing to own that it is my impression that it is illigitimate to either make a mistake and not own up to it, or to think it's funny to deliberately undermine someone's argument not on the even playing field.

Ok. I'd certainly agree with the latter. I wasn't trying to "undermine your argument", however. I just didn't feel the analogy was appropriate or even meaningful, given the context. I simply should have just spelled that out.

I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.

Then it stands.

I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates.

Are you sure? You accuse me of this kind of stuff all the time. Always have. So if this is what you're basing your trust on, I'd advise you not to trust me. I obviously don't meet the standard. I'd prefer if you did trust me, but you have no obligation to do so.

It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.)

I'm very much willing to "let go" of the interactions if you have no desire to participate in them or if you're asking of me something I'm not interested in giving. I will certainly, in the future, not try to use that kind of humor to address any of your posts.

If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.

Not at all. You didn't cross any lines, in my book. You just spoke your mind. I just disagree with some of what you said.

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. I'd certainly agree with the latter. I wasn't trying to "undermine your argument", however. I just didn't feel the analogy was appropriate or even meaningful, given the context. I simply should have just spelled that out.

I'd have willingly addressed that. I'm definitely in a personally off-kilter place, today, and that analogy is farrr more judgmental than I usually give myself license to be. My own issues of late have been regarding living my life and dealing with what arises, rather than how I've lived "restrained" in the past, with censoring myself before the fact, which is not as conducive to inner freedom. So I bumble around with this, and am sensitive to above board responses from others, that I may be out of line, or "inappropriate".

Are you sure? You accuse me of this kind of stuff all the time. Always have. So if this is what you're basing your trust on, I'd advise you not to trust me. I obviously don't meet the standard. I'd prefer if you did trust me, but you have no obligation to do so.

Trust is a bridge built by two people. I've taken issue with you to this degree three or four times in 1 1/3 years. I am as honest and as conscientious as I can be when due to circumstances I question our trust connection. If you prefer that I trust you, hopefully I'm not being presumptuous in getting the impression that you are willing to meet me in the middle to preserve what degree of trust we have.

I'm very much willing to "let go" of the interactions if you have no desire to participate in them or if you're asking of me something I'm not interested in giving. I will certainly, in the future, not try to use that kind of humor to address any of your posts.

What I was referring to is that I represented my individuality--who I am, and what I was seeing-- by my analogy. It's not humour per se that I am taking issue with, it's the fact that you were distorting what I said. That, to me, is distorting the only representation you or anyone here have of my base individuality and who I am. It's very important to me that who I am, as represented by my view, is respected. There are many people on this board who literally do not grasp this concept. You grasp it all to well. So, therefore, although in numerous ways, we are world's apart, that has always been the basis of our connection, from my persepctive. I very much value that both you and I have had a seeming mutual commitment to taking the relatively simple steps to keep this connection clear between us, whether or not I'm going to naturally be more sensitive to perceived slights, and therefore will naturally take issue with these things more often than you do. And I've publicly mentioned over and over the rarity of your being relatively quite individuated and able to navigate our fairly far-ranging differences fairly harmoniously in this manner.

angelica wrote:

Actually, I'm using the word "illigitimate", since apparently I don't know much how to spell the word.

I was never much good at fueling fights.

angelica wrote:

Oh, come on now, don't sell yourself short!

That always happens with abused children.